Resurrections and hyperdimensions

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 169 by Volbrigade]

The problem with your replies is that you aren't providing rational evidence for any of your religious beliefs or claims.

All your posts amount to are the standard "preaching" techniques of this religious cult that tries desperately to denigrate anyone who refuses to join and support it.

It's not going to be productive to simply attempt to denigrate people who refuse to be convinced. In fact, that is actually in direct violation of the teachings of Jesus anyway. Jesus never instructed his disciples to argue with or accuse anyone of anything. To the contrary, he clearly instructed them to move on if people aren't interested in hearing the message.

I'm not sure whether you're lecturing or preaching here. A bit of both?

I fail to see where I have denigrated anybody. I did mention the "vague beliefs" expressed by those with opposing arguments. Is that what you refer to?

But that is exactly what they, themselves, express. "I don't claim to know what our origins are, or what our destiny is..."; "I am comfortable with not knowing...". Sound familiar?

So when a theist does nothing but argue to the bitter death with non-believers I don't see where they are paying attention to the teachings of Jesus.

All due respect, but if I am looking for insight into the "teachings of Jesus", I will look elsewhere than to a non-theist.

"Argue to the bitter death"? That's a colorful way of putting it, isn't it? From my perspective, I'm just visiting a message board dedicated to the discussion and debate of Christianity. And expressing my reasons for being a Christian. Which generates oppositional views, which I then address.

If by "bitter death", you mean until both parties begin to repeat themselves -- well, yes. am willing to engage to that point. A point we seem to have reached, in our discussion.

If I were going to preach to people I would at least follow Jesus' instructions and only preach to those who are interested in hearing the message.

Is that a nice way of saying "shut up"?

Again -- it is perhaps a good thing that the prohibition against "preaching" (however defined -- apparently, it means "sharing the Good News"; which is an odd injunction on a site devoted to Christianity...) does not extend to "lecturing", of which I cetainly have been the recipient of my share -- as here.

I think, in general, theists "preach" (against the rules);
non-theists "lecture" (within the rules).

Perhaps that has a bearing on the subject of the OP?

In the meantime, if you are attempting to argue or debate for why the religion has merit, I haven't seen where you have supplied any compelling arguments.

I certainly regret to hear that.

But I don't see where that is a compelling argument that I haven't made any.

[/quote]

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 60 by Tired of the Nonsense]

I agree with you that the OT does not paint a pretty picture.

The Bible, start to finish, is a tale with one theme: Redemption.

And one central figure: Jesus Christ.

If one can read the OT without coming away with a sense of man’s depravity, then they are truly lacking in comprehension. It is the same depravity that one encounters on a daily basis in the newspapers and TV news. And there is only one solution for it. And it is not “changing energy� or “combinations of inert matter.� The ONLY solution to the depravity of man is the shed blood of Jesus Christ. It cleanses us of sins. You do know that blood “cleanses� our bodies, don’t you? It restores us, by transporting nutrients to our cells, where they can be transformed through an incredibly elaborate process into the ATP needed to run our bodies. And the blood removes the toxins and impurities from our bodies, so they can be eliminated through other wonderfully elaborate processes.

We are cleansed by the blood. Wonder how those superstitious tribal Iron Age brutes, with their savage religion, knew that? Just a lucky coincidence, I guess. But everything’s a lucky coincidence to the Whateverist. The incredibly detailed, synchronous linking up of the processes alluded to in the transport of blood through the body — that’s just the pattern energy writhes in, given enough time.

And the empirical evidence for that belief is…?

Oh, wait. There doesn’t seem to be any. It is something you take on faith.

Yes, there is endless conjecture and speculation as to HOW mindless energy became mindful man. That’s the “sophist� part.

But no speculation is allowed as to how and why God created a space time environment, and entered into it Himself, as a man, before re-entering His unbounded reality as that Man. That is of the same category as the belief in Santy Claus.

That’s the “unsophisticated� part.

You bring up the deformed child again. We have been through that. I refer you to earlier in the thread.

The command to extinguish the Canaanite nations is a harsh one. I don’t much like it, either. I wonder why it would be included in Scripture. I wonder why the Hebrews disobeyed the command with regard to some of their enemies. I wonder why both are recorded, without prejudice; and have never been edited out.

I have looked into the matter. And I find the answers satisfactory. But not simple. Nothing is. The universe is not simple. Neither are our bodies. Neither is the story of God’s dealings with men.

What is simple is “energy has always existed, and we are just part of its ever-changing pattern�.

And now, I ask you a question.

What if you’re right?

What if mindless, random energy is “all there is, all there was, and all there ever will be�?

What if all we are is a temporary arrangement of matter? A pattern, here today and gone, forever, tomorrow?

What possible difference could that make? In fact — what possible difference could anything make?

And what difference would it make if I believed otherwise? If I chose to believe a complex, imaginary fable about an eternal Mind that created a space-time environment; a fable which explained the cause of man’s depravity, and the way out of it —even if it was all just an ancient and ongoing fabrication, what difference does it make?

And what difference does it make that energy occasionally arranges itself in patterns such as the deformed child you pictured? Or generates patterns in the matter that composes human brains that motivates them to slaughter each other over territories or genetics or ideas? What difference does it make what I do with my own little pattern of energy, during the brief period of time it is integrated and possesses the consciousness to make determinations as to what it does?

And if, for instance, someone should be in the way of my obtaining some objective that would please my consciousness, what difference does it make what I do to them in order to remove them as an obstacle?

I’m just asking. Do you have an answer for me?

Is it possible that even if your belief system is true, and mindless matter and energy is all that ever was or will be: that it would be BETTER if we lived as though we were subject to living forever, based on what we do during our temporary pattern of consciousness, before we revert back to our eternal elements of mindless matter-energy?

