.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

And if you can't agree on terms, then the entire conversation is pointless and will never go anywhere unless it sidetracks into more interesting things that contain common terms and insightful dialogue.

Repeating the same words without learning or progressing in any way for months isn't philosophy--or maybe it is man, who am I to say I guess.

That's not what the dictionary says though. Plays on words only serve to derail conversation. Redefining a word is only convenient inside your own head or the heads of others who believe the same sleight-of-word trick works.

Are you talking about ethics--or morality?

Hey man, do you know what 'faith' is?

It doesn't matter to me what blog post said what. I'm not here to go fetch info from some blog.

There's no such thing as an "Atheist Scientist". If someone is attempting science yet involving gods or no gods in their work, then they're not doing their job properly. Someone may or may not believe in gods, and also someone may or may not be a scientist, but the two are in no way connected.

.

.

There's no argument for or against God, that's why Christianity has thrived for two thousand years. It's like I'm rubber and you're glue, except everyone's both rubber and glue. Also a lot of killing and propaganda in the whatever centuries.

In response to the original post, the afterlife is something someone made up because yay religion. Now we can pretend the meaning of life isn't the repetitive tasks we're commanded to do by people who have more power than us. God has more power than them so we win. Now let's get back to work.

Much of our mass is comprised of microorganisms that are always dying. It's a bit crazy that we have memory at all considering how much death happens within us. Our cells, the small portion of our mass which makes us who we are, is always dying as well. We're pretty much a big bag of death moving through the unknown categorizing its dying and long-dead contents. What is it, every 7 days we have completely new skin? It's also crazy that we're able to recognize each other.

We're a mysterious side-effect of the success/failure of microorganisms. Our consciousness, the only thing we can't seem to identify as material, is just something that happens when microorganisms run computer programs they've encoded in organic material. It's kind of an enigma. I don't think we'll ever fully understand ourselves because we aren't ourselves.

I think this is where belief stems from, the idea that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, that there's always some greater thing until it's everything, or gods, or whatever. If there were gods, they'd believe the same and would know little about themselves or their origins, and they'd be microbes in some larger microcosm, and so on, and so on, forever and ever, amen.

Effectively, nothing can be greater if infinite things are lesser/greater. It's all just mush. Consciousness is an intangible side-effect of an infinitely infinitesimal speck of mush that doesn't exist. The leaf doesn't exist, and leafness doesn't exist.

Troll.

Like gods, arguments for gods don't exist.

There are many things which allow us to differentiate between reality and imagination which is, interestingly enough, how they each ended up with a label. Imagination is intangible, and even imagined things which appear to a person as if real are only indistinguishable as long as that person is alone.

The rest of us are able to identify their mental health issues, Exhibit A--DSM-V. Of course, there are cases of mass hysteria or mass hallucination, but I'm not convinced that's really a thing. People can say whatever they want, and they do, and it gets ridiculous, and it's saturated with anxiety, attention-seeking and great quests for limelight and immediate gratification.

I think a good example of imagination is schizophrenia. I'm never going to hear a voice, or bump into a stranger, if it only exists in someone's imagination, and I've actually never seen someone with schizophrenia touching the imaginary person they're talking to, but that's just an observation based on personal experience.

You're one of these people who start a fake topic and then ramble about the same thing as their last 100 conversations.

The way you're arguing and the things you're claiming, you seem like someone who'd think a weak case is ironclad.

Your argument isn't against Christianity. Your argument is that the Christian God is 'Satanic', and it would be difficult to make it any less clear.

Whether I have a personal problem with anything is irrelevant to a discussion about God being 'Satanic' or 'Satanism' being "inherent within Christianity". You're jumping all over and making emotional appeals because you have a weak argument, and you can't seem to stay on the topic you've introduced.

Wouldn't it be weird if Satanism was really inherent within Christianity?
Well it turns out that this might be true. — Gregory

You're grasping at straws. Eastern religions are not about non-violence, and violence has been the way of humanity for all of recorded history.

Again, you're getting sidetracked by contempt for certain religions, that's not the topic. Start a different thread about humanity's concern for the suffering of animals throughout history, and perhaps another for the violence of various world religions throughout history.

What does any of this have to do with whether or not God is 'Satanic'? Satan didn't order the killing of sons or nations, God did, so within the context of the book, commanding these things is Godly, not 'Satanic'.

Satan doesn't condemn people to hell, God does, so this is also Godly, not 'Satanic'.

It seems you skirted a few of my points.

Isn't anthropology "the humanities"?

If it's false, then demonstrate that Catholics are 'Christ-like', or any one Catholic, or any Christian for that matter, or any person. I'm still talking about a book and the stories it contains, you're still