Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
ellapenella

Communism , Totalitarianism & Atheism

423 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Doug1029
On 2/26/2019 at 11:10 AM, RabidMongoose said:

Just out of interest can I ask how many of you atheists here are Communisms or Socialists?

I am an agnostic, rather than an atheist.  After having spent years looking for god, I have given up and am waiting for divine inspiration, if there is such a thing.

I frequently end up arguing the "socialist" side of politics because so many people out there who dearly love the results of American socialism, steadfastly hate the name.  Most don't even know what it is and would not even notice businesses converting to the socialist model.  However, many ideas espoused by socialists that have nothing to do with socialism would nevertheless be beneficial.  Examples would include the 8-hour workday with overtime pay for putting in more than 8 hours; limiting the number of passengers that buses or ships can carry; fire codes that require adequate evacuation procedures; and laws that restrict storage and transport of hazardous materials; minimum wages; occupational safety and health regulations; etc.

So far, AOC has not proposed anything that would not fit under the heading of capitalism.  What she and other American socialists are trying to do is save capitalism by making it more humane and keeping it from becoming predatory.  On its current coarse, it is headed for revolt.  Grab the pitchforks!  Citizens to arms!  Man the barricades!

Doug

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
20 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Tatetopa:

Is Tatetopa a Pawnee name, by any chance?

Doug

Good guess. I think the Pawnee and many plains people use it as well.   It is Lakota. It is the four wind brothers and the four directions. It is a song sung early in most Lakota sweat lodges to call the four directions and remember we are all relatives.   It is a better representation of my philosophy than the Christian tradition of my upbringing.  TMI sorry.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
22 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

I frequently end up arguing the "socialist" side of politics because so many people out there who dearly love the results of American socialism, steadfastly hate the name.  Most don't even know what it is and would not even notice businesses converting to the socialist model.

People hating titles without even a basic understanding of their definitions will never cease to amaze me...

a558694.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa

A  question about some of the interesting discussions on this thread.. 

Can you be free if you are  following the dictates of an absolute tyrant who formulated his directives long ago without consulting any he purports to govern?  Can you be free when the tyrant holds over you the promise absolute joy for obeying and the threat infinite pain for a finite number of transgressions if you disobey?  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Good guess. I think the Pawnee and many plains people use it as well.   It is Lakota. It is the four wind brothers and the four directions. It is a song sung early in most Lakota sweat lodges to call the four directions and remember we are all relatives.   It is a better representation of my philosophy than the Christian tradition of my upbringing.  TMI sorry.

I have a friend, Mike Pahsetopa, who is Pawnee.  He is a professional dancer, as are his entire family.  He is the only native American to have danced at the top of the Eiffel Tower.  Pawnee, Oklahoma hosts the Pawnee Bill Wild West Show every year, the only Wild West show still performing.  Mike volunteers his time for it and presents the native American viewpoint on Oklahoma/American history.  It's an excellent show and his is an excellent program.  The show is in June at the grounds where the show had its original winter home.  Well worth the time if you're in the area.

 

There was a chief (?) named Black Hawk of the Sans Arc Lakota who provided the only documentary evidence for the massive snow storm of 1881.  He is referenced in quite a few historical and weather/climate-related papers.

Doug

Edited by Doug1029
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
On 3/7/2019 at 7:36 PM, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I don’t know. You seem to take longer and longer in answering them. 

Because I am putting more thought and effort into the reply.  I’m trying to take your query seriously.  And the reply unfortunately gets longer and longer and editing takes longer.  I don’t know if I want to carry it any further??  I’m getting the sense that over half of what I write is not registering with you anyway.  It’s a good thing that I’m writing for myself.

 

I don’t get how it can be a ‘it depends ‘ Kind of answer. The way I see it going either believe it I don’t.

It depends on how serious you take it.  Already you seem to have a closed mind.  So I need to say something in a way you are not expecting that will get you to think.  All it takes is to look at something in a different light.

 

 I’m on my phone, so it seems like the posts are worded and numbered differently.

I hate working on a post on my phone.  It was posted on the 26 Feb and you replied to it:

But, I don’t think you did.

 

Yes, I did.  You just didn’t understand it.  Your mind prevents you from doing so.  I know, you don’t think that’s good enough.  That’s another reason this just grows and grows.

 

 It just seems you implied that  I didn’t know right from wrong, but had to put in your reasoning to make it sound A little bit innocent in your presentation. 

 

There’s several ways to look at it.  I haven’t decided on which approach would be better?  Yes, you know right from wrong but you really do not understand where that knowledge comes from.  You are sure you do, but you don’t and I have explained why.  One of your statements “My morals come from knowing what is right and what is wrong by being taught  by secular  parents” leaves something out.  Where did your parents learn right from wrong?  You go back far enough and you will find GOD there.