Even if that would mean “living a lie�, so to speak?

Or would that make any difference, either?

And if so — in what way?

I await your answer.
____________________

I see, in preparing to post this, that you added a picture — impulses of energy that informs the technology of my computer to arrange pixels into a recognizable pattern. The pattern formed is of briefly sentient patterns of matter-energy, rendered into their pre-sentient state, from which the complexity of their integrated pattern will eventually degrade into a simpler state of disassociated chemicals; before further degrading into constituent compounds and elements — perhaps to remerge in another integrated state of consciousness in time (a process that would be guaranteed, and speed up, by cookery and consumption by other integrated patterns of consciousness).

One may INFER from the picture — there is no empirical proof associated with it — that the rendering of the life forms within it into their inert condition was motivated by the patterns that energy assumed in the brains of other sentient organisms with consciousness. Just as the temporary pattern of consciousness in your brain was motivated by ever-changing energy to post the picture.

And now, my pattern of energy takes on the form of asking a question:

What difference does it make?

Either the picture itself, or the contents of it? Your posting it, or my response to it?

Is it not all merely part of the ever-changing pattern of energy that we exist in?

Again — I await your answer.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Volbrigade]

The Bible, start to finish, is a tale with one theme: Redemption.

And one central figure: Jesus Christ.

If one can read the OT without coming away with a sense of man’s depravity, then they are truly lacking in comprehension. It is the same depravity that one encounters on a daily basis in the newspapers and TV news. And there is only one solution for it. And it is not “changing energy� or “combinations of inert matter.� The ONLY solution to the depravity of man is the shed blood of Jesus Christ. It cleanses us of sins. You do know that blood “cleanses� our bodies, don’t you? It restores us, by transporting nutrients to our cells, where they can be transformed through an incredibly elaborate process into the ATP needed to run our bodies. And the blood removes the toxins and impurities from our bodies, so they can be eliminated through other wonderfully elaborate processes.

The Bible justifies mass murder, and hacking to death helpless women, children and babies. Religion is has traditionally been used to justify mass murder as the declared will of God. Such actions and such beliefs are beyond redemption and should be rejected and condemned.

We are cleansed by the blood. Wonder how those superstitious tribal Iron Age brutes, with their savage religion, knew that? Just a lucky coincidence, I guess. But everything’s a lucky coincidence to the Whateverist. The incredibly detailed, synchronous linking up of the processes alluded to in the transport of blood through the body — that’s just the pattern energy writhes in, given enough time.

We are cleansed by our kidneys and livers. Blood is just the transport system. It carries in oxygen and carries away waste to the treatment plants. Blood has no special magical properties.

And now, I ask you a question.

What if you’re right?

What if mindless, random energy is “all there is, all there was, and all there ever will be�?

What if all we are is a temporary arrangement of matter? A pattern, here today and gone, forever, tomorrow?

What possible difference could that make? In fact — what possible difference could anything make?

And if it's true that life is actually nothing more than just a temporary agangement of matter, what would that change?

Nothing at all physically. The only thing that would change is your perception of reality. Otherwise everything would simply carry on exactly as before.

And if, for instance, someone should be in the way of my obtaining some objective that would please my consciousness, what difference does it make what I do to them in order to remove them as an obstacle?

I’m just asking. Do you have an answer for me?

People who consider others simply as objects, mere obstacles in the path of doing as they please are called psychopaths. And they are very dangerous. Fortunately such extreme antisocial behavior is statistically rare. Because humans are societal creatures by nature. And living in societies that mutually look out for it's members has considerable survival advantages which are not lost on most people. Otherwise the result would be constant anarchy. But what we notice is that when anarchy prevails it is invariably only for a short time. Because an orderly society best serves the interests for the overwhelming majority of people.

Societies typically work vigorously to identify and neutralize psychopaths.

Is it possible that even if your belief system is true, and mindless matter and energy is all that ever was or will be: that it would be BETTER if we lived as though we were subject to living forever, based on what we do during our temporary pattern of consciousness, before we revert back to our eternal elements of mindless matter-energy?

In other words, is it better to be educated by working to understand the truth, which must then be accepted at face value? Or is it better to be cocooned in a comforting view of reality which has no actual relationship with what is actually occurring?

This is like asking if it was better living in the dark ages, or if it is better living in an age of knowledgeable enlightenment. There is no right answer of course, only opinion. I very much suspect that most people are of the opinion that being warm, well fed, healthy and looking forward to a long life is vastly superior to being constantly hungry, cold, constantly plagued by parasites and diseases, with a life expectancy of barely forty.

Or to put it another way, compare the hungry, sick, backward and uneducated portions of the world with the well fed, healthy and well educated portions of the world. And then ask yourself, which group would you suspect would more readily change places with the other?

I personally find truth for truth's sake to be just about the most important thing there is.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 62 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Volbrigade wrote:

The Bible, start to finish, is a tale with one theme: Redemption.

And one central figure: Jesus Christ.

If one can read the OT without coming away with a sense of man’s depravity, then they are truly lacking in comprehension. It is the same depravity that one encounters on a daily basis in the newspapers and TV news. And there is only one solution for it. And it is not “changing energy� or “combinations of inert matter.� The ONLY solution to the depravity of man is the shed blood of Jesus Christ. It cleanses us of sins. You do know that blood “cleanses� our bodies, don’t you? It restores us, by transporting nutrients to our cells, where they can be transformed through an incredibly elaborate process into the ATP needed to run our bodies. And the blood removes the toxins and impurities from our bodies, so they can be eliminated through other wonderfully elaborate processes.

