Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Ireland recovering from Theocracy.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    Yes, yes, you were trying to make out that I shifted stance but that failed so you might want to move on now.
    You did shift stance. There’s a significant difference between something “tending” to occur and something “inexorably” occurring.

    As above, "Nah, it's just the usual progressive shutting down of criticism of groups and policies which is labelled as 'hate speech'."
    If it’s “speech” that’s discriminatory of minority groups then it is “hate speech” in that it demonises some people anf =d therefore needs to be shut down in the interests of the community as a whole.

    That's on the same level as progressives endeavoring to impose progressive views.
    Not so. The progressive position is the promotion of equal human rights for all citizens which is in marked contrast to denying the human rights of some citizens e.g. homosexuals or blacks.

    And so since progressivism inexorably leads to totalitarianism...
    So you keep saying, where’s the evidence?

    The promotion of equality for all is not the same as the totalitarianism imposed by a dominant interest group such as a specific religious or political ideology.

    Who cares? De facto Buddhism or many Buddhisms fall under 'religion'.
    Nevertheless, as a point of accuracy defacto Buddhism is not “true” Buddhism…you of all people with your “no true Christians in USA” mantra should understand the difference.

    That old tired canard.
    …and factual. The USA is a Christian nation by any measurable standard.

    As above, "You're a moron. If a group of faithful Muslims are labelled (by themselves or others) as Christians, does that make them Christians? Of course not, so that's my point - there needs to be a more stringent criterion than the label."
    Note the ever so subtle difference that Muslims calling themselves Christians, or atheists calling themselves Christians is not the same as self-identified Christians calling themselves Christian. Sheesh!

    No, the issue has been "is progressivism destructive".
    And you're demonstrably wrong. The progressive countries are measured by the HDI as the ones where all citizens have greater equal opportunity, equal educational and health benefits and equal civil rights…this as opposed to the regressive countries which do not so much.

    Embracing liberté, égalité, fraternité.
    And embracing liberté, égalité, fraternité is what results in “inexorable destruction in your view? Really! What’s your alternative…the bible as the governing text for all areas of life? Great, bring on the Inquisitions for those who do not conform to God’s holy word.

    No need to project your emotions; it's probably hard for you to imagine but it's perfectly possible to apply a descriptor without emotions being involved.
    Resorting to the use of insults such as “moron”, with or without emotion, is generally considered to indicate a lack of self-control.

    I'm waiting for your evidence regarding there is no 'substantial evidence' for God.
    So you’re unable to support your bald assertion of “the existence of a source of all good and life”. Thought so!

    And how do you know that Satan doesn't exist? All I've done is acknowledge the possibility that Satan did it; I did not 'blame' him.
    I don’t. Nor do I know that Russell’s orbiting celestial teapot doesn't exist, but both assertions are highly improbable. Prove otherwise.

    The point remains that many of the earliest pioneers of modern science were religious, so science and religion are not 'incompatible' as you claimed.
    Given that the majority of today’s science practitioners are not religious it seems likely that science and religion have been found to be ‘incompatible’. To paraphrase Coyne: Science is based on reason and empirical study and is reliable, whereas religion—including faith, dogma, and revelation—leads to incorrect, untestable, or conflicting conclusions.

    Nah, their mistake was sticking with Aristotelians who made up a great deal of scientists at that time. So the problem of the Church was putting too much faith in certain scientists.
    Whatever the reason there remains the demonstrable fact of a 1,000 year gap between the end of the pagan era of enormous scientific advancement and the establishment of Christianity as a power, during which innovative scientific research became virtually non-existent.

    Right, but how that gets to "You are a living paradigm of the evils of religion, Paprika" remains to be shown.
    You arbitrarily assume the right to judge others based upon your Christian beliefs.

    My point is that it's not an either/or but a both/and, both wealth and how wealth is distributed - which I've maintained all along.
    No your emphasis has been on the efficient distribution of wealth. But efficiency is less important than how and where it’s distributed. E.g. wealth is very efficiently directed in the USA towards the already wealthy (as per my previous links).

    Conversely, in much of the rest of the developed world it is far more equitably disbursed in the form of universal quality education, universal health care, social safety-nets and a reasonable minimum living wage etc. This is what you are erroneously claiming as leading inexorably to destruction. It doesn't!

    No, it's a result of progressive policies screwing up the black culture as well as mass importing many poor immigrants.
    Nonsense, the progressive policies of Scandinavia and much of Europe have resulted in reasonable equality for all citizens. The facts speak for themselves.

    Conversely, the regressive policies of the Christian USA have resulted in an enormous, mostly black and Latino, underclass and consequent social unrest as we see on a daily basis.

    Your point being?
    The point is that the more equitable the funding in education, health-care and social safety-nets etc. the higher the IHDI ranking will be and the less social unrest there’ll be. In short the more progressive the policies the more enhanced will be social well-being resulting in a more stable society.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    replied
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    I didn't say they did. It’s a difference of emphasis, not a contradiction.
    Yes, yes, you were trying to make out that I shifted stance but that failed so you might want to move on now.

    What you linked to was a clear example of hate speech against a minority, not “a usual progressive shutting down of criticism of groups”, which is merely an unsupported generalization.
    As above, "Nah, it's just the usual progressive shutting down of criticism of groups and policies which is labelled as 'hate speech'."

    That’s not what I said. But there are Christians endeavoring to impose their religious views upon those who disagree with them via the Supreme Court if necessary.
    That's on the same level as progressives endeavoring to impose progressive views.

    Man is potentially dangerous in particular when he is following the dictates of totalitarianism whether religious or political.
    And so since progressivism inexorably leads to totalitarianism...

    Not really. Buddhism properly understood is a way of life, not a religion despite its corruption by the masses. But, sadly, people must have their gods.
    Who cares? De facto Buddhism or many Buddhisms fall under 'religion'.

    The USA is a Christian nation by any measurable standard.
    That old tired canard.

    If a person describes himself or herself as a Christian then it is reasonable to accept that he or she is a Christian regardless of whether that person meets your particular requirements of what constitutes a Christian. Who set you up as the arbiter?

    As above, "You're a moron. If a group of faithful Muslims are labelled (by themselves or others) as Christians, does that make them Christians? Of course not, so that's my point - there needs to be a more stringent criterion than the label."

    But the issue is the underlying ideology of how the national wealth is distributed and to whom and to what end. It has nothing to do with “destructive and navel-gazing progressivism”, whatever this pretentious phrase is supposed to mean.
    No, the issue has been "is progressivism destructive".

    Then please explain just what the 'progressiveness' is that you are describing, because you're doing a poor job of it.
    Embracing liberté, égalité, fraternité.

    Tsk, tsk; temper!

    Get a grip!
    No need to project your emotions; it's probably hard for you to imagine but it's perfectly possible to apply a descriptor without emotions being involved.

    I requested evidence supporting your assertion of “the existence of a source of all good and life”. So, where's the evidence please! I’m waiting.
    I'm waiting for your evidence regarding there is no 'substantial evidence' for God.