 

I was hoping for a yes or no answer. I thought it was that simple. 

If I gave a yes or no answer, you wouldn’t have understood it.  But I did answer that.  And I’ll say it again “YES!”  But that doesn’t help you much because it really doesn’t answer your question.  It probably leaves you more confused than before??

 

My  Point was, that it doesn’t take me as long.

That’s you.  I’m exploring different ways of explaining it.  So I try to be careful with my words, which evidently, I am failing miserably.  At least, I think you are being patient with me??

 

 I’m looking for your point of view.  

So do you want my pov or do you want a yes/no answer?

 

I’m not actually wanting to know about who did.  For example, if you believe the Bible was written entirely by God, how can you prove that is true. 

If you just want a yes/no answer, then you don’t want proof.  There would be no proof that you would be satisfied with.  GOD could come to your door and tell you that he wrote the Bible and you would say, “how do I know that and who are you?”  There are just some proofs that are beyond this realm.  Several centuries ago, if I tried to tell you that invisible particles I call atoms clump together to form objects, you wouldn’t believe me.  There would be no proof.  But I think you are under the wrong impression here.  I’m not trying to prove anything.  I don’t need to.  The one thing I do see is that you don’t understand (you’re seeking).  I will do my best to explain it.  I don’t care if you believe but I do insist that you understand it.  Again, understanding does not translate to believing.

 

 OK, here’s the thing. The Bible Was written a long time ago when society was a lot different. I don’t see it as something being true for today’s society. 

Why not?  Why isn’t it still for today’s society?  True, times change but human nature does not.  The Bible is a history of and user guide for human frailty and strength.  That hasn’t changed since the first human.

 

If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?

 

This still seems very true for today.

 

 I don’t believe the Bible should be pushed on everyone,

I agree.  I don’t think the Bible or any faith should be pushed on anyone.  Faith is by invitation only.  People should share their faith, not force it on anyone.  True, history has not abided by that and it has resulted in a mixed bag both positive and negative.  Both of us are results of that.

 

especially when contradicts a lot of things of today’s world.  My feelings on that. 

What contradictions?  Are they meaningful?

 

No, it isn’t. 

From here

You present a definition.  One that does not counter that your pov is a claim.  I don’t see how this matters here?  This is a minor issue.

 

 That’s not the same as a point of view or opinion. 

Making your opinion known is a claim.

 

  The links and sources still would back up your claims. I like to find more than one site that shows the same claim, just to show where I get the information. 

Not necessarily.  If you don’t believe or understand the sources, how will it back up my claim?  With the internet, I’m sure you can find multiple sources pro and con.  That doesn’t mean I don’t use sources either.  I believe, I’ve brought up talkorigins and others.  It’s not necessarily for back up, but as an exhibit.

 

 Your claims don’t have to be believed. 

Absolutely not.  My claims/opinions are my pov and no one else’s.  Sometimes I find people that share a few from time to time.

 

 I can’t drop something I’m not doing. 

So we’re now back to you making demands of me to answer you?  Or why I’m not answering fast enough?  I’m not even telling you to drop it, just give me time as I have other things I do.

 

Muscle memory? That’s the first I’ve heard about muscle memory. In fact, that doesn’t make sense.

I guess you are not into sports or preparedness?  Have you ever heard the phrase “Practice makes perfect”?  It makes perfect sense.  If you want to do something well, you practice it repeatedly until it becomes second nature.  And that is what the Israelites did with following the law.  We benefit from that ‘practice’ today.

 

As for being raised in a society  associated with God, what are you really referring to? Are you talking about the laws?  If you are  saying the laws are tied in with God,  where is your proof? 

I’ve talked about this throughout my posts.  Yes, our laws are tied with GOD.  No, not every little statue that we have on the books today, but having the ability to abide by the law, comes from GOD, via those thousands of years of practice by the Israelites.

 

 As far as I know, the laws of the state in this country, are not all tied in to the Christian religion.  

Correct, they don’t have to be.  But most do go back to one form or another of GOD.

 

And there seems to be varying  cultures and other religions mixed in.

I referenced that in another post, perhaps I need to elaborate?  If you look at our Supreme Court Building in Washington, DC, you’ll see two friezes honoring the ‘Lawgivers’ that have influenced our base of laws.  The one thing they have in common is that you can trace the law back to a single source (they are all linked).  As I pointed out about the Flood stories in the TalkOrigins archive.  This is pretty convincing evidence that Man originated from a single culture.  As the populations grew and migrated away, language and religions diverged from the original, but essentially, it remained the same GOD, just different names and traditions.

 

But, being as this country is secular, I don’t think I grew up in a society that stems from one particular higher power.  I believe, it allows the freedom to practice or not to practice A belief.