The Bible justifies mass murder, and hacking to death helpless women, children and babies. Religion is has traditionally been used to justify mass murder as the declared will of God. Such actions and such beliefs are beyond redemption and should be rejected and condemned.

The Bible recounts the eradication of a culture of death that was so depraved that children were sacrificed by placing them in the white-hot arms of their metal idols. The implication of the story is clear: the people God had set aside, that He had imparted His Law to, and out of whom He would bring the Savior of mankind, were not to allow such depravity to exist among them. It is also a metaphor for sin in our own lives: we are to mercilessly eradicate it. "What fellowship can light have with darkness?"

A pretty tough lesson. Perhaps not that profitable for the suckling babe. As for the "unborn" -- they should not even trouble themselves over it. Well, wait: after all, it is a clear representation of the "bad news", for which the Good News of the Gospel is the only cure.

Speaking of which: in this country, 60 million "helpless (unborn) women, children and babies" have been hacked to death in their mothers' wombs. In your words, "such actions and such beliefs are beyond redemption and should be rejected and condemned."

And they are, and will be. By God Himself.

Volbrigade wrote:

We are cleansed by the blood. Wonder how those superstitious tribal Iron Age brutes, with their savage religion, knew that? Just a lucky coincidence, I guess. But everything’s a lucky coincidence to the Whateverist. The incredibly detailed, synchronous linking up of the processes alluded to in the transport of blood through the body — that’s just the pattern energy writhes in, given enough time.

We are cleansed by our kidneys and livers. Blood is just the transport system. It carries in oxygen and carries away waste to the treatment plants. Blood has no special magical properties.

Not much into metaphor, imagery, symbol, macrocodes, microcodes, eh?

I understand.

Volbrigade wrote:

And if, for instance, someone should be in the way of my obtaining some objective that would please my consciousness, what difference does it make what I do to them in order to remove them as an obstacle?

I’m just asking. Do you have an answer for me?

People who consider others simply as objects, mere obstacles in the path of doing as they please are called psychopaths. And they are very dangerous. Fortunately such extreme antisocial behavior is statistically rare. Because humans are societal creatures by nature. And living in societies that mutually look out for it's members has considerable survival advantages which are not lost on most people. Otherwise the result would be constant anarchy. But what we notice is that when anarchy prevails it is invariably only for a short time. Because an orderly society best serves the interests for the overwhelming majority of people.

Societies typically work vigorously to identify and neutralize psychopaths.

Well, obviously.

I'm asking you to go a little deeper, if you can. Everything you say here is borrowed from -- actually, parasitical of -- moral belief systems. Morality that cannot be justified by "energy is all that was, is, and ever shall be", as I indicated in the part of my post you wisely chose not to respond to (because there is simply no coherent response possible within the context of your asserted beliefs?).

If all we are are bags of chemicals, in a mindless, indifferent, random universe...

What difference does it make whether someone is a psychopath or not?

Or if we have "orderly societies" or not? And by the way, and just as an aside -- if you really want an "orderly society" totalitarianism is the best way to go. Rights endowed by the powerful -- who else would, God? (LOL) -- and law and order rigidly, ruthlessly enforced.

But then, history shows us that materialism and totalitarianism go hand in hand, doesn't it? Even if it requires a few million scenes like the one you provided a picture of?

The point I'm making, which materialists (non-theists) are typically unable to grasp, getting stuck at the point of psychopathy, is:

If your belief that mindless, random energy, and not a Holy God, is responsible for all that exists --

what difference does any of it make? The universe doesn't care. There is no standard for good, bad; right, wrong. And everyone is free to do "what is right in their own eyes."

What difference does it make if someone is a psychopath? Is he not merely the pattern that energy happened to fluctuate into, by chance, at a particular point of time and space? Are you judging that pattern of energy as somehow inferior, or undesirable? Who are you, another random pattern of mindless energy (which is all that exists, remember?) to make such a judgment?

Your response indicates that what matters is aligning with moral concepts established by the religions that you disparage. And that we should all do what is "best" for everybody. Whatever that is, and whoever decides it.

I maintain that is nauseatingly thin gruel; nothing to set one's sail or live one's life by; and if it actually was true, it would be far better for "everybody" to maintain a legal fiction of something better than that.

But, thanks be to Him, and blessed be the name of God --

it is not true.

What I'm asking you to do is to think through the implications and logical conclusions of what it is you believe.

If that is too deep, a place you prefer not to go --

I understand. And I don't blame you.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Volbrigade]

The Bible recounts the eradication of a culture of death that was so depraved that children were sacrificed by placing them in the white-hot arms of their metal idols. The implication of the story is clear: the people God had set aside, that He had imparted His Law to, and out of whom He would bring the Savior of mankind, were not to allow such depravity to exist among them. It is also a metaphor for sin in our own lives: we are to mercilessly eradicate it. "What fellowship can light have with darkness?"

Child sacrifice was once commonly practiced around the world, unfortunately. Even the ancient Hebrews once practiced child sacrifice. The idea behind child sacrifice was to offer that particular God (whatever God) the thing that you loved and prized above all things, so that God (whatever God) would see and understand your love and devoton to Him and bless you with good fortune as a result. If we ever needed an example of the stupid ideas that ignorant people are capable of coming up with, we certainly need look no farther than this one. Because all it really did it to cause one to kill the thing they loved with their own hand, in a futile gesture that in reality had no actual effect on future events one way or the other. Which is so very often the outcome of ignorant beliefs and practices.

But what you are suggesting is that, since the enemies of the Jews still practiced child sacrifice, the Jews were justified in hacking ALL of the children of their enemies to death to eradicate the practice. The deplorable extent of that sort of overkill is exceeded only by efforts to justify it.

