Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #394608

Re: Jesus rose from the dead

Show all headers | View raw

On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 5:50:29 PM UTC-5, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> On 02/10/16 00:06, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
> > On Friday, September 30, 2016 at 3:03:20 PM UTC-5, HGWilson, DSc.
> > wrote:
> >> On 01/10/16 01:39, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 6:39:06 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Goofus  says "Quick, get the patient to say 'I believe the name
> >>> of the one and only begotten son of God is Christ' so that he
> >>> doesn't spend eternity in hell!" (John 3:18)
> >>>
> >>> I would put the worshipers of money in the "Goofus" category,
> >>> myself. Money-worshipers may be "great" as in commonplace.  They
> >>>  are not "great" as in better.  Yet, I would give the
> >>> money-worshipers credit... They may be able to annihilate faith
> >>> and hope in any greater principle...
> >>>
> >>> But I would ask this... Is the worm who kills the tree "greater"
> >>>  than the tree?  (Jonah 4:7-10)
> >>
> >> Very little in your ancient scriptures applies to what has happened
> >> in the last 100 years. Largely because of religion, the Earth has
> >> become vastly overpopulated
> >
> > I don't understand why you would say that religion is a primary cause
> > of overpopulation.
> 
> Then you know very little about the world. Why do you think both the
> pope and the muslims force their female to produce many children? A)
> because they are trying to outbreed each other. If birth control is
> encouraged, as it obviously should be, the numbers will drop and the
> other one will dominate.
> It is stated muslim policy to get a foothold in a country then outbreed
> the locals so they can take over.
> The catholics have been doing it for years, like they are in Mexico
> right now (ask Donald Trump). Breed like Drosophila then export the
> surplus. Ireland and Italy did the same for hundreds of years.
> 

Ah.. I was thinking technology has allowed us to overpopulate the planet, much more than religion.  But you're right.. Religion encourages "having lots of babies".  Any value system that encourages having lots of babies will cause having lots of babies.  


Some religions value "be fruitful and multiply" over personal rights.  Capitalist systems sometimes value "career" over "family" which leads to a reduction in population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
A major criticism of eugenics policies is that, regardless of whether "negative" or "positive" policies are used, they are vulnerable to abuse because the criteria of selection are determined by whichever group is in political power.

> >> and in spite of the rise of science and social awareness, human
> >> and environmental problems are causing civilization to break down
> >> worldwide as all the symptoms of overcrowding become more and more
> >>  apparent each day. Because of money, humans have lost touch with
> >> nature. Their lives are totally artificial and laws aimed at
> >> protecting money dominate over those relating to personal values.
> >
> > Are you saying that is a good thing, or a bad thing?  You want laws
> > that protect money, or do you want laws that protect people and their
> > personal values?
> 
> In regard to security, money has replaced 'physical territory'. Whilst
> once, humans had to defend their physical space, their main priority now
> is to protect their money.
> So whether we like it or not, money laws are as important as personal
> ones... because to lose ones money virtually means losing one's ability
> to survive...
> 

Sure...  That was why I made the analogy with blood.  The liquidity of assets made possible by money, and the non-liquidity of assets caused by lack of money.

Laws that make it harder for people to get access to money are like clots that prevent blood from reaching parts of the body.

> >> Man's greatest need, security, is becoming progressively harder to
> >>  gain and without money no individual has much hope of functioning
> >>  successfully.
> >
> > Again, do you think that is a good thing, or a bad thing?  You seem
> > to believe I know good from evil, but to know good from evil we would
> > have to acknowledge that these ideas are real.
> >
> > So if I said to you "possession is 9/10 of the law" would you say "it
> > should be higher" or "it should be lower"?
> 
> There is no absolute right or wrong. Before humans became moderately
> civilized, virtually whatever was good for survival was regarded as
> acceptable. The same applies in the natural world today.
> 
> Today, individual rights and freedom are important to everyone and laws
> are made for the purpose of preventing one persons freedom from
> interfering with another's. Often the laws are wrong and there is no
> satisfactory solution.
> 

You say there is no absolute right or wrong, yet you say that pedophiles, con-artists, and drug dealers ought to be exterminated, as though this is self-evident.  