The government is secular, the nation is Christian.  You grew up in a society that believes that their rights are endowed by their Creator (singular).  This is a combination that allows the freedom to practice your belief as you see fit.

 

 Another thing, how can you prove the practice of doing right and doing wrong comes from an entity that cannot entirely be proven? 

I’m not trying to prove GOD here, but if you have multiple texts all describing the same event, that definitely proves that such an event occurred.  It’s like proving gravity.  You can’t but its affects are well defined.  If we are going to talk about GOD then you need to understand the nature of GOD.  That only makes sense.  GOD may be unprovable to you but he still has characteristics.  And our culture is affected by these characteristics.

 

So, I don’t believe that I learn right from wrong from God, I believe I learned it from  actual people, provable people. 

And again, where did they learn it from?  And where did those learn it from?  It goes all the way back to the Golden Calf.  When GOD was giving Moses, the Ten Commandments, the people were breaking all ten.  GOD knew what they were doing.  People need guidance and without it they stray.  Practice is one way to keep on track.  After 400 years of misery, the collective soul was looking to get right with GOD and they took up the yoke.  By the time of Christ, we had built up calluses such that we no longer needed the yoke.

 

 This explanation of man being the great impersonator, and that we are all practicing the same cycle of laws that supposed to be coming from God doesn’t make sense.  

I was confused why you were using the word ‘impersonator’?  Then I looked and I used it twice!  That is my bad.  That was not the word I intended to use and I don’t know why I was stuck on that word??  It’s just on-set of old age.  I had meant to use the word ‘imitator’.  Man imitates what he sees.  You know, “when in Rome…” or “monkey see, monkey do”.  The law has been burned into our psyche by the collective peoples before us that we do it out of habit now.  I hope that change of word makes it a bit clearer? 

 

Laws differ from country to country, state to state.  They change with the times.  If God is the creator of laws, of morals, of rules, then why isn’t he the one to punish in person? 

Yes, law changes from place to place and time to time but morals stay the same.  Laws are the physical form morals take on.  Before Jesus, he was in the habit of doing so, but now that Jesus has become the Sacrificial Lamb, that punishment won’t come until the afterlife.

 

First, apparently you shouldn’t be putting in references to movies that were likely are not seen by everyone. Yes I have not seen that movie so I don’t get what you’re saying. 

I would think that everyone has seen “The Ten Commandments” with Charleton Heston??  But even if you haven’t, you could still have googled it with just the clues I gave.  I thought you wanted me to use sources?

 

 Second, you’re getting too deep and trying to explain your reasoning.

True.  Because you wanted to know my pov.  This is a subject I delve deeply into. 

 

My morals  do not come from my interpretations.  My morals come from knowing  what is right and what is wrong by being taught  by secular  parents and as I said before buying my experiences. 

Your morals are based on the interpretation of what you think you know.  This is true for everybody.  And again, where did your secular parents learn it from?  If you go back far enough, you will find that it comes from Godly ancestors.

 

 So I think you put an interesting little twist and now answering that I do know right from wrong but trying to tie it to God.  I think that is a very ambiguous link to something  as I have said before, that cannot be entirely proven.

The history of the progression of the law in the body of cultures that have evolved from the beginning is the link.  That was the point of the Flood stories from TalkOrigins.  That is the proof.  We wouldn’t have gotten here without it.

 

   Naw, I don’t see how this can tie in in how I  Learned right from wrong from God. But it seems  Like you’re getting a history lesson.

You learned it through your culture which is based in the belief in GOD.  If you want to understand, then it is a history lesson.

 

 

Here’s the thing, even in your history lesson year God is not seen just mentioned. 

And what does that have to do with anything?  Do lawmakers need to be omnipresent to ensure that their laws are followed?

 

 Like I said, I just can’t see the Tie in. 

The Tie in is that GOD gave Man the law.  Whether it was Brahma giving the Srutis to the Hindu, or Ptah passing the law on to Menes, or Anu establishing the law with Hammurabi, or GOD giving Moses the Ten Commandments.  This event is well recorded.  And this is perhaps the subject of its own thread, but I see all these deities as the same being.  It’s different perceptions of the same account.  Where do we come up with the impression that some god would give us morals?  Don’t you think that some god could have easily said, do what you want!?  I’ll just sit back and do as I please to you without any demands?

 

 Are you trying to tie in our laws to God? Can you prove that?

That is just a given.  But this is also an application of the Anthropic Principle.  If there wasn’t just one Creator then we would be seeing other things.  All the stories of creation involved a God giving the people Morals.  If Gods were creations of Man then there would be a distribution of things other than morals that the Gods gave man.

 

Wordy would be my thoughts on that.  