CBS/AP January 16, 2017, 2:43 PM
Pakistan mom sentenced to death for burning daughter alive in "honor" killing



LAHORE, Pakistan - A prosecutor says a court has sentenced a woman to death for burning her daughter alive for marrying a man of her choice in eastern Pakistan.

Abdur Rauf said judge Chaudhry Ilyas in eastern Lahore on Monday convicted Parveen Bibi of burning to death Zeenat Rafiq a week after her marriage to Hassan Khan last June.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pakistan-mo ... r-killing/

As you can see, people STILL get dangerously foolish notions in their heads about what God expects of them. Because ignorant people have ignorant beliefs, and subsequently act on their ignorant beliefs in ignorant ways. And yet even in Islamic Pakistan honor killings are illegal. This mother will pay with her life for her ignorant beliefs and actions. It's important to note that the Pakistani judge did not order the deaths of every last child in the country, in order to stop the ignorant practices of some. Because that would have been compounding foolish ignorance with even more foolish ignorance.

A pretty tough lesson. Perhaps not that profitable for the suckling babe. As for the "unborn" -- they should not even trouble themselves over it. Well, wait: after all, it is a clear representation of the "bad news", for which the Good News of the Gospel is the only cure.

Speaking of which: in this country, 60 million "helpless (unborn) women, children and babies" have been hacked to death in their mothers' wombs. In your words, "such actions and such beliefs are beyond redemption and should be rejected and condemned."

Partial birth abortions have been illegal in the US since 2003.

I'm asking you to go a little deeper, if you can. Everything you say here is borrowed from -- actually, parasitical of -- moral belief systems. Morality that cannot be justified by "energy is all that was, is, and ever shall be", as I indicated in the part of my post you wisely chose not to respond to (because there is simply no coherent response possible within the context of your asserted beliefs?).

Of what use is a code of morality, ostensibly dictated to humans by God, who then undermines his own moral code by ordering the most reprehensible of mass murders?

The fact that you and other Christians are seeking to justify what is in reality the most repugnant and evil of acts is the most glaring example of just how dangerous religion is, and always has been.

How can a God who violates his own commandment by ordering defenseless men, women, children and babies to hacked to death with swords, cold blooded murder by ANY definition, possibly be considered a higher moral standard that humans could not possibly aspire to on their own? I AM a human, and I certainly aspire to a higher standard than allowing myself to be ordered to become a bloody butcher by a bloody butcher! As an atheist no God could order me to commit such an act. I reject the moral standards of the Biblical God outright, and replace them with my own which I consider to be a vast improvement, morality wise. And that concept of morality is one that predates the Bible. It's known as the golden rule.

Wikipedia
Golden Rule

The Golden Rule or law of reciprocity is the principle of treating others as one would wish to be treated oneself. It is a maxim of altruism seen in many human religions and human cultures. The maxim may appear as either a positive or negative injunction governing conduct:
One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself (positive or directive form).
One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated (negative or prohibitive form).
What you wish upon others, you wish upon yourself (empathic or responsive form)

The concept occurs in some form in nearly every religion and ethical tradition.

Rushworth Kidder notes that the Golden Rule can be found in the early contributions of Confucianism (551–479 BC). Kidder notes that this concept's framework appears prominently in many religions, including "Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, and the rest of the world's major religions". According to Greg M. Epstein, "?'do unto others' ... is a concept that essentially no religion misses entirely." Simon Blackburn also states that the Golden Rule can be "found in some form in almost every ethical tradition". All versions and forms of the proverbial Golden Rule have one aspect in common: they all demand that people treat others in a manner in which they themselves would like to be treated.

Ancient Egypt
An early example of the Golden Rule that reflects the Ancient Egyptian concept of Maat appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant, which dates to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040–1650 BC): "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to cause that he do thus to you."[discuss] An example from a Late Period (c. 664 BC – 323 BC) papyrus: "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another."

The Golden Rule in its prohibitive form was a common principle in ancient Greek philosophy. Examples of the general concept include:
"Do not do to your neighbor what you would take ill from him." – Pittacus (c. 640 – 568 BC)
"Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." – Thales (c. 624 BC – c. 546 BC)
"What you do not want to happen to you, do not do it yourself either. " – Sextus the Pythagorean. The oldest extant reference to Sextus is by Origen in the third century of the common era.
"Do not do to others that which angers you when they do it to you." – Isocrates (436–338 BC)
"What thou avoidest suffering thyself seek not to impose on others." – Epictetus
"It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly (agreeing 'neither to harm nor be harmed'), and it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living a pleasant life." – Epicurus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

The golden rule can be applied in just about every situation. It does not undermine itself.

What I'm asking you to do is to think through the implications and logical conclusions of what it is you believe.

If that is too deep, a place you prefer not to go --

I understand. And I don't blame you.

Believers choose to implement and maintain hard beliefs. Non believers largely do not. The things that I suppose to be true I have studied and placed in an order of their likelihood for being physically true based on that which can be observed to be true. For example, controlled flight, so long deemed an impossibility for humans to accomplish, I consider to be indeed fully plausible. The result of having flown many times personally. The ability of reindeer or corpses to attain controlled flight, on the other hand, rank well down the list of things which are plausible.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 64 by Tired of the Nonsense]

You seem unwilling, incapable -- or both -- of addressing the question I put before you.

Perhaps I have not made myself clear enough. I shall try again.

Let's say you're right.

Let's say nothing exists but matter-energy. There is no Designer, no Mind, no Intelligence, no God that created this universe. Merely energy, ever-changing, ever combining into novel and more complex forms.