There are absolutes, but these absolutes are directional rather than locational...  You cannot BE absolute good, or BE absolute evil, but you can move in those directions.  Doing what you "know" is wrong and in conflict with your own principles is wrong.  Doing what you "know" is right, and in harmony with your own principles is right.  

However, there may be inescapably evil positions, such as "Existential Self hatred."  In this case, you might believe everything you know is true and feel is right is false, and hence you would consistently act against the best interest of yourself and everyone around you.

An absolute right direction is "Doing right things for the right reasons"

Then there are the grey areas, where we don't know how to do right without doing wrong... For instance, spanking a child to get him to stop hitting.  Or where we commit to something we think is good, which turns out to be a horrible decision.  Or when we make unnecessary sacrifices to achieve what we need.  Or when we argue bitterly and it only leads to more misery and strife.  

One might say these grey areas exist because there is no absolute good.  I say these grey areas exist because we do not know the path to absolute good.  We may still lack the knowledge or technology to get to the right place in the right way.  But to give up on doing good because it has never been done before, is folly.  


> >> It is quite obvious to all thinking people that acceptable living
> >> standards can never be achieved while organized religion is allowed
> >> to flourish. It is the gigantic hoax that lies at the heat of all
> >> poverty and oppression and which divides the world into the
> >> antagonistic groups that are already fighting over the world's
> >> dwindling resources.
> >
> > It's quite obvious to all thinking people that trying to stamp out
> > organized religion is rather like attacking a bees' nest.  A lot of
> > those bees won't mind sacrificing themselves to protect their nest.
> > To many religious people, they don't hold their beliefs, so much as
> > their beliefs hold them.
> 
> I understand that. Taking away a person's religion would be like
> removing their whole culture. The only way to do it is through
> education....but I think it is too late. Homo sapiens will wipe itself
> out before that can happen.
> 

Indeed, the only way to do it is through education.  But part of education is that the teacher doesn't just say "wrong" but tries to understand exactly what mistake the student is making.  

If you stand in front of a Christian and say "Everything you know is wrong...  Here let me burn that book for you." it is not going to be terribly effective.  It's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  


> > What you're not noticing here are that you are being critical without
> > really standing up for anything.  Some of the things you seem to
> > value:
> >
> > (1) Protecting personal values (2) Comfort and safety (3) Unity (4)
> > Conserve the world's dwindling resources (5) Distinction of truth vs.
> > fiction (6) being in touch with nature.
> 
> Yes, what is wrong with that. Property has to be protected too. ...but
> confidence tricksters who make fortunes selling seats in a non-existent
> after life should be quietly exterminated like drug dealers and
> pedophile priests.
> 

You did not say "Yes, I take it for granted that we share these values."  Instead you asked "Yes, What is wrong with that?"  

Well, if you really share the same values, then the only argument is how to seek those values.  If everyone agrees that comfort and safety, is a good thing, then whether two people agree on whether god exists is not a major consideration, unless the belief in god or not-god requires something inconsistent with comfort and safety of others.

As for "protecting property" it depends on how that is defined.  From the perspective of the drug-dealer, the pedophile, or the trickster, "protecting property" means protecting their rights to own and sell goods, such as drugs, children, or false hopes. In that sense, I am against protecting property.

But if you explain how "property has to be protected" is consistent with  > (1) Protecting personal values (2) Comfort and safety (3) Unity (4) 
 Conserve the world's dwindling resources (5) Distinction of truth vs. 
 fiction (6) being in touch with nature. 

I think that "protecting property" quickly comes into conflict with all six of those things, and property ownership should only be protected when such property ownership is not in conflict with a higher moral principle.