Well, this is something that isn’t that simple to explain.  I think most people just take it for granted.  They accept it without thinking.  Conversely, those that don’t accept it, also do so without thinking.  Nobody spends the time to understand it.

 

But, as I’ve said before, it seems like you’re tying our laws to God and I think it should be proven hundred percent that that is the case. 

You keep asking the same thing and I try to answer it a little different each time.  This isn’t the realm of science so you are asking for the wrong thing.  If the law was established by man (Man’s morals), then it would have changed wholesale over time.  But the morals we live by today have been unchanged since Moses.

 

 Now, I also decided to do a little checking on the Internet. I first asked if our laws come from God. I can’t find any links to show that they do or do not. I think, that should be saying something. 

It does say something, that your search criteria is incomplete.  The Declaration of Independence clearly states that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights.  Most of the Founding Fathers referred to GOD in one form or another.  If Rights are understood to be of GOD, then so are morals.

 

 Then I found  

This site  Which tells me, if I’m thinking about our own United States laws, that doesn’t seem to be any link to God and religion.

That’s a good secular description of the Constitution, but it doesn’t explore the origins of the Constitution.  The men that wrote it wanted a secular government because they were against an organized religion being established as a state authority.  They were not against religion or a Creator that gave us the concept of law in the first place.  They based our government on that law.

 

 It’s not about me not liking the fact that I’m obeying God’s law,  it’s about not seeing any evidence of it. Your post doesn’t seem to prove it to me. 

It’s right before your eyes and most take it for granted.  Again, if this was an invention of Man, it would have changed regularly over the centuries.    But we’ve had the same set of morals for some 3500 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
8 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
On 3/7/2019 at 9:36 PM, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I don’t know. You seem to take longer and longer in answering them. 

Because I am putting more thought and effort into the reply.  I’m trying to take your query seriously.  And the reply unfortunately gets longer and longer and editing takes longer.  I don’t know if I want to carry it any further??  I’m getting the sense that over half of what I write is not registering with you anyway.  It’s a good thing that I’m writing for myself.

:no: 

Wow!!! 

It's registering, it's just not making sense in today's realities. 

8 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

I don’t get how it can be a ‘it depends ‘ Kind of answer. The way I see it going either believe it I don’t.

 

It depends on how serious you take it.  Already you seem to have a closed mind.  So I need to say something in a way you are not expecting that will get you to think.  All it takes is to look at something in a different light.

This was really something that I expected to be a simple yes or no answer. There was no reason to be something to get someone to think. I think you made a claim, that doesn't make sense. I still think it doesn't make sense. 

Frankly, if it can't be answered with a yes or no answer, then there is a problem in the claim, the way I see it. 

8 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

 I’m on my phone, so it seems like the posts are worded and numbered differently.

 

I hate working on a post on my phone.  It was posted on the 26 Feb and you replied to it:

I was on my phone at the time. I did go back, and yeah, I don't think you did answer it. 

8 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

But, I don’t think you did.

 

Yes, I did.  You just didn’t understand it.  Your mind prevents you from doing so.  I know, you don’t think that’s good enough.  

So, that's your go to answer? My mind prevents me?! Do you have proof of that? I mean, if that is another claim, you'll need to show proof of why my mind does not understand it. 

Frankly, if an answer is going to come out confusing, it probably is not the correct answer. 

Granted, I have a slight learning disability, but the thing is, I have gone on still, all these years in the world, and frankly there is the basic understanding of pretty much everything, and then there is subjective point of views and wordy reasons for why someone thinks something is the way it is. 

Your original claim came off simple. I thought it would be a simple answer. Now that it's not, makes me wonder if your answer is the correct one. 

(But, if you want to have 'my not understanding' as your go to answer, go right ahead. I just not going to accept it as credible)

By the way, let's consider these two things and your claim. My slight learning disability and the less than simple answers being given here. If God wanted everyone to understand, wouldn't he make sure it was easy for everyone on the first try? 

Quote

That’s another reason this just grows and grows.

No, it's not. It's just yes, we both cannot accept what the other has for answers. I myself, thought I was pointing out some good points as to why I think your claim cannot be accepted as true. I can't see how your points make sense in this world. I can stop replying to this, if you want to. But, I still hold the thought, that your claim of God teaches everyone right from wrong, is not a believable claim. 

8 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

 It just seems you implied that  I didn’t know right from wrong, but had to put in your reasoning to make it sound A little bit innocent in your presentation. 

 

There’s several ways to look at it.  I haven’t decided on which approach would be better?  Yes, you know right from wrong but you really do not understand where that knowledge comes from.  You are sure you do, but you don’t and I have explained why.  One of your statements “My morals come from knowing what is right and what is wrong by being taught  by secular  parents” leaves something out.  Where did your parents learn right from wrong?  You go back far enough and you will find GOD there.