    And you know this do you? Support this bald assertion.

    Indeed, and transmitted mostly by rats…as per my link. But why would you blame the mythical Satan? We’ve moved on considerably since the Middle Ages, e.g. we understand germ theory nowadays, thanks to science.
    And how do you know that Satan doesn't exist? All I've done is acknowledge the possibility that Satan did it; I did not 'blame' him.

    But not now! The majority of scientists are not religious.
    The point remains that many of the earliest pioneers of modern science were religious, so science and religion are not 'incompatible' as you claimed

    The Renaissance marked the beginning of scientific methodology often in defiance of the Church. The Church “was uniformly hostile to the whole system of scientific values, condemning them as vain, idolatrous, arrogant, and unnecessary, if not outright dangerous. It took a long, gradual process to finally change minds on that score”
    Nah, their mistake was sticking with Aristotelians who made up a great deal of scientists at that time. So the problem of the Church was putting too much faith in certain scientists.

    …and it is God to whom you owe obedience.
    Right, but how that gets to "You are a living paradigm of the evils of religion, Paprika" remains to be shown.

    Obviously, but the issue is how the wealth is distributed, i.e. equitably as per non-religious Scandinavia and much of Europe or more directed towards the already rich as per the Christian USA (see previous link).
    My point is that it's not an either/or but a both/and, both wealth and how wealth is distributed - which I've maintained all along.

    The “US is much more socioeconomically heterogeneous” based upon its own ideology and the ghettoisation of its’ large underclass is the result of the inequitable distribution of its wealth. The consequence is the inevitable social unrest we’re seeing today.
    No, it's a result of progressive policies screwing up the black culture as well as mass importing many poor immigrants.

    It is indeed and the point is that the Inequality Adjusted Human Development Index measures the outcome of national wealth distribution…the more equitable the funding for education, health care and social safety-nets etc. the higher the IHDI ranking will be.
    Your point being?

    Leave a comment:


  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    But I assure you they don't contradict.
    I didn't say they did. It’s a difference of emphasis, not a contradiction.

    Nah, it's just the usual progressive shutting down of criticism of groups and policies which is labelled as 'hate speech'.
    What you linked to was a clear example of hate speech against a minority, not “a usual progressive shutting down of criticism of groups”, which is merely an unsupported generalization.

    Nonsense, there's hardly any Christians trying to institute Mosaic Law, unlike Muslims with Sharia Law.
    That’s not what I said. But there are Christians endeavoring to impose their religious views upon those who disagree with them via the Supreme Court if necessary.

    Man is potentially dangerous, whether he is claiming to follow the will of a god or just acting according with ideology (Hitler, Mao, etc.)
    Man is potentially dangerous in particular when he is following the dictates of totalitarianism whether religious or political.

    Both, actually.
    Not really. Buddhism properly understood is a way of life, not a religion despite its corruption by the masses. But, sadly, people must have their gods.

    The US is hardly Christian, and I don't recall conservatives opposing genuine education reform more than 'liberals' , and the opposition to Obamacare is because it sucks.
    The USA is a Christian nation by any measurable standard. And the Christian USA actively opposes the equitable distribution of government funding into such things as high quality universal education and effective universal health care. This can be seen by the fact that, unlike most other developed nations, the USA consistently resists both.

    You're a moron. If a group of faithful Muslims are labelled (by themselves or others) as Christians, does that make them Christians? Of course not, so that's my point - there needs to be a more stringent criterion than the label.
    If a person describes himself or herself as a Christian then it is reasonable to accept that he or she is a Christian regardless of whether that person meets your particular requirements of what constitutes a Christian. Who set you up as the arbiter?

    My post goes unaddressed, and you ignore the very important factor of wealth: national well-being is unquestionably dependent on the wealth of the nation as a whole. Destructive and navel-gazing progressivism can hope to flourish precisely in a society where other factors ameliorate its destructiveness.
    But the issue is the underlying ideology of how the national wealth is distributed and to whom and to what end. It has nothing to do with “destructive and navel-gazing progressivism”, whatever this pretentious phrase is supposed to mean.

    And that was not the 'progressiveness' I was criticising, so buzz off.
    Then please explain just what the 'progressiveness' is that you are describing, because you're doing a poor job of it.

    Nah, it's merely expressing through alternative means (as tone is not easily conveyed) that you're an idiot, amongst other things
    Tsk, tsk; temper!



    You made other positive claims, moron.
    Get a grip!

    I requested evidence supporting your assertion of “the existence of a source of all good and life”. So, where's the evidence please! I’m waiting.

    The evil one works to kill and destroy?
    And you know this do you? Support this bald assertion.

    Yersinia pestis, my good fellow.
    Indeed, and transmitted mostly by rats…as per my link. But why would you blame the mythical Satan? We’ve moved on considerably since the Middle Ages, e.g. we understand germ theory nowadays, thanks to science.


    Which explains why some of the foremost scientists were so religious - Newton wrote a tome on theology, for example.
    But not now! The majority of scientists are not religious.

    Advances in science require a great deal of wealth and time invested; just coincidentally the Renaissance was a period of great wealth and patronage for intelligent men.
    The Renaissance marked the beginning of scientific methodology often in defiance of the Church. The Church “was uniformly hostile to the whole system of scientific values, condemning them as vain, idolatrous, arrogant, and unnecessary, if not outright dangerous. It took a long, gradual process to finally change minds on that score”

    http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2...istianity.html

    You're too kind, but and I'm not God, and the wars were fought in God's name.
    …and it is God to whom you owe obedience.

    It's also related to the wealth the nation possesses; if there's little wealth to be distributed then the HDI will suck even though the proposed distribution may be good.
    Obviously, but the issue is how the wealth is distributed, i.e. equitably as per non-religious Scandinavia and much of Europe or more directed towards the already rich as per the Christian USA (see previous link).

    I'm glad you agree the US is much more socioeconomically heterogeneous compared to the Nordic countries, so a direct comparison to compare ideology is hardly holding all relevant factors ceteris paribus. (By the way, the ghettoisation is linked to race.)
    The “US is much more socioeconomically heterogeneous” based upon its own ideology and the ghettoisation of its’ large underclass is the result of the inequitable distribution of its wealth. The consequence is the inevitable social unrest we’re seeing today.

    And ghettoisation is not just linked to race but to "a usually poor section of a city inhabited primarily by people of the same race, religion, or social background, often due to discrimination by the majority" - Oxford Dictionary.

    That's IHDI.
    It is indeed and the point is that the Inequality Adjusted Human Development Index measures the outcome of national wealth distribution…the more equitable the funding for education, health care and social safety-nets etc. the higher the IHDI ranking will be.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    replied
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    Well, there is a significant difference of emphasis between: “inexorably leads to totalitarianism" and “tends to lead to totalitarianism".
    But I assure you they don't contradict.

    It follows that when hate speech against minorities is prohibited, violence against these minorities will decrease.
    Nah, it's just the usual progressive shutting down of criticism of groups and policies which is labelled as 'hate speech'.