> > (1) "laws aimed at protecting money dominate over those relating to
> > personal values" (2) "Man's greatest need, security, is becoming
> > progressively harder to gain" (3)  and which divides the world into
> > the (4) "antagonistic groups that are already fighting over the
> > world's dwindling resources. (5) "gigantic hoax that lies at the
> > heart of all poverty and oppression" (6) "humans have lost touch with
> > nature. "
> >
> >
> > I feel I share most of these values with you... Yet you speak about
> > these values as though they can be taken for granted.  That we should
> > all value the protection of peoples personal values.  We value the
> > comfort, safety, and health of all.  We want to conserve dwindling
> > resources so that our descendants will have lives as good or better
> > than ours.  We want to be authentic, recognizing truth.  We want to
> > preserve the beauty of nature.  And we want to live in unity and
> > without unnecessary strife.
> >
> > You find these values to be so self-evident, that instead of
> > advocating for them, you simply protest against those who you wrongly
> > think don't share them.
> 
> Sorry, I spend plenty of time advocating such things.
> 
> > If we were to make a list of all of these shared values, and bind
> > them into a book, we might put a label on this book called "Secular
> > moral principles". And we'll make another book called "Religious
> > moral principles" and it will contain the exact same values.
> 
> Organized religion has no morals. It preaches good but acts with evil.
> Religious nuts are too brain dead to realize how they are being conned.
> 
> > The only difference between these books is, one of them says "The
> > name of God is Our-Father-in-Heaven" and another says "The name of
> > God is Allah" and another one of them says "There is no God" and
> > another says "The names of the Gods are Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu"
> > and another says "Don't speak the name of G-d in vain."
> 
> THere is another fundamental difference. One is based on logic and fact
> the other entirely on lies and fiction. There are no gods...never were...
> 
> > Certainly, there are other differences between religions besides the
> >  name(s) of their gods, but for the most part, they all promote the
> > same common-good that the secular atheist religions promote.
> 
> There is no such thing as a secular atheist religion.
> 
> > Have a look here at an article about Secular Ethics.
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics
> >
> > You see that the Dalai Lama says "even as nonbelievers, we have the
> > capacity to promote these things."
> 
> Buddhism is hardly a religion. ..more like a reasonable code of ethics.
> 

One of the definitions of religion is "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance."  

Buddhism seeks enlightenment.  

I guess it would be hard to pin secular atheism down with a singular pursuit or interest.  It varies.  Wealth, coolness, popularity, fame, truth, science, etc might be individual interests that people pursue...

I'll accept, because secular atheism doesn't have any ONE supremely important pursuit, I'll agree that it isn't a religon.

The paradox here, is that science actually is "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance."  That interest is verifiable truth.  Imagine that.  Science is Religion.


> > But this is a CAPACITY, not a GIVEN.  Worshipers of money do not
> > generally promote unity except in a hypocritical way.  (If you can
> > get everyone around you to behave as sheep, its easier for the wolf
> > to take advantage)
> >
> > But when demonstrating that capacity to promote positive secular
> > ethics, are you promoting fact: "is, does, and did", or are you
> > promoting opinion: "should, should have, and shouldn't have".
> >
> > When you talk about the way we "should behave" and values we "should
> >  share" or virtually any sentence fragment containing the word
> > "should" you are espousing a value or proseletyzing for a value that
> >  may or may not be shared by your audience.
> 
> Of course. There will always be differences of opinion. Humans form
> opinions very early in life and they are hard to change. That's why
> religions grab young kids as soon as they can so they can scare the
> daylights out of them with stories of the terrible punishments they will
> receive at the hands of the omniscient god thing.
> How do you think a 4yo kid feels when his mother tells him he will burn
> forever if he doesn't spend his whole life groveling to this infinitely
> sadistic god thing?
> You should know the answer because it obviously happened to you.
> 

It was actually my grandmother, and I was about five, when she introduced me to Pascal's wager.  (Of course my grandmother did not call this Pascal's wager.)

The idea is that we should grovel to this "infinitely sadistic god thing," and "If our faith is wrong, we are safe, but if our faith is right, then we are still safe."  

I do agree that any religion which is based on Pascal's wager is a deeply flawed religion.  Not just flawed.  These people who base their beliefs on Pascal's wager are actually literally worshiping a totally cynical idea of God, and calling it faith.  

> > To many secular people, they don't hold their beliefs, so much as
> > their beliefs hold them.
> >
> > Perhaps the secular "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts" are 'better',
> > sometimes than the religious "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts".  But is it
> > 90% of the time?  99% of the time?  I don't know... But I don't think
> > it's 100%.  Unfortunately, we don't get to perform the experiment
> > over and over again.  There might be millions of other planets with
> > intelligent life on them, but Earth only gets one chance to get
> > things right.
> 
> Unfortunately, the basic evolutionary principle, survival of the
> fittest, more or less guaranteed competition and war. Modern medicine
> and MONEY have changed that principle somewhat to often imply "survival
> of the richest, most devious or the most dishonest". People who would
> never have lived to reproduce successfully are now openly encouraged to
> do so.
> To achieve a truly civilized society, evolution has to be completely
> bypassed and replaced with the kind of genetic engineering that will
> weed out the bad genes and maybe promote the good....but not in the ways
> that Adolph Hitler tried to do it.