Seriously?! If you assume this, (assumption, not showing facts) then maybe you can prove it to be a fact. Until then, you are using assumptions. You want me to believe your claim, you need to do the work. 

And heck, if you want to use that thinking of going back far enough, you could probably link to the Pagan gods, or other such lines of assumptions. Frankly, I would believe more of ancient extraterrestrial astronauts being an influence, from what I have heard, read, and such over the years. Go back far enough, our laws and morals could be from them. Can we prove that they didn't exist? 

You see, we're going on assumption here, and to me, is not a fact. 

Plus, my question was also considering this country, the United States, which is a secular in laws, nation.  Plus, if you want me to 'go back far enough' and I am to assume my own family, then I will tell you, I have not heard any indication they relied heavily in religion. I really think, if their behaviors of knowing right from wrong comes from your point of God and religion,  it would have been linked as such. 

8 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

I was hoping for a yes or no answer. I thought it was that simple. 

 

If I gave a yes or no answer, you wouldn’t have understood it.  But I did answer that.  And I’ll say it again “YES!”  But that doesn’t help you much because it really doesn’t answer your question.  It probably leaves you more confused than before??

Confused as to why you're insisting that's an acceptable answer for me to believe. I guess, I'll will come out and say this, there is no way I can know right from wrong from God, when there is no influence there for me, growing up. What you are doing, I feel, is reaching. I cannot fathom, and understandingly so, why you think so and with the reasoning you used. 

(and again, if you want that as your go to answer, 'I don't understand it' well, again, be my guest. I think you're wrong. And I have understandable reasons as to why I think it's wrong. 

8 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

My  Point was, that it doesn’t take me as long.

 

That’s you.  I’m exploring different ways of explaining it.  So I try to be careful with my words, which evidently, I am failing miserably.  At least, I think you are being patient with me??

Well, I'm being patient with you, in a various amount of ways. And I like to think, we all are being careful with words. I assure you, I do that as well. I would also like to think, we can practice that in a shorter amount of time as well. 

8 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

 I’m looking for your point of view.  

 

So do you want my pov or do you want a yes/no answer?

What is wrong in seeing a yes/no answer within someone's POV? I do believe, I asked the question to your original claim, as a 'do you think?'. I mean, I already set it up as your POV. 

8 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

I’m not actually wanting to know about who did.  For example, if you believe the Bible was written entirely by God, how can you prove that is true. 

 

If you just want a yes/no answer, then you don’t want proof.  There would be no proof that you would be satisfied with.  GOD could come to your door and tell you that he wrote the Bible and you would say, “how do I know that and who are you?”  There are just some proofs that are beyond this realm.  Several centuries ago, if I tried to tell you that invisible particles I call atoms clump together to form objects, you wouldn’t believe me.  There would be no proof.  But I think you are under the wrong impression here.  I’m not trying to prove anything.  I don’t need to.  The one thing I do see is that you don’t understand (you’re seeking).  I will do my best to explain it.  I don’t care if you believe but I do insist that you understand it.  Again, understanding does not translate to believing.

Yeah, I can see you're going to go on my not understanding. And that's your POV. Mine, would be, not understanding why you insist God is the reason people know right from wrong, when there is no evidence of that in everyone when not everyone is raised with any sign of there being a God during their impressible years. 

What I do see with your replies, is that you seem to assume it's there in some far distant link and then carries over. 

And here's the thing, I'm implying that my question to you deals with this country, the United States. (Considering this thread started as on the topics of nation's governments) How can you link how this country one hundred percent this countries rules and laws is directly from God and his rules and laws? Were not the founders, all different believers, trying to keep it secular when they founded this country? And because of that, and it's subjects taking advantage of this, (as it their right), I would think this is how far back we probably should go and I see that the link is not there. 

9 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

 OK, here’s the thing. The Bible Was written a long time ago when society was a lot different. I don’t see it as something being true for today’s society. 

 

Why not?  Why isn’t it still for today’s society?  True, times change but human nature does not.  The Bible is a history of and user guide for human frailty and strength.  That hasn’t changed since the first human.

 

If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?

 

This still seems very true for today.

The bible never was for me, in my experience as being raised in this country. And history was learned by books, that are not the bible. If it's a user guide, then wouldn't it be law to be taught on everyone? I know, the bible was never used in the school systems in my childhood. I never saw it being used by anyone in my life growing up. So, I cannot see it how you think so as a basis for everyone. 

9 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

 I don’t believe the Bible should be pushed on everyone,

 

I agree.  I don’t think the Bible or any faith should be pushed on anyone.  Faith is by invitation only.  People should share their faith, not force it on anyone.  True, history has not abided by that and it has resulted in a mixed bag both positive and negative.  Both of us are results of that.