    Well the actions of many US Christians say otherwise as various Supreme Court cases attest over the years…including the current kerfuffle over gay marriage.
    Nonsense, there's hardly any Christians trying to institute Mosaic Law, unlike Muslims with Sharia Law.

    You sneer but at bottom all religions are potentially dangerous given that by definition “God’s will” must always be obeyed. Is there really much difference between the genocides of Moses, the witch hunts of Salem and murders in God’s name by ISIS?
    Man is potentially dangerous, whether he is claiming to follow the will of a god or just acting according with ideology (Hitler, Mao, etc.)

    In actuality no, but technically yes.
    Both, actually.

    It’s a matter of social ideology rather than the efficient use of wealth...although the latter is important. Some nations like the Christian USA actively oppose the equitable distribution and government channelling of wealth into such things as high quality universal education and effective universal health care…the latter is still being debated in the USA…whereas for many other countries these things are a priority.
    The US is hardly Christian, and I don't recall conservatives opposing genuine education reform more than 'liberals' , and the opposition to Obamacare is because it sucks.

    Again, the “no true Scotsman” fallacy! Your “judgement” is nothing more than your unevidenced personal opinion.
    You're a moron. If a group of faithful Muslims are labelled (by themselves or others) as Christians, does that make them Christians? Of course not, so that's my point - there needs to be a more stringent criterion than the label.

    Already refuted! Your claim that progressivism is destructive to a society is demonstrably untrue. The more progressive societies tend to be the most successful in terms of national well-being as measured by the HDI.
    My post goes unaddressed, and you ignore the very important factor of wealth: national well-being is unquestionably dependent on the wealth of the nation as a whole. Destructive and navel-gazing progressivism can hope to flourish precisely in a society where other factors ameliorate its destructiveness.

    I’m not “equivocating” anything…are you sure you’re using the right word? I was equating scientific progress and knowledge, when used wisely, with progressiveness…as per the developed nations under discussion.
    And that was not the 'progressiveness' I was criticising, so buzz off.

    Ah, I understand…a defence mechanism.
    Nah, it's merely expressing through alternative means (as tone is not easily conveyed) that you're an idiot, amongst other things.

    Nonsense! Denying the claim of others that God, fairies, unicorns, little green men from Mars etc exist is not making a positive claim, it is the mere non-acceptance of another’s positive claim. You’re the one making the assertion of the existence of a “source of all good and life”. So, evidence please!

    You made other positive claims, moron.

    So sometimes mental illness is caused by demons...why would you think this?
    The evil one works to kill and destroy?

    Seriously! And not the rats; oh I know Satan made the rats do it.
    Yersinia pestis, my good fellow.

    Clearly science and religion are incompatible: “the toolkit of science, based on reason and empirical study, is reliable, while that of religion—including faith, dogma, and revelation—leads to incorrect, untestable, or conflicting conclusions.”- Jerry Coyne. Like attributing mental illness and the bubonic plagues to demons.

    Which explains why some of the foremost scientists were so religious - Newton wrote a tome on theology, for example.

    Modern science picked up at the Renaissance where the pagan scientists had left of after a gap of nearly a thousand years during which there had been virtually zero significant advances in science
    Advances in science require a great deal of wealth and time invested; just coincidentally the Renaissance was a period of great wealth and patronage for intelligent men.

    You’re being modest; religion has fought wars in your name.
    You're too kind, but and I'm not God, and the wars were fought in God's name.

    We can only go by what people claim on their own behalf and around 80% of US citizens overtly state (and probably believe) that they are practising Christians. Whereas in places like Norway, Sweden and Denmark approx 80% of the citizens overtly state that they are atheist or agnostic. See the difference?
    See above.

    No, the HDI is a measure of how and where the national wealth is distributed; ultimately it’s based upon ideology.
    It's also related to the wealth the nation possesses; if there's little wealth to be distributed then the HDI will suck even though the proposed distribution may be good. Again, see above.

    When a nation has a very large disadvantaged underclass like the USA, where the blacks comprises a disproportionately large part, there will be violence and unrest. The race is less significant than is the social marginalization and ghettoisation of certain sections of society.
    I'm glad you agree the US is much more socioeconomically heterogeneous compared to the Nordic countries, so a direct comparison to compare ideology is hardly holding all relevant factors ceteris paribus. (By the way, the ghettoisation is linked to race.)

    A great deal. The Inequality Adjusted Human Development Index measures the outcome of national wealth distribution…the more equitable the funding of education, health and social safety nets etc. the higher the HDI ranking will be. Hence the importance if the Inequality Adjusted HDI.
    That's IHDI.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    I maintain both statements; I just don't like to repeat myself word for word and trust that the reader still remembers what was said before.
    Well, there is a significant difference of emphasis between: “inexorably leads to totalitarianism" and “tends to lead to totalitarianism".

    Nah, it shuts down criticism of minorities and has nothing to do with 'protecting' minorities from violence or such stuff.
    It follows that when hate speech against minorities is prohibited, violence against these minorities will decrease.

    I don't think I've come across a single Christian here on TWeb who actually believes this.
    Well the actions of many US Christians say otherwise as various Supreme Court cases attest over the years…including the current kerfuffle over gay marriage.

    You sneer but at bottom all religions are potentially dangerous given that by definition “God’s will” must always be obeyed. Is there really much difference between the genocides of Moses, the witch hunts of Salem and murders in God’s name by ISIS?

    So we're not in disagreement.
    In actuality no, but technically yes.

    The common denominator is socially efficient use of wealth, since many ideologies would promote effective social safety nets and quality education for all,.
    It’s a matter of social ideology rather than the efficient use of wealth...although the latter is important. Some nations like the Christian USA actively oppose the equitable distribution and government channelling of wealth into such things as high quality universal education and effective universal health care…the latter is still being debated in the USA…whereas for many other countries these things are a priority.

    My judgment is quite relevant since merely claiming to be 'Christian' is hardly a measure of true Christian religiosity.
    Again, the “no true Scotsman” fallacy! Your “judgement” is nothing more than your unevidenced personal opinion.

    When you're able to refute my arguments, I'll acknowledge that. But I'm not going to hold my breath.
    Already refuted! Your claim that progressivism is destructive to a society is demonstrably untrue. The more progressive societies tend to be the most successful in terms of national well-being as measured by the HDI.

    Stop lying. You were equivocating scientific progress with progressiveness in a pathetic attempt to disqualify my criticism of the latter.
    I’m not “equivocating” anything…are you sure you’re using the right word? I was equating scientific progress and knowledge, when used wisely, with progressiveness…as per the developed nations under discussion.

    No, it's a sign of disdain.
    Ah, I understand…a defence mechanism.

    You were making positive claims too. Do you really want to play the "let's pretend this is actually a dialectical conversation rather than a rhetorical one" game?
    Nonsense! Denying the claim of others that God, fairies, unicorns, little green men from Mars etc exist is not making a positive claim, it is the mere non-acceptance of another’s positive claim. You’re the one making the assertion of the existence of a “source of all good and life”. So, evidence please!