This is an awkward subject.  You have already criticized religious organizations for encouraging their people to have lots of babies.  Do you think it is WRONG, then, for humanity to attempt to influence humanity's future genetics, or do you think it is RIGHT?

For instance, I think it might be nice if people's IQ's averaged higher than 100.  It would also be good if people were not cruel to each other.  But which is more important, intelligence or kindness?  I would prefer our descendants to be both intelligent and kind.  

We have already used technology to influence humanity's genetics.  Vast numbers of people have lived because of technology.  Many people have died because of human technology... but we've never DECIDED collectively to use technology to influence humanity's genetics,

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Jesus rose from the dead  The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-24 12:01 -0700
  Re: Jesus rose from the dead The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-24 15:39 -0700
  Re: Jesus rose from the dead Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-25 00:57 +0000
    Re: Jesus rose from the dead The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-24 18:14 -0700
      Re: Jesus rose from the dead "a425couple" <a425couple@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-24 19:53 -0700
      Re: Jesus rose from the dead Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-25 16:52 +0000
        Re: Jesus rose from the dead The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-25 22:17 -0700
          Re: Jesus rose from the dead The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-29 23:41 -0700
            Re: Jesus rose from the dead The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-29 23:58 -0700
            Re: Jesus rose from the dead Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 08:34 -0700
          Re: Jesus rose from the dead Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-30 20:48 +0000
            Re: Jesus rose from the dead The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-30 15:17 -0700
              Re: Jesus rose from the dead Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-10-01 00:10 +0000
    Re: Jesus rose from the dead The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-24 20:55 -0700
    Re: Jesus rose from the dead Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 08:31 -0700
      Re: Jesus rose from the dead Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-25 11:06 -0700
        Re: Jesus rose from the dead Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-25 12:11 -0600
          Re: Jesus rose from the dead Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-25 15:36 -0700
            Re: Jesus rose from the dead Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 05:54 -0700
              Re: Jesus rose from the dead Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-26 07:48 -0700
                Re: Jesus rose from the dead Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 09:33 -0700
                Re: Jesus rose from the dead Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-26 12:25 -0700
                Re: Jesus rose from the dead Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 05:49 -0700
        Re: Jesus rose from the dead mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-25 23:41 -0700
          Re: Jesus rose from the dead Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-26 03:55 -0700
  Re: Jesus rose from the dead HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-27 20:27 +1000
    Re: Jesus rose from the dead Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 06:01 -0700
      Re: Jesus rose from the dead "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-28 06:36 +1000
        Re: Jesus rose from the dead Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 07:12 -0700
          Re: Jesus rose from the dead HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-29 15:14 +1000
            Re: Jesus rose from the dead Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 04:53 -0700
              Re: Jesus rose from the dead HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-30 09:39 +1000
                Re: Jesus rose from the dead Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 19:53 -0700
                Re: Jesus rose from the dead "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-01 05:33 +1000
                Re: Jesus rose from the dead Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-30 13:21 -0700
                Re: Jesus rose from the dead Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 08:39 -0700
                Re: Jesus rose from the dead "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-01 06:03 +1000
                Re: Jesus rose from the dead Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 07:06 -0700
                Re: Jesus rose from the dead "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-02 09:50 +1100
                Re: Jesus rose from the dead Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 09:54 -0700
                Re: Jesus rose from the dead "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-03 10:17 +1100
                Re: Jesus rose from the dead Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 06:00 -0700
                Re: Jesus rose from the dead Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-03 07:42 -0700
                Re: Jesus rose from the dead Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 09:30 -0700
                Re: Jesus rose from the dead "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-08 21:34 +1100
                Re: Jesus rose from the dead Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-08 15:00 -0700
                Re: Jesus rose from the dead "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-09 09:32 +1100
                Re: Jesus rose from the dead Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-09 04:10 -0700
                Re: Jesus rose from the dead Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 08:00 -0700
                Re: Jesus rose from the dead "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-04 07:32 +1100

csiph-web