That's a vague answer. 

9 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

especially when contradicts a lot of things of today’s world.  My feelings on that. 

 

What contradictions?  Are they meaningful?

Yes, this is what I am noticing from those who have read the bible. Granted, I'm going with hearsay, but I do hear it a lot and see why those who point it out think so. 

9 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

No, it isn’t. 

From here

 

You present a definition.  One that does not counter that your pov is a claim.  I don’t see how this matters here?  This is a minor issue.

Well, you made the reply that my opinion was a claim, and I disagree. I can't fathom how you think it was. 

9 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

 That’s not the same as a point of view or opinion. 

 

Making your opinion known is a claim.

Not for everyone, just for me. So, it stops being a claim, when it's being presented in an objective manner. 

9 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

  The links and sources still would back up your claims. I like to find more than one site that shows the same claim, just to show where I get the information. 

 

Not necessarily.  If you don’t believe or understand the sources, how will it back up my claim?  With the internet, I’m sure you can find multiple sources pro and con.  That doesn’t mean I don’t use sources either.  I believe, I’ve brought up talkorigins and others.  It’s not necessarily for back up, but as an exhibit.

Which seems to not work in presenting your points. To prove that you present proof, is to show that proof. If you're going halfway, then don't expect to be believed. 

9 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

 Your claims don’t have to be believed. 

 

Absolutely not.  My claims/opinions are my pov and no one else’s.  Sometimes I find people that share a few from time to time.

OK, you see that. But, do you realize why I don't believe you? And if you don't, I'm going to assume you see you can't change my why I don't, if you don't do the work. 

9 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

 I can’t drop something I’m not doing. 

 

So we’re now back to you making demands of me to answer you?  Or why I’m not answering fast enough?  I’m not even telling you to drop it, just give me time as I have other things I do.

Uh, you made a claim in how I'm replying to you. That's my answer to you to say, I wasn't answering in the way you are claiming. 

9 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

Muscle memory? That’s the first I’ve heard about muscle memory. In fact, that doesn’t make sense.

 

I guess you are not into sports or preparedness?  Have you ever heard the phrase “Practice makes perfect”?  It makes perfect sense.  If you want to do something well, you practice it repeatedly until it becomes second nature.  And that is what the Israelites did with following the law.  We benefit from that ‘practice’ today.

I really don't think the two compare. You're right, in that I don't do sports, but I do practice preparedness, which is not exclusive to sports. 

And, I see there is a difference. 

9 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

As for being raised in a society  associated with God, what are you really referring to? Are you talking about the laws?  If you are  saying the laws are tied in with God,  where is your proof? 

 

I’ve talked about this throughout my posts.  Yes, our laws are tied with GOD.  No, not every little statue that we have on the books today, but having the ability to abide by the law, comes from GOD, via those thousands of years of practice by the Israelites.

By a culture of people, from the past, and not this country, which is the country I'm talking about. I think it's reaching to use this as proof. 

9 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

 As far as I know, the laws of the state in this country, are not all tied in to the Christian religion.  

 

Correct, they don’t have to be.  But most do go back to one form or another of GOD.

Then if that is your claim, show sources, links, and such to show it. If not, I can't see it. It's your claim, you do the work. 

9 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

And there seems to be varying  cultures and other religions mixed in.

 

I referenced that in another post, perhaps I need to elaborate?  If you look at our Supreme Court Building in Washington, DC, you’ll see two friezes honoring the ‘Lawgivers’ that have influenced our base of laws.  The one thing they have in common is that you can trace the law back to a single source (they are all linked).  As I pointed out about the Flood stories in the TalkOrigins archive.  This is pretty convincing evidence that Man originated from a single culture.  As the populations grew and migrated away, language and religions diverged from the original, but essentially, it remained the same GOD, just different names and traditions.

This is pretty much convincing evidence? Is this conjecture? Do you have sources to show it? 

How can you be assured that it really turned out they way you are saying here? 

9 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

he government is secular, the nation is Christian.  You grew up in a society that believes that their rights are endowed by their Creator (singular).  This is a combination that allows the freedom to practice your belief as you see fit.

I’m not trying to prove GOD here, but if you have multiple texts all describing the same event, that definitely proves that such an event occurred.  It’s like proving gravity.  You can’t but its affects are well defined.  If we are going to talk about GOD then you need to understand the nature of GOD.  That only makes sense.  GOD may be unprovable to you but he still has characteristics.  And our culture is affected by these characteristics.

 

And again, where did they learn it from?  And where did those learn it from?  It goes all the way back to the Golden Calf.  When GOD was giving Moses, the Ten Commandments, the people were breaking all ten.  GOD knew what they were doing.  People need guidance and without it they stray.  Practice is one way to keep on track.  After 400 years of misery, the collective soul was looking to get right with GOD and they took up the yoke.  By the time of Christ, we had built up calluses such that we no longer needed the yoke.