With regard to the slaughter of the Canaanites:

what of it? A primitive people thought their "god" told them to do it.

They were wrong. What actually "told them to do it" was the pattern that energy had changed into, at that precise juncture of time and space.

Is that not correct? Is there anything else that could have caused such a slaughter? Any slaughter?

Sometimes energy takes on the form of a mother nursing a child. Sometimes, of baking -- and breaking -- bread. Sometimes, of gangs involved in a shoot out, or sexually assaulting a female jogger in a park.

What of it?

It's just energy, doing its thing -- right? What else could it be?

So -- energy has settled into a pattern of civilizations and laws and customs and traditions, on one tiny little blue planet.

What of it?

And it often settles into patterns of one culture attempting to conquer another, often at great cost in terms of destruction of life and property.

What of it?

Is there any explanation for any of it, other than "energy takes many ever-changing forms"?

You say a person who comes to the conclusion that, since they have but one brief period of consciousness and integration and animation, they're going to grab every pleasure they can, and the interests of other bags of chemicals be "damned" (LOL -- get it? ) , is a "psychopath" (or maybe just a "sociopath"?).

What of it?

You don't say, but perhaps would concur, that someone who is friendly, accommodating, works for the "good" of others and of society (we'll ignore the definitional dilemmas with that word for now), and is untroubled by the fact that energy is all that is, and they will, soon enough, "disappear" forever; not "without a trace", but as the inert trace elements of which they are composed --

Perhaps you'd concur that such a person is a "good " person.

What of it?

In the final analysis, what is the difference between such person and a Hitler or Stalin or Borgia? Does the universe care, or see any difference between them? Does energy?

Perhaps an asteroid the size of Mt. Everest will hit the Earth 100 years from now, and forever end such wool-gathering contemplations as this one, and the others that are the topics on this site.

What of it?

What can we say, other than "energy has expressed itself in a new combination", or "form". Maybe a better, or at least quieter, one?

In other words:

If you are right, and all that exists is energy-matter --

What of it?

What does it matter?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Volbrigade]

You seem unwilling, incapable -- or both -- of addressing the question I put before you.

Perhaps I have not made myself clear enough. I shall try again.

Let's say you're right.

Let's say nothing exists but matter-energy. There is no Designer, no Mind, no Intelligence, no God that created this universe. Merely energy, ever-changing, ever combining into novel and more complex forms.

With regard to the slaughter of the Canaanites:

what of it? A primitive people thought their "god" told them to do it.

They were wrong. What actually "told them to do it" was the pattern that energy had changed into, at that precise juncture of time and space.

Is that not correct? Is there anything else that could have caused such a slaughter? Any slaughter?

I actually addressed this point when I pointed out that human beings are societal creatures by nature, and there are many and very distinct survival advantages to be found in living in groups that offer mutual care and communal protection. The only way this can occur is if most members of a society subscribe to some form of a universally understood moral code. And the oldest and most universal moral code of them all is the golden rule.

If the moral prohibition against mass murder can be rationalized away as a national necessity in regards to a particular group, then the moral prohibition against mass murder can be rationalized away as a necessity in regards to ANY group. Because what goes around so very often comes around. As the Jews discovered during WW2.

So when a primitive ancient people declares that their God has commanded them to commit mass murder, they fall back on their ignorant ancient religious beliefs to justify what they surely knew was an act of abomination. Read the details of the extremes that the Israeli soldiers were required to go through before they could even be allow to returned to the main group:

Numbers 31:
[19] And do ye abide without the camp seven days: whosoever hath killed any person, and whosoever hath touched any slain, purify both yourselves and your captives on the third day, and on the seventh day.
[20] And purify all your raiment, and all that is made of skins, and all work of goats' hair, and all things made of wood.
[21] And Eleazar the priest said unto the men of war which went to the battle, This is the ordinance of the law which the LORD commanded Moses;
[22] Only the gold, and the silver, the brass, the iron, the tin, and the lead,
[23] Every thing that may abide the fire, ye shall make it go through the fire, and it shall be clean: nevertheless it shall be purified with the water of separation: and all that abideth not the fire ye shall make go through the water.
[24] And ye shall wash your clothes on the seventh day, and ye shall be clean, and afterward ye shall come into the camp.

Clearly they knew that what they had done was monstrous. The sort of monstrous act which required special cleansing rituals to counteract. How the soldiers got the memory of the terrible things that they had done out of their memories is beyond my understanding. Because the little children that I disemboweled and beheaded could just as easily have been my own children being beheaded and disemboweled under different circumstances.

Why did the Jews act in such an inhuman manner? Because they wanted the land, and they didn't want to have to deal with any reprisals later. They wanted what others possessed. And they justified their action by declaring that their God demanded it. They appealed to their own tribal ignorance. An ignorance so strong and pervasive that people even today are still attempting to justify their horrific actions.

Sometimes energy takes on the form of a mother nursing a child. Sometimes, of baking -- and breaking -- bread. Sometimes, of gangs involved in a shoot out, or sexually assaulting a female jogger in a park.

What of it?

It's just energy, doing its thing -- right? What else could it be?

True. The events you describe are simply events. Condoning them as as good, or condemning them as bad, is a consensus opinion established by the society at large. For example, slavery is overwhelmingly considered to be morally wrong today, and it is not permitted by most societies. But for the overwhelming majority of human history, slavery was just a fact of life. If your side won the battle, your side claimed the spoils. And defeated people were spoils. But it has become apparent to modern people that under the right circumstance ANYONE could be made into a slave. And so in modern times we have declared slavery to be an affront to all of humanity. And it is no longer tolerated. But slavery itself did not change. Whether it occurs or not is simply an event. It's the consensus opinion of the society at large which has changed.