    Some are.
    So sometimes mental illness is caused by demons...why would you think this?

    Possibly, though I think the cause is more likely Satan.
    Seriously! And not the rats; oh I know Satan made the rats do it.

    http://plague.emedtv.com/bubonic-pla...ic-plague.html

    Clearly science and religion are incompatible: “the toolkit of science, based on reason and empirical study, is reliable, while that of religion—including faith, dogma, and revelation—leads to incorrect, untestable, or conflicting conclusions.”- Jerry Coyne. Like attributing mental illness and the bubonic plagues to demons.

    I'm not sure what philosophy has to do with it, and you have a looong way to go from 'there were great ancient scientists' to 'there existed "ancient scientific values" to 'the modern science revolution was mainly caused by reestablishment of "ancient scientific values".
    Modern science picked up at the Renaissance where the pagan scientists had left of after a gap of nearly a thousand years during which there had been virtually zero significant advances in science

    http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2...istianity.html

    You're too kind: I've hardly any wars to my credit yet. Do check back later.
    You’re being modest; religion has fought wars in your name.

    See above as to how the label of 'Christian' whether by the state or by oneself is not necessarily an accurate measure of religiosity
    We can only go by what people claim on their own behalf and around 80% of US citizens overtly state (and probably believe) that they are practising Christians. Whereas in places like Norway, Sweden and Denmark approx 80% of the citizens overtly state that they are atheist or agnostic. See the difference?

    So as I said: HDI is a measure socially efficient expenditure of wealth, and wealth in general. I'm glad we're in agreement.
    No, the HDI is a measure of how and where the national wealth is distributed; ultimately it’s based upon ideology.

    Things are hardly ceteris paribus because the Scandinavian countries don't have as many blacks - and the blacks as a group contribute greatly (and disproportionately) to violence, incarcerations etc.
    When a nation has a very large disadvantaged underclass like the USA, where the blacks comprises a disproportionately large part, there will be violence and unrest. The race is less significant than is the social marginalization and ghettoisation of certain sections of society.

    What does inequality have to do with HDI?
    A great deal. The Inequality Adjusted Human Development Index measures the outcome of national wealth distribution…the more equitable the funding of education, health and social safety nets etc. the higher the HDI ranking will be. Hence the importance if the Inequality Adjusted HDI.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y-adjusted_HDI
    Last edited by Tassman; 06-06-2015, 01:39 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    replied
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    Ah so we've moved from “progressivism leads inexorably to totalitarianism" to “it tends to totalitarianism”.
    I maintain both statements; I just don't like to repeat myself word for word and trust that the reader still remembers what was said before.

    In practice it’s quite the reverse…including your bizarre link which is about protecting minorities.
    Nah, it shuts down criticism of minorities and has nothing to do with 'protecting' minorities from violence or such stuff.

    The problem with giving complete obedience to your imaginary deity is that those who do so tend to regard it as their duty to enforce their beliefs via legislation upon those who think its all irrational nonsense.
    I don't think I've come across a single Christian here on TWeb who actually believes this.

    The same applies to Muslim extremists; all religions are essentially the same in principle: Conform or be punished.


    Buddhism is technically a philosophy, a way of life of life not a religion as such. However it has been corrupted over time by folk who like to have their gods and consequently many of the ancient Hindu gods have long been incorporated into a Buddhist pantheon.
    So we're not in disagreement.

    No. Unlike the Christian USA, it’s an ideological use of wealth rather than merely “a socially efficient” one. The wealth is utilized to ensure effective social safety nets, quality education for all
    The common denominator is socially efficient use of wealth, since many ideologies would promote effective social safety nets and quality education for all,.

    But you’re wrong. Statistically the USA ranks as a Christian nation with 80% plus citizens claiming to be Christian. Your personal opinion implying it is not “truly” Christian” (as per the “no true Scotsman” fallacy) is irrelevant. Conversely the Scandinavian nations et al are statistically not religious at all. End of story.
    My judgment is quite relevant since merely claiming to be 'Christian' is hardly a measure of true Christian religiosity.

    You’ve “demonstrated” no such thing; you may think you have but you haven't.
    When you're able to refute my arguments, I'll acknowledge that. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

    I’m not “conflating” scientific progress with progressivism, I’m equating scientific progress and knowledge, when used wisely, as per the developed nations under discussion; nothing dishonest about that.
    Stop lying. You were equivocating scientific progress with progressiveness in a pathetic attempt to disqualify my criticism of the latter.

    So you’re reduced to personal denigration, a sure sign you’re on the defensive.
    No, it's a sign of disdain.

    Nonsense! The burden of proof always lies with the person making the positive claim. In this instance you’re making the positive assertion of the existence of a “source of all good and life”. Evidence please!
    You were making positive claims too. Do you really want to play the "let's pretend this is actually a dialectical conversation rather than a rhetorical one" game?

    Right! And mental illness is caused by demons.
    Some are.
    And the Black Death was the result of God’s wrath because of too many people sinning. Gotcha!
    Possibly, though I think the cause is more likely Satan.

    Yes. From around 400 BC to 300 AD, i.e. during the pagan era and before Christianity was entrenched, there were extraordinary scientific and philosophical advances made via the likes of Gallen, Ptolemy, Aristarchus, Socrates, Aristotle and Plato. Do you give credit to the pagan gods for these advances in the same way that you want to credit the Christian God for such advances?
    I'm not sure what philosophy has to do with it, and you have a looong way to go from 'there were great ancient scientists' to 'there existed "ancient scientific values" to 'the modern science revolution was mainly caused by reestablishment of "ancient scientific values".

    And when “spiritual men” disagree then religious wars ensue. You are a living paradigm of the evils of religion, Paprika.
    You're too kind: I've hardly any wars to my credit yet. Do check back later.

    The point is invalid. Around 80% of US citizens actively state and probably believe themselves to be practising Christians, whereas in places like Norway, Sweden and Denmark approx 80% of the citizens actively state the opposite, i.e. to be atheist or agnostic.
    See above as to how the label of 'Christian' whether by the state or by oneself is not necessarily an accurate measure of religiosity.

    Well it does matter because what you’re blithely hand-waving away is that the wealth in the high ranking low-religion HDI countries is specifically targeted to promoting national well-being, social justice and equality in terms of education, human rights and per capita income.
    So as I said: HDI is a measure socially efficient expenditure of wealth, and wealth in general. I'm glad we're in agreement.

    This is in stark contrast to the wealthy Christian nation of the US with its high rates of violence, incarcerations, comparatively poor social welfare programs and gross wealth inequity.
    Things are hardly ceteris paribus because the Scandinavian countries don't have as many blacks - and the blacks as a group contribute greatly (and disproportionately) to violence, incarcerations etc.

    http://www.the-crises.com/wealth-ine...y-in-the-us-1/

    PS: Note the cartoon at the bottom of the link.
    What does inequality have to do with HDI?