 

 

 

I was confused why you were using the word ‘impersonator’?  Then I looked and I used it twice!  That is my bad.  That was not the word I intended to use and I don’t know why I was stuck on that word??  It’s just on-set of old age.  I had meant to use the word ‘imitator’.  Man imitates what he sees.  You know, “when in Rome…” or “monkey see, monkey do”.  The law has been burned into our psyche by the collective peoples before us that we do it out of habit now.  I hope that change of word makes it a bit clearer? 

 

 

Yes, law changes from place to place and time to time but morals stay the same.  Laws are the physical form morals take on.  Before Jesus, he was in the habit of doing so, but now that Jesus has become the Sacrificial Lamb, that punishment won’t come until the afterlife.

 

 

I would think that everyone has seen “The Ten Commandments” with Charleton Heston??  But even if you haven’t, you could still have googled it with just the clues I gave.  I thought you wanted me to use sources?

 

 

 

True.  Because you wanted to know my pov.  This is a subject I delve deeply into. 

 

 

 

Your morals are based on the interpretation of what you think you know.  This is true for everybody.  And again, where did your secular parents learn it from?  If you go back far enough, you will find that it comes from Godly ancestors.

 

 

 

The history of the progression of the law in the body of cultures that have evolved from the beginning is the link.  That was the point of the Flood stories from TalkOrigins.  That is the proof.  We wouldn’t have gotten here without it.

 

 

 

You learned it through your culture which is based in the belief in GOD.  If you want to understand, then it is a history lesson.

 

 

 

And what does that have to do with anything?  Do lawmakers need to be omnipresent to ensure that their laws are followed?

 

 

 

The Tie in is that GOD gave Man the law.  Whether it was Brahma giving the Srutis to the Hindu, or Ptah passing the law on to Menes, or Anu establishing the law with Hammurabi, or GOD giving Moses the Ten Commandments.  This event is well recorded.  And this is perhaps the subject of its own thread, but I see all these deities as the same being.  It’s different perceptions of the same account.  Where do we come up with the impression that some god would give us morals?  Don’t you think that some god could have easily said, do what you want!?  I’ll just sit back and do as I please to you without any demands?

 

 

 

That is just a given.  But this is also an application of the Anthropic Principle.  If there wasn’t just one Creator then we would be seeing other things.  All the stories of creation involved a God giving the people Morals.  If Gods were creations of Man then there would be a distribution of things other than morals that the Gods gave man.

 

 

Well, this is something that isn’t that simple to explain.  I think most people just take it for granted.  They accept it without thinking.  Conversely, those that don’t accept it, also do so without thinking.  Nobody spends the time to understand it.

 

 

 

You keep asking the same thing and I try to answer it a little different each time.  This isn’t the realm of science so you are asking for the wrong thing.  If the law was established by man (Man’s morals), then it would have changed wholesale over time.  But the morals we live by today have been unchanged since Moses.

 

 

 

It does say something, that your search criteria is incomplete.  The Declaration of Independence clearly states that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights.  Most of the Founding Fathers referred to GOD in one form or another.  If Rights are understood to be of GOD, then so are morals.

 

 

 

That’s a good secular description of the Constitution, but it doesn’t explore the origins of the Constitution.  The men that wrote it wanted a secular government because they were against an organized religion being established as a state authority.  They were not against religion or a Creator that gave us the concept of law in the first place.  They based our government on that law.

 

 

 

It’s right before your eyes and most take it for granted.  Again, if this was an invention of Man, it would have changed regularly over the centuries.    But we’ve had the same set of morals for some 3500 years.

Look, there seems to be a lot of assumptions in your answers to me. And I see, you're going to rest on the thought, that 'I don't understand', which I guess that makes you feel better about it. But, no, I don't see it, and being raised in an area, that really doesn't sure a whole lot of religious influence, I still think one cannot say I learned right from wrong from God, but from a far reaching point of it came down through the chain of years. 

I believe you pointed out God teaches right from wrong, and I believe you meant it as something in the present. All kinds of things can be handed down, so in this soup, there is no definite proof. 

So, we're going to have to be in this stalemate of you think I don't understand and I think you're reaching that I do, because it's all handed down through out the years. 

I thought you would see how your claim doesn't make sense, in a secular culture, and I wondered at how you would think it in such a state. Well, it looks like you do, and well, I can't fathom it. 

But, I think you're wrong, and showed why I think so. You think I'm close minded, and I could easily assume the same of you. 