Is there any explanation for any of it, other than "energy takes many ever-changing forms"?

Humans are motivated to find ways to live in comfort and happiness. That is the underlying explanation for most of the things that humans do. The disparate amount of resources which people possess to render themselves comfortable and happy accounts for much of the conflict in the world. Conflicting ignorant belief systems accounts for the rest.

You say a person who comes to the conclusion that, since they have but one brief period of consciousness and integration and animation, they're going to grab every pleasure they can, and the interests of other bags of chemicals be "damned" (LOL -- get it? Cool ) , is a "psychopath" (or maybe just a "sociopath"?).

What of it?

Hard core sociopaths often tend to end up deprived of their freedom. Or worse. So there is a good deal of motivation to work within the system to achieve one's goals and desires. Some break the rules and get away with it. This is undeniable. I followed the rules all of my life, and I have now settled into a comfortable retirement. The system has worked for me. Most of my closest friends followed the same path, and have had the same results.

The bottom line is, we all have a brief period of sentient consciousness, yes. What we do with this time of sentient consciousness is up to us, although the circumstances we were born into play a large part as well. Once our consciousness has ended, we will no longer have any concerns one way or the other. I am content that I have used my period of sentient consciousness in making my best effort to understand what this whole business of existence is all about. Once I die it will no longer matter to me. But what I have discovered is that the universe and I are one. I am made of the same protons, neutrons and electrons that make up stars and planets. I am in every real way the universe attempting to contemplate itself. And I find understanding that has made my time of sentient consciousness worthwhile. At least to me.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 66 by Tired of the Nonsense]

The bottom line is, we all have a brief period of sentient consciousness, yes. What we do with this time of sentient consciousness is up to us, although the circumstances we were born into play a large part as well. Once our consciousness has ended, we will no longer have any concerns one way or the other. I am content that I have used my period of sentient consciousness in making my best effort to understand what this whole business of existence is all about. Once I die it will no longer matter to me. But what I have discovered is that the universe and I are one. I am made of the same protons, neutrons and electrons that make up stars and planets. I am in every real way the universe attempting to contemplate itself. And I find understanding that has made my time of sentient consciousness worthwhile. At least to me.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

It is one I might've written myself, 25 years or so ago. 30... (absent the "retired" part, mentioned earlier. ).

All due respect, but I think -- based on your responses -- the answer to

If you are right, and all that exists is energy-matter --

What of it?

What does it matter?

is:

It doesn't.

That's not good enough for me.

Fortunately, the reality is that matter-energy is NOT all that exists.

And every square inch of our universe is fraught with -- not just the mindless writhings of matter -- but with profound meaning.

Our morality is not based on some "consensus" (thank God), but on standards that are imparted by our Creator, and imbued within us. And the rights we have as human beings are not fictional privileges, dreamed up by philosophers, and accorded or withheld at the pleasure of whoever has the most arms; but the inalienable gift of our Creator, and which cannot be legitimately taken away by men; though there is a constant struggle, occasionally armed and violent, to resist the illegitimate taking of them by evil men.

How drearily impoverished my worldview was, when I accepted my materialist programming.

How gloriously rich it is, now that I have encountered the Truth. And that truth is a Person, with a name: Jesus Christ.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Volbrigade]

What does it matter?

It doesn't.

That's not good enough for me.

Meaning is something each of us will have to endeavour to discover for ourselves. I certainly have never implied that I consider my life to be meaningless. But meaningful as opposed to what?

On his deathbed, the Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe reputedly said, "Let me not seem to have lived in vain." After his death Tyco's observations of the movements of the planets allowed German mathematician Johannes Kepler to make very accurate computations of the movements of the planets for the first time which are known as Kepler's laws of planetary motion. Whether Tyco Brahe, or any of us lived in vain is a matter of opinion. I am satisfied with my own life, even though I didn't grow up to be Roy Rodger's as originally planned. .

Fortunately, the reality is that matter-energy is NOT all that exists.

And every square inch of our universe is fraught with -- not just the mindless writhings of matter -- but with profound meaning.

Who exactly determines what represents meaning? Each of us finds meaning in his or her own way. If believing in make believe provides one's life with meaning then, then their life has meaning to them. They only encounter a problem when they attempt to peddle their vision of meaning to others, and then only offer unrealistic claims, unfounded assumptions, and unbelievable stories as a basis for their allegations. Because in the marketplace of ideas, only physically establishable facts actually count for anything.

Our morality is not based on some "consensus" (thank God), but on standards that are imparted by our Creator, and imbued within us. And the rights we have as human beings are not fictional privileges, dreamed up by philosophers, and accorded or withheld at the pleasure of whoever has the most arms; but the inalienable gift of our Creator, and which cannot be legitimately taken away by men; though there is a constant struggle, occasionally armed and violent, to resist the illegitimate taking of them by evil men.

Your morality is based on the Bible, which declares, among other things, that there are times when it is not only permissible but actually necessary to disembowel and behead children and babies. Your morality also includes accepting slavery as morally right. My own morality rejects such things out of hand, because I would not want such things done to me and my family. Does that mean that I have a higher moral standard then you do? You have made it clear that you accept that there are times when it may be necessary to kill children and babies, and to commit mass murder. I reject such claims utterly. So, yes, I am afraid it does.

Jesus died 2,000 ago by the way. And despite all claims to the contrary, the physically establishable fact is, he is still dead. Much like everyone else who lived 2,000 years ago.

Here is a video with Neil deGrasse Tyson which covers some of the very points that we have been discussing. It's 10 minutes long. Perhaps he can explain things more clearly than I have.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 68 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Volbrigade wrote:


What does it matter?