    Leave a comment:


  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    Certainly. Progressivism tends to totalitarianism through the implementation of laws against speech determined undesirable.
    Ah so we've moved from “progressivism leads inexorably to totalitarianism" to “it tends to totalitarianism”. In practice it’s quite the reverse…including your bizarre link which is about protecting minorities. This is hardly totalitarianism; it’s the enforcement of equal rights for all…even those considered undesirable.

    I don't have a problem with that in principle. You do have a problem with totalitarianism, yet progressivism leads inexorably to it - whether quickly like in communist states or more slowly in others.
    The problem with giving complete obedience to your imaginary deity is that those who do so tend to regard it as their duty to enforce their beliefs via legislation upon those who think its all irrational nonsense. As per the Christian Reconstructionists: “The Bible is to be the governing text for all areas of life--such as government, education, law, and the arts…”

    http://www.apologeticsindex.org/r10.html

    The same applies to Muslim extremists; all religions are essentially the same in principle: Conform or be punished.

    You will, of course, explain the technical details
    Buddhism is technically a philosophy, a way of life of life not a religion as such. However it has been corrupted over time by folk who like to have their gods and consequently many of the ancient Hindu gods have long been incorporated into a Buddhist pantheon. I'm sure you're aware that Buddhism originally derived from Hinduism. Similarly many pagan customs were incorporated into Christianity.

    Note how I said "socially efficient use of wealth" earlier, so wealth plays a role (per capita income) but also social spending as you yourself note.
    No. Unlike the Christian USA, it’s an ideological use of wealth rather than merely “a socially efficient” one. The wealth is utilized to ensure effective social safety nets, quality education for all and the inclusion of minority groups as social equals.

    Similarly how I noted the USA is hardly Christian any more. Now carry on.
    But you’re wrong. Statistically the USA ranks as a Christian nation with 80% plus citizens claiming to be Christian. Your personal opinion implying it is not “truly” Christian” (as per the “no true Scotsman” fallacy) is irrelevant. Conversely the Scandinavian nations et al are statistically not religious at all. End of story.

    Nah, you're just dishonestly conflating scientific progress with progressivism, which has been immensely destructive as I earlier demonstrated.
    You’ve “demonstrated” no such thing; you may think you have but you haven't. I’m not “conflating” scientific progress with progressivism, I’m equating scientific progress and knowledge, when used wisely, as per the developed nations under discussion; nothing dishonest about that.

    But it's Tassman so big surprise!
    So you’re reduced to personal denigration, a sure sign you’re on the defensive.

    It's your burden to demonstrate your claims: eg that the Scriptures are fairy tales or that there is no substantial evidence for God.
    Nonsense! The burden of proof always lies with the person making the positive claim. In this instance you’re making the positive assertion of the existence of a “source of all good and life”. Evidence please!

    Indeed. Took you long enough to catch it.
    Right! And mental illness is caused by demons. And the Black Death was the result of God’s wrath because of too many people sinning. Gotcha!

    Ancient scientific values?
    Yes. From around 400 BC to 300 AD, i.e. during the pagan era and before Christianity was entrenched, there were extraordinary scientific and philosophical advances made via the likes of Gallen, Ptolemy, Aristarchus, Socrates, Aristotle and Plato. Do you give credit to the pagan gods for these advances in the same way that you want to credit the Christian God for such advances?

    A spiritual man judges everything.
    And when “spiritual men” disagree then religious wars ensue. You are a living paradigm of the evils of religion, Paprika.

    That is my point, that most Christians in USA are but 'Christians' in name only, just as in Scandinavia.
    The point is invalid. Around 80% of US citizens actively state and probably believe themselves to be practising Christians, whereas in places like Norway, Sweden and Denmark approx 80% of the citizens actively state the opposite, i.e. to be atheist or agnostic.

    http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

    As if that matters much when HDI is merely a measure of wealth in general and wealth spent for the social good, see above.
    Well it does matter because what you’re blithely hand-waving away is that the wealth in the high ranking low-religion HDI countries is specifically targeted to promoting national well-being, social justice and equality in terms of education, human rights and per capita income.

    This is in stark contrast to the wealthy Christian nation of the US with its high rates of violence, incarcerations, comparatively poor social welfare programs and gross wealth inequity.

    http://www.the-crises.com/wealth-ine...y-in-the-us-1/

    PS: Note the cartoon at the bottom of the link.
    Last edited by Tassman; 06-05-2015, 01:20 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • lilpixieofterror
    replied
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    So you think the Scandinavian countries are heading "inexorably to totalitarianism". Evidence please! Christianity is essentially totalitarian though because it demands complete obedience to the laws of God. There are those who want it enforced by law:

    http://www.apologeticsindex.org/r10.html



    Buddhism is technically not a religion and neither is New Age woo.



    Social equality and justice and a universal high education level is the clue, not wealth per se. The USA has the greatest wealth of all and yet it remains mired in religionism and leads the developed world in prison incarcerations, gun violence and gross wealth inequity. So much for the transforming influence of Christianity!



    It’s relevant in that scientific knowledge can result in the sort of “progressivism”, in its broadest sense, that you seem to regard as destructive. In fact it bestows great technological advances and health benefits as described previously.



    Progressivism, in the broadest meaning of the word applies to social progress. Far from being “destructive” as you would have it has achieved emancipation of women, the abolition of slavery and equal rights for blacks and homosexuals.



    Nope. I make no claim at all. I’m merely denying the unfounded assertion that “something greater than ourselves exists". If you want to assert this you must support it with evidence.



    My “father”? So I'm the "spawn of Satan" am I??



    Not so. "Our concept of science is an outgrowth of Christian theology" is no more true than "our concept of science is an outgrowth of pagan theology." Modern science grew up in a Christian context, but only by re-embracing ancient scientific values against the grain of the original Christian mindset. In turn, those ancient scientific values grew up in a pagan context. As with Christianity, that's not causality, it's just circumstance”.

    http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2...istianity.html



    "Do not judge, or you too will be judged". Mat 7.



    In some Scandinavian countries one is automatically added to the membership of the national church at birth and one has to actually "sign out” to not be counted as Christian. But, in actuality all the Scandinavian countries, along with much of Europe, have extremely high rates of non-belief in God, (Norway at 72%).

    http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

    And while they may be “cultural Christians" they nevertheless rank high in the Inequality adjusted HDI whereas the actual Christian USA only ranks 28th.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index



    The Human Development Index is much more than just a measure of wealth; it is the measure of national well-being and comprises life expectancy, general education, and per capita income indicators.