In the end, based on what I see as evidence and experience, there is no way anyone can link God as teaching right and wrong directly, when he is not evidenced in a secular and religion lacked world? You said it yourself, this is being dragged out, well, then it stops here. For me, anyways. I just don't see how your points fit into your claim of God teaches everyone right from wrong. And yes, I do understand how it's not. 

Laters :st

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
On ‎8‎/‎03‎/‎2019 at 4:29 AM, RavenHawk said:

You owe your sense of morals to GOD whether you like it or not.  

Yahweh the blood thirsty slave master is to credit for morality?

God owes humans for creating him..

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
14 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

It’s right before your eyes and most take it for granted.  Again, if this was an invention of Man, it would have changed regularly over the centuries.    But we’ve had the same set of morals for some 3500 years.

bull****.  Go and buy a slave, or better yet kill someone working on the Sabbath like you could back then.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
19 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

bull****.  Go and buy a slave, or better yet kill someone working on the Sabbath like you could back then.

Do you think these lunatics read other books other than the Bible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
33 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Yahweh the blood thirsty slave master is to credit for morality?

God owes humans for creating him..

If GOD is known for only one thing, giving Man the gift of morals is it.

 

If all you see about GOD is some blood thirsty slave master, then you are missing so much more.  So let your self-hate expand even further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
1 minute ago, danydandan said:

Do you think these lunatics read other books other than the Bible?

To be this ignorant of human history I doubt they've read any non-fiction books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
Just now, RavenHawk said:

If GOD is known for only one thing, giving Man the gift of morals is it.

If all you see about GOD is some blood thirsty slave master, then you are missing so much more.  So let your self-hate expand even further.

And then expecting man to ignore them.

Your Bible has a list of prices for slaves, from adults to children.  Even the NT makes excuses for slavery.  God is morally bankrupt.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
34 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

bull****.  Go and buy a slave, or better yet kill someone working on the Sabbath like you could back then.

You really are unaware of what the Mitzvah represented?  BTW, slavery back then was not the “evil” institution as it is considered today.  Do you enjoy being so ignorant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
19 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Do you think these lunatics read other books other than the Bible?

You read the Bible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
2 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

You really are unaware of what the Mitzvah represented?  BTW, slavery back then was not the “evil” institution as it is considered today.  Do you enjoy being so ignorant?

The point is your morals have changed, despite claiming otherwise.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
1 minute ago, RavenHawk said:

You read the Bible?

 

Yeah about twenty different versions in a multitude translations. 

Which one is your favorite?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
5 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

In the end, based on what I see as evidence and experience, there is no way anyone can link God as teaching right and wrong directly, when he is not evidenced in a secular and religion lacked world? You said it yourself, this is being dragged out, well, then it stops here. For me, anyways. I just don't see how your points fit into your claim of God teaches everyone right from wrong. And yes, I do understand how it's not. 

Laters :st

 

I guess I could Jump all over you, but I’m really not interested in doing that.  I am just so dumbfounded by you, it’s not worth it.  But I will part with this insight.  It is from the movie Contact:

Palmer Joss : [Ellie challenges Palmer to prove the existence of God]  Did you love your father?

Ellie Arroway : What?

Palmer Joss : Your dad. Did you love him?

Ellie Arroway : Yes, very much.

Palmer Joss : Prove it.

 

I hope your parents are alive and well, but if not then I challenge you to “Prove it”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
5 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

The point is your morals have changed, despite claiming otherwise.

This is a Jimme Saville argument at it's finest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
4 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

The point is your morals have changed, despite claiming otherwise.

No they have not.  You just don’t understand.  I would challenge you to prove otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
Just now, RavenHawk said:

No they have not.  You just don’t understand.  I would challenge you to prove otherwise.

Ok, yours may not have but society's has.  Here is an experiment if you disagree, attempt to buy or sell a child, tell the police and judge that God is fine with it.  Report how successful you are.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
10 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Yeah about twenty different versions in a multitude translations. 

Which one is your favorite?

Then I guess you are a lunatic.

 

That many versions and you still haven’t picked up on the subject?

 

The Word of GOD is my favorite.  I guess people just read books without learning the message they contain in the same manner that someone collects Hummels or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
5 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Ok, yours may not have but society's has.  Here is an experiment if you disagree, attempt to buy or sell a child, tell the police and judge that God is fine with it.  Report how successful you are.

I’ll need a bit more information.  What is the source of your ‘moral’ here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GoldenWolf
35 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

If GOD is known for only one thing, giving Man the gift of morals is it.

 

 

 

If all you see about GOD is some blood thirsty slave master, then you are missing so much more.  So let your self-hate expand even further.

 

No his hate for the psychopathic war god is expanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
1 minute ago, GoldenWolf said:

No his hate for the psychopathic war god is expanding.

Right…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.