It doesn't.

That's not good enough for me.

Meaning is something each of us will have to endeavour to discover for ourselves. I certainly have never implied that I consider my life to be meaningless. But meaningful as opposed to what?

I consider your life to be meaningful, too. That's because I believe you, I, and everything else is a creation of God. "And God so loved the world..."?

It is "meaningful", as opposed to being a mere random dance of atoms, which produces nothing other than "change".

On his deathbed, the Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe reputedly said, "Let me not seem to have lived in vain." After his death Tyco's observations of the movements of the planets allowed German mathematician Johannes Kepler to make very accurate computations of the movements of the planets for the first time which are known as Kepler's laws of planetary motion. Whether Tyco Brahe, or any of us lived in vain is a matter of opinion. I am satisfied with my own life, even though I didn't grow up to be Roy Rodger's as originally planned. .

I'm glad you are. And I think the story you recount is wonderful (Kepler, btw, was a Creationsit -- fwiw). And fraught with meaning. Because "God so loved the world...", and all the rest of it.

But if all we are -- if all anything, and everything is -- is a fluctuating quantum fog (is that the term you used?), then that wonderful story has precisely as much meaning or value as the story of Jeffrey Dahmer.

Which is absurd.

And, blessedly --not true.

Volbrigade wrote:

Fortunately, the reality is that matter-energy is NOT all that exists.

And every square inch of our universe is fraught with -- not just the mindless writhings of matter -- but with profound meaning.

Who exactly determines what represents meaning? Each of us finds meaning in his or her own way. If believing in make believe provides one's life with meaning then, then their life has meaning to them. They only encounter a problem when they attempt to peddle their vision of meaning to others, and then only offer unrealistic claims, unfounded assumptions, and unbelievable stories as a basis for their allegations. Because in the marketplace of ideas, only physically establishable facts actually count for anything.

No, my friend. Only the TRUTH counts for anything.

And the truth is, either this reality we inhabit is imbued with meaning by the Infinite Mind that created it: or it is a mindless, meaningless dance of atoms.

And in your heart of hearts, I think that while you are not prepared to accept the former; you can't accept the latter, either. Or at least, you cannot live your life by it. Without making up some personal "meaning" for it.

You know what that's called?

"Make believe."

I believe the former. And I believe the totality of the evidence -- empirical, as well as circumstantial -- points to its truth. Conclusively.

Volbrigade wrote:

Our morality is not based on some "consensus" (thank God), but on standards that are imparted by our Creator, and imbued within us. And the rights we have as human beings are not fictional privileges, dreamed up by philosophers, and accorded or withheld at the pleasure of whoever has the most arms; but the inalienable gift of our Creator, and which cannot be legitimately taken away by men; though there is a constant struggle, occasionally armed and violent, to resist the illegitimate taking of them by evil men.

Your morality is based on the Bible, which declares, among other things, that there are times when it is not only permissible but actually necessary to disembowel and behead children and babies. Your morality also includes accepting slavery as morally right. My own morality rejects such things out of hand, because I would not want such things done to me and my family. Does that mean that I have a higher moral standard then you do? You have made it clear that you accept that there are times when it may be necessary to kill children and babies, and to commit mass murder. I reject such claims utterly. So, yes, I am afraid it does.

Well, your morality is based on "constantly changing energy", which makes no discernment between Mother Theresa and Adolf Hitler. So I don't see where you have standing to disparage "my" morality, Biblical morality, or John Wayne Gacy's morality. They are all simply what energy produces, under different and changing circumstances, the way it randomly put a living cell together. Blessed be the quantum cloud.

I was at this website recently, for info to answer a request by Z. I came across this, which addresses your often-voiced complaint about God's commands re the Canaanites. I agree 100% with it:

Genocide and war crimes?

Wars between people groups dominate ancient history, so it shouldn’t surprise us that the Old Testament records a lot of wars. But some skeptics object to some of the commands God gave for the Israelite’s conquest of the Promised Land, i.e. Canaan.

Probably the most cited ‘atrocity’ is the Lord’s command to destroy the Amalekites totally, including their women, children, and property. However, God commanded their destruction because they had opposed Israel when they came up out of Egypt. Deuteronomy says, “Remember what Amalek did to you as you came out of Egypt, how he attacked you on the way when you were faint and weary, and cut off your tail, those who were lagging behind you, and he did not fear God� (Deuteronomy 25:17–18, 1 Samuel 15:2–3). God swore that He would utterly destroy them (Exodus 17). They were going to be driven out of the Promised Land and replaced by Israel because of their sins—which included heinous immorality and child sacrifice. This was God’s judgment against them—Israel was merely God’s agent for that judgment—and so Israel was to destroy everything completely and not take any of it for themselves. When Saul and his army spared King Agag and took some livestock, it was such a serious offence that God in turn judged Saul and permanently removed His favour from him (1 Samuel 15 ff.). In fact, some Amalekites were left in other locations—David defeated a raiding party of Amalekites in 1 Samuel 30.

God’s action against the Amalekites is only immoral to those who do not recognize God’s right to judge the people He created when they rebel against Him. God has the right to deal with His creations the way He chooses (people said to be ‘playing God’ usurp these privileges). In fact, God warned the Israelites that if they practised the abominations of the Canaanites, they would be driven out of the land as well (Deuteronomy 29:18–28).

http://creation.com/god-moral-monster

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Volbrigade]

I consider your life to be meaningful, too. That's because I believe you, I, and everything else is a creation of God. "And God so loved the world..."?

It is "meaningful", as opposed to being a mere random dance of atoms, which produces nothing other than "change".