    If you assert that fairies exist then it is reasonable for me to demand evidence supporting such a claim. The burden of proof rests with you. It is not my burden to prove that fairies don’t exist. The same applies to gods…or in this instance your claim of the “source source of all good and life” existing.
    Tazzy Wazzy is still trying to use his long refuted claims about the HDI supports his absurd notions to prove atheism is better? It's interesting that the more atheist countries (IE Russia, many former Soviet block countries, China, Vietnam, etc) rank far lower on the HDI list than the more Christian ones do. Blowing a giant hole in Tazzy Wazzy's claim that atheism is the cause of this. Is Vietnam (according to what I could find, 80% of the population claims no religion) rank higher or lower than more Christian countries? There goes your claims up in smoke, but you should have known better since I already exposed your abuses of the HDI years ago (and that was the point you started claiming I have a serious mental disorder and started to 'ignore' me. Don't worry, I know you will not respond after having this very same argument sunk years and years ago, but don't worry. Others will read this and see your dishonest nature displayed before all.

    Anyway, let me refute more of Tazzy Wazzy's idiotic claims:

    "Social equality and justice and a universal high education level is the clue, not wealth per se. The USA has the greatest wealth of all and yet it remains mired in religionism and leads the developed world in prison incarcerations, gun violence and gross wealth inequity. So much for the transforming influence of Christianity!"

    Equality according to whom? I know lots of social justice warriors try to make this claim, but who is the one that gets to decided what is 'wealth equality' and what isn't? This is something they never want to discuss. Gun violence is bad according to whom? See, what Tazzy Wazzy fails to report (because he hates Christians and Americans in general) is that the total violence across the west, has been dropping since the high rates of the early 90's, including in the US. Obviously, this would play against his claims where he tries to credit this to atheism, so he ignores it. As for prisons, what Tazzy also fails to report is that Americans are more likely to throw non violent offenders into prison than other countries are. Again though, Tazzy Wazzy always leaves out things that don't work in his case because he's as dishonest as they come.

    "Do not judge, or you too will be judged". Mat 7"

    Funny how Tazzy Wazzy and his type never quote the second part, which says, "For you will be judged in the same measure that you judge others" because to smart people (AKA not Tazzy) know that Jesus isn't doing a blanket condemning against judging at all.

    I know I've corrected you on many of these claims before, but you seem destined to just ignore where you've been corrected and just repeat your same tired mistakes because you don't care about integrity or honesty, but just care about your hatred of Christians and Americans and the facts be damned, if they disagree with your preconceived notions!
    Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 06-04-2015, 08:28 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    replied
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    So you think the Scandinavian countries are heading "inexorably to totalitarianism". Evidence please!
    Certainly. Progressivism tends to totalitarianism through the implementation of laws against speech determined undesirable.

    Christianity is essentially totalitarian though because it demands complete obedience to the laws of God.
    I don't have a problem with that in principle. You do have a problem with totalitarianism, yet progressivism leads inexorably to it - whether quickly like in communist states or more slowly in others.

    Buddhism is technically not a religion and neither is New Age woo.
    You will, of course, explain the technical details.

    Social equality and justice and a universal high education level is the clue, not wealth per se. The USA has the greatest wealth of all and yet it remains mired in religionism and leads the developed world in prison incarcerations, gun violence and gross wealth inequity. So much for the transforming influence of Christianity!
    Note how I said "socially efficient use of wealth" earlier, so wealth plays a role (per capita income) but also social spending as you yourself note. Similarly how I noted the USA is hardly Christian any more. Now carry on.

    It’s relevant in that scientific knowledge can result in the sort of “progressivism”, in its broadest sense, that you seem to regard as destructive.

    Progressivism, in the broadest meaning of the word applies to social progress. Far from being “destructive” as you would have it has achieved emancipation of women, the abolition of slavery and equal rights for blacks and homosexuals.
    Nah, you're just dishonestly conflating scientific progress with progressivism, which has been immensely destructive as I earlier demonstrated. But it's Tassman so big surprise!

    Nope. I make no claim at all. I’m merely denying the unfounded assertion that “something greater than ourselves exists". If you want to assert this you must support it with evidence.
    If you assert that fairies exist then it is reasonable for me to demand evidence supporting such a claim. The burden of proof rests with you. It is not my burden to prove that fairies don’t exist. The same applies to gods…or in this instance your claim of the “source source of all good and life” existing.
    It's your burden to demonstrate your claims: eg that the Scriptures are fairy tales or that there is no substantial evidence for God.

    My “father”? So I'm the "spawn of Satan" am I??
    Indeed. Took you long enough to catch it.

    Not so. "Our concept of science is an outgrowth of Christian theology" is no more true than "our concept of science is an outgrowth of pagan theology." Modern science grew up in a Christian context, but only by re-embracing ancient scientific values against the grain of the original Christian mindset. In turn, those ancient scientific values grew up in a pagan context. As with Christianity, that's not causality, it's just circumstance”.
    Ancient scientific values?

    "Do not judge, or you too will be judged". Mat 7.
    A spiritual man judges everything.

    In some Scandinavian countries one is automatically added to the membership of the national church at birth and one has to actually "sign out” to not be counted as Christian. But, in actuality all the Scandinavian countries, along with much of Europe, have extremely high rates of non-belief in God, (Norway at 72%).
    That is my point, that most Christians in USA are but 'Christians' in name only, just as in Scandinavia.

    And while they may be “cultural Christians" they nevertheless rank high in the Inequality adjusted HDI whereas the actual Christian USA only ranks 28th.
    As if that matters much when HDI is merely a measure of wealth in general and wealth spent for the social good, see above.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    Progressivism leads inexorably to totalitarianism
    So you think the Scandinavian countries are heading "inexorably to totalitarianism". Evidence please! Christianity is essentially totalitarian though because it demands complete obedience to the laws of God. There are those who want it enforced by law:

    http://www.apologeticsindex.org/r10.html

    Not quite. Some forms of Buddhism and New Age are so intrinsically fluffy.
    Buddhism is technically not a religion and neither is New Age woo.

    Correlation is not causation; the more progressive nations have also the greatest wealth.
    Social equality and justice and a universal high education level is the clue, not wealth per se. The USA has the greatest wealth of all and yet it remains mired in religionism and leads the developed world in prison incarcerations, gun violence and gross wealth inequity. So much for the transforming influence of Christianity!

    I'm not sure how this is relevant at all.
    It’s relevant in that scientific knowledge can result in the sort of “progressivism”, in its broadest sense, that you seem to regard as destructive. In fact it bestows great technological advances and health benefits as described previously.

    Ditto.
    Progressivism, in the broadest meaning of the word applies to social progress. Far from being “destructive” as you would have it has achieved emancipation of women, the abolition of slavery and equal rights for blacks and homosexuals.

    Your worldview is also founded on the opposite claim, so burden of proof rests on both sides.
    Nope. I make no claim at all. I’m merely denying the unfounded assertion that “something greater than ourselves exists". If you want to assert this you must support it with evidence.

    No one denies that your father and his children have worked amongst the Christians to do grave evil; the point is that the Church has accomplished overwhelmingly more good
    My “father”? So I'm the "spawn of Satan" am I??

    Nah, Christianity and Christians were instrumental in the beginning of the modern scientific endeavour.
    Not so. "Our concept of science is an outgrowth of Christian theology" is no more true than "our concept of science is an outgrowth of pagan theology." Modern science grew up in a Christian context, but only by re-embracing ancient scientific values against the grain of the original Christian mindset. In turn, those ancient scientific values grew up in a pagan context. As with Christianity, that's not causality, it's just circumstance”.

    http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2...istianity.html

    I judge and will judge.
    "Do not judge, or you too will be judged". Mat 7.