And if you were to discover unequivocally that life really is nothing more, essentially, than "a mere random dance of atoms" produced by change, in what physical way would your life be different?

I'm glad you are. And I think the story you recount is wonderful (Kepler, btw, was a Creationsit -- fwiw). And fraught with meaning. Because "God so loved the world...", and all the rest of it.

Most of the early scientists were devoted believers. They were not attempting to disprove God, because they had no idea whatsoever that any such thing was even remotely possible. And then we passed through the 20th century, and scientists have come to realize that the universe is completely explainable without resorting to a belief in the supernatural. I suspect it will take the rest of this century before such an understanding will have become commonly understood and accepted by the general public.

But if all we are -- if all anything, and everything is -- is a fluctuating quantum fog (is that the term you used?), then that wonderful story has precisely as much meaning or value as the story of Jeffrey Dahmer.

Which is absurd.

And, blessedly --not true.

Unfortunately the story of Jeffrey Dahmer IS true. Dahmer is one of those psychopaths that we discussed earlier. Did you know that Dahmer was a baptized Christian? Society decided that it's concept of morality took precedent over Jeffrey Dahmer's concept of morality, and Jeffrey Dahmer walks among us no more.

No, my friend. Only the TRUTH counts for anything.

This I agree with 100%. Physically establishable facts and the truth are inevitably found to go hand in hand I am afraid. As opposed to make it up and declare it to be true. Make it up and declare it to be true does produce mighty interesting fiction, however.

And the truth is, either this reality we inhabit is imbued with meaning by the Infinite Mind that created it: or it is a mindless, meaningless dance of atoms.

Again, "meaningless" is a matter of opinion and perspective.

And in your heart of hearts, I think that while you are not prepared to accept the former; you can't accept the latter, either. Or at least, you cannot live your life by it. Without making up some personal "meaning" for it.

I was raised Christian, and believed in it entirely... until I came to realize just how silly the various claims were. And then I left it behind.

I believe the former. And I believe the totality of the evidence -- empirical, as well as circumstantial -- points to its truth. Conclusively.

If you had any actual physical evidence I believe that you would have presented it by now.

Well, your morality is based on "constantly changing energy", which makes no discernment between Mother Theresa and Adolf Hitler. So I don't see where you have standing to disparage "my" morality, Biblical morality, or John Wayne Gacy's morality. They are all simply what energy produces, under different and changing circumstances, the way it randomly put a living cell together. Blessed be the quantum cloud.

A society's morality is based on popular opinion. Our society has reached the popular opinion that slavery is immoral (and I agree). Slavery was simply a fact of life for most of human history. Currently our society is struggling with the moral question of abortion. There is no overwhelming majority opinion on abortion. But you see, slavery and abortions are simply events. They either occur, or they do not. The universe at large has no opinion on human events one way or the other. Because the universe is indifferent one way or the other. Because morality is an opinion, and the universe has no opinions.

I was at this website recently, for info to answer a request by Z. I came across this, which addresses your often-voiced complaint about God's commands re the Canaanites. I agree 100% with it:

Quote:
Genocide and war crimes?

Wars between people groups dominate ancient history, so it shouldn’t surprise us that the Old Testament records a lot of wars. But some skeptics object to some of the commands God gave for the Israelite’s conquest of the Promised Land, i.e. Canaan.

Probably the most cited ‘atrocity’ is the Lord’s command to destroy the Amalekites totally, including their women, children, and property. However, God commanded their destruction because they had opposed Israel when they came up out of Egypt. Deuteronomy says, “Remember what Amalek did to you as you came out of Egypt, how he attacked you on the way when you were faint and weary, and cut off your tail, those who were lagging behind you, and he did not fear God� (Deuteronomy 25:17–18, 1 Samuel 15:2–3). God swore that He would utterly destroy them (Exodus 17). They were going to be driven out of the Promised Land and replaced by Israel because of their sins—which included heinous immorality and child sacrifice. This was God’s judgment against them—Israel was merely God’s agent for that judgment—and so Israel was to destroy everything completely and not take any of it for themselves. When Saul and his army spared King Agag and took some livestock, it was such a serious offence that God in turn judged Saul and permanently removed His favour from him (1 Samuel 15 ff.). In fact, some Amalekites were left in other locations—David defeated a raiding party of Amalekites in 1 Samuel 30.

God’s action against the Amalekites is only immoral to those who do not recognize God’s right to judge the people He created when they rebel against Him. God has the right to deal with His creations the way He chooses (people said to be ‘playing God’ usurp these privileges). In fact, God warned the Israelites that if they practised the abominations of the Canaanites, they would be driven out of the land as well (Deuteronomy 29:18–28).

http://creation.com/god-moral-monster

Here is an (hypothetical) example of one of the vile abominable creatures that rebelled against God. OFF WITH IT'S HEAD!


According to the Bible God ordered the deaths of all of the vanquished enemy, right down to the newborn babies. You are now openly seeking to justify the violent killing of hundreds of helpless children and babies. In a contest of right and wrong, moral verses immoral it would seem that I need only rest my case right here. Anyone who can seek to justify the premeditated cold blooded hacking deaths of babies and children by the hundreds has entirely vacated the moral high ground and has no claim on the concept of morality. If Christians choose to claim that the passages in the Bible that describes such actions were righteous and justified, then Christianity is morally bankrupt and should be abandoned as quickly as possible.

So let us put this question before the court of popular opinion.

QUESTION:
Which person would you consider to be morally superior, a person who can contrive reasons why beheading and disemboweling children and babies might, from time to time, be necessary, or a person who rejects such actions utterly?

If we asked this question of a thousand people at random, in whose favor do you suppose the results would prove to be?