    And I'll take Norway as an example; they're basically 'cultural christians':
    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Norway

    Religion in Norway is mostly Evangelical Lutheran, with 76.1% of the population officially belonging to the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Norway in 2013.

    © Copyright Original Source

    In some Scandinavian countries one is automatically added to the membership of the national church at birth and one has to actually "sign out” to not be counted as Christian. But, in actuality all the Scandinavian countries, along with much of Europe, have extremely high rates of non-belief in God, (Norway at 72%).

    http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

    And while they may be “cultural Christians" they nevertheless rank high in the Inequality adjusted HDI whereas the actual Christian USA only ranks 28th.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

    Right, so it's a measure of the wealth used for the social good instead of the goodness of the ideologies implemented.
    The Human Development Index is much more than just a measure of wealth; it is the measure of national well-being and comprises life expectancy, general education, and per capita income indicators.

    I certainly don't mind exchanging assertions for assertions.
    If you assert that fairies exist then it is reasonable for me to demand evidence supporting such a claim. The burden of proof rests with you. It is not my burden to prove that fairies don’t exist. The same applies to gods…or in this instance your claim of the “source source of all good and life” existing.
    Last edited by Tassman; 06-04-2015, 06:53 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    replied
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    You're erroneously equating "progressivism" with totalitarianism.
    Progressivism leads inexorably to totalitarianism

    All totalitarian ideologies are destructive, whether political or religious...and religion is by definition totalitarian, not democratic.
    Not quite. Some forms of Buddhism and New Age are so intrinsically fluffy.

    That said, the more progressive nations are demonstrably better off in every way than those mired in traditional religious values.
    Correlation is not causation; the more progressive nations have also the greatest wealth.

    E.g. Scientific progress, quite apart from providing enormous technological advances, has resulted in extended life-spans and improved general health with medicines, antibiotics, medical procedures, medical knowledge, and orthopaedic as well as surgical techniques. We no longer view plagues as divine retribution or mental illness as demon-possession, as religion once claimed, but as treatable diseases.
    I'm not sure how this is relevant at all.

    And social progress has resulted in the emancipation of women from the status of chattels, the abolition of slavery and equal rights for blacks and homosexuals…the last being a work in progress.
    Ditto.

    They are the ones making the claim “that something greater than themselves exists" i.e. a deity, thus the burden of proof rests with them. I see no credible evidence for such an assertion.
    Your worldview is also founded on the opposite claim, so burden of proof rests on both sides.

    Conversely, you have the genocides of Moses, The Inquisitions, the Crusades, the Thirty Years War between Protestants and Catholics plus the murderous Christian colonisations of the Americas, Australia et al...to name but a few of the choice fruits of Judeo/Christianity.
    No one denies that your father and his children have worked amongst the Christians to do grave evil; the point is that the Church has accomplished overwhelmingly more good.

    As well Christianity hindered the progress of scientific knowledge for nearly 1,000 years (from roughly 300 to 1250 CE), i.e until The Renaissance, with virtually no significant advances in science during this period. It still does, e.g. the denial of Evolution and Natural Selection by many Christians.
    [/QUOTE]
    Nah, Christianity and Christians were instrumental in the beginning of the modern scientific endeavour.

    That’s not for you to judge; the US has yet to elect an atheist president. According to Adherents.com well over 80% of US citizens claim to be Christian, with fewer than 10% claiming to be atheist, whereas the percentage of Christians is considerably lower in the more progressive countries and literally reversed in the progressive Scandinavian countries.
    I judge and will judge. And I'll take Norway as an example; they're basically 'cultural christians':
    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Norway

    Religion in Norway is mostly Evangelical Lutheran, with 76.1% of the population officially belonging to the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Norway in 2013.

    © Copyright Original Source




    Nonsense! The Human Development Index (HDI) is a composite statistic of life expectancy, education, and per capita income indicators, i.e. it is the measure of national well-being. It tends to be higher in the more socially progressive nations and lower in the more traditional religious nations, e.g. the USA among developed nations and much of Africa among the underdeveloped nations.
    Right, so it's a measure of the wealth used for the social good instead of the goodness of the ideologies implemented.

    Bald assertion! You have yet to show that such a “source” exists. There’s no substantive evidence of such an entity.
    I certainly don't mind exchanging assertions for assertions.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    See above: "I agree that progressivism has been too short lived to every outweigh all the good done by the JudeoChristian religion - but time aside progressivism has been in most aspects most destructive"
    You're erroneously equating "progressivism" with totalitarianism. All totalitarian ideologies are destructive, whether political or religious...and religion is by definition totalitarian, not democratic.

    That said, the more progressive nations are demonstrably better off in every way than those mired in traditional religious values.

    E.g. Scientific progress, quite apart from providing enormous technological advances, has resulted in extended life-spans and improved general health with medicines, antibiotics, medical procedures, medical knowledge, and orthopaedic as well as surgical techniques. We no longer view plagues as divine retribution or mental illness as demon-possession, as religion once claimed, but as treatable diseases.

    And social progress has resulted in the emancipation of women from the status of chattels, the abolition of slavery and equal rights for blacks and homosexuals…the last being a work in progress.

    Ah, that's what you claim.
    They are the ones making the claim “that something greater than themselves exists" i.e. a deity, thus the burden of proof rests with them. I see no credible evidence for such an assertion.

    The ones that immediately come to mind are the creation of universities, introduction of the practice of charity and care for people not in one's in-group, as well as positive valuations of female children. You might want to be more cautious; your historical ignorance is showing.
    Conversely, you have the genocides of Moses, The Inquisitions, the Crusades, the Thirty Years War between Protestants and Catholics plus the murderous Christian colonisations of the Americas, Australia et al...to name but a few of the choice fruits of Judeo/Christianity.

    As well Christianity hindered the progress of scientific knowledge for nearly 1,000 years (from roughly 300 to 1250 CE), i.e until The Renaissance, with virtually no significant advances in science during this period. It still does, e.g. the denial of Evolution and Natural Selection by many Christians.

    The US is hardly religious anymore. Most of the 'Christians' are cultural Christians; akin (but lesser in degree) to how many Scandinavians would claim to be 'Christians' but at most go to church twice a year.
    That’s not for you to judge; the US has yet to elect an atheist president. According to Adherents.com well over 80% of US citizens claim to be Christian, with fewer than 10% claiming to be atheist, whereas the percentage of Christians is considerably lower in the more progressive countries and literally reversed in the progressive Scandinavian countries.

    HDI is a measure of the socially efficient use of wealth rather than a measure of effective ideology, as demonstrated by the mass progressivism endemic amongst the top nations.
    Nonsense! The Human Development Index (HDI) is a composite statistic of life expectancy, education, and per capita income indicators, i.e. it is the measure of national well-being. It tends to be higher in the more socially progressive nations and lower in the more traditional religious nations, e.g. the USA among developed nations and much of Africa among the underdeveloped nations.

    Nah, you're just desperate to rule out any possible existence and action of the non-material so to ignorantly live a blissful life. It won't work; apart from the source of all good and life you cannot flourish.
    Bald assertion! You have yet to show that such a “source” exists. There’s no substantive evidence of such an entity.

    Originally posted by jordanriver View Post

    <snipped>

    The only reason I or any other Christian believes this reasonable explanation of events,

    IS BECAUSE GOD ALLOWS IT.
    So you believe I don't.

    ....and if God didn't allow it, I would be just like Tassman and the other atheist,
    (there but for the Grace of God go I)
    You should be so lucky!
    Last edited by Tassman; 06-04-2015, 01:35 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • jordanriver
    replied
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post

    I didn’t quote you, I merely agreed that with you when you said: “He ain't gonna believe that”, i.e. the resurrection. And you were correct. I “aint”. Not for any scriptural reasons, but because there’s no credible evidence of post mortem life.

    What I queried was why you would give credence to scripture, which you quoted to support your argument, when there's no good evidence of its veracity. So why?
    T, you 'replied with quote' and the quote of mine (post 250) included the answer MATTHEW 16:17

    and THAT is the good evidence I needed.

    ...........ok............

    like Paprika and others, I also cited the resurrection account,
    ...and I pointed out how the eyewitnesses who were actually there refused to recant, even on pain of death because , once you have had an authentic God-encounter and you KNOW you are going straight to heaven to live forever and ever and ever, THEN WHAT can scare you?

    AND, I thought I was so clever for having deduced this historical account,
    ...I was a regular Sherlock Holmes, saying, "its all elementary my dear Watson, I have deduced that if the eyewitnesses were lying, and really did not know if Jesus rose from the dead and therefore had the power to save them for and eternal immortal life, they would not continue the lie if threatened with their lives by the Sanhedrin, oh my, aren't I the clever one...."

    BUT that's all BS, me BSing myself.

    I deduced NOTHING.

    The only reason I or any other Christian believes this reasonable explanation of events,

    IS BECAUSE GOD ALLOWS IT.

    ....and if God didn't allow it, I would be just like Tassman and the other atheist,
    (there but for the Grace of God go I)
    Last edited by jordanriver; 06-03-2015, 09:19 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    replied
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    Nonsense! Communism and Fascism survived for mere decades whereas Christianity and Islam et al have burdened the world for centuries. And still do in many places.
    See above: "I agree that progressivism has been too short lived to every outweigh all the good done by the JudeoChristian religion - but time aside progressivism has been in most aspects most destructive"

    They think they do, but they have no substantive evidence to support their beliefs, which is the point.
    Ah, that's what you claim.

    What good? The genocides of Moses, The Inquisitions, the Crusades, The Conquistadores’ Christianization of Mexico and Peru to name but a few of the choice fruits of Judeo/Christianity?
    The ones that immediately come to mind are the creation of universities, introduction of the practice of charity and care for people not in one's in-group, as well as positive valuations of female children. You might want to be more cautious; your historical ignorance is showing.

    What about the currently religious and wealthy country of the USA which only ranks 28th on the Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index and boasts the highest incarceration rates in the world along with enormous wealth inequity and excessively high rates of violence.
    The US is hardly religious anymore. Most of the 'Christians' are cultural Christians; akin (but lesser in degree) to how many Scandinavians would claim to be 'Christians' but at most go to church twice a year.

    You mean terribly fortunate to have escaped the inculcation and acculturation of religious dogma (in its many and varied forms) that the USA is burdened with, compared to the enlightened secular values of a nation like Australia, where I was raised, and which ranks second on the HDI after atheist Norway.
    HDI is a measure of the socially efficient use of wealth rather than a measure of effective ideology, as demonstrated by the mass progressivism endemic amongst the top nations.

    Nothing “desperate” about it! There’s simply no credible evidence to support such nonsense. It belongs to a former more gullible era when miracles and magic were accepted as commonplace and still are in primitive nations like in much of Africa...and even in many parts of the USA.
    Nah, you're just desperate to rule out any possible existence and action of the non-material so to ignorantly live a blissful life. It won't work; apart from the source of all good and life you cannot flourish.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    Which pales to the massive harm done by progressivism, communism etc as above.
    Nonsense! Communism and Fascism survived for mere decades whereas Christianity and Islam et al have burdened the world for centuries. And still do in many places.

    They all recognise that something greater than themselves exist.
    They think they do, but they have no substantive evidence to support their beliefs, which is the point.

    I agree that progressivism has been too short lived to every outweigh all the good done by the JudeoChristian religion - but time aside progressivism has been in most aspects most destructive.
    What good? The genocides of Moses, The Inquisitions, the Crusades, The Conquistadores’ Christianization of Mexico and Peru to name but a few of the choice fruits of Judeo/Christianity?

    Nah, it's the once religious and wealthy countries who can afford to succumb to temptation and head for full-on progressivism without collapsing quickly.
    What about the currently religious and wealthy country of the USA which only ranks 28th on the Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index and boasts the highest incarceration rates in the world along with enormous wealth inequity and excessively high rates of violence.

    https://www.americanbar.org/groups/c...r_nations.html

    Right, we agree you're terribly ignorant.
    You mean terribly fortunate to have escaped the inculcation and acculturation of religious dogma (in its many and varied forms) that the USA is burdened with, compared to the enlightened secular values of a nation like Australia, where I was raised, and which ranks second on the HDI after atheist Norway.

    Well, that's your desperate hope, isn't it? If there is you might just be called on to account for all your sins.
    Nothing “desperate” about it! There’s simply no credible evidence to support such nonsense. It belongs to a former more gullible era when miracles and magic were accepted as commonplace and still are in primitive nations like in much of Africa...and even in many parts of the USA.

    Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
    my goodness, you quote me , and then ask me for the answer you just quoted me giving.

    ...I know Bible-God blinds people but this is ridiculous
    I didn’t quote you, I merely agreed that with you when you said: “He ain't gonna believe that”, i.e. the resurrection. And you were correct. I “aint”. Not for any scriptural reasons, but because there’s no credible evidence of post mortem life.

    What I queried was why you would give credence to scripture, which you quoted to support your argument, when there's no good evidence of its veracity. So why?
    Last edited by Tassman; 06-03-2015, 01:46 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Sparko, Yesterday, 04:10 PM
6 responses
60 views
0 likes
Last Post Sparko
by Sparko
 
Started by seer, Yesterday, 06:09 AM
19 responses
105 views
0 likes
Last Post seanD
by seanD
 
Started by mossrose, 12-06-2021, 11:43 PM
36 responses
228 views
0 likes
Last Post Reepicheep  
Started by seer, 12-06-2021, 03:27 PM
9 responses
86 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by Cow Poke, 12-06-2021, 09:02 AM
1 response
18 views
0 likes
Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
Working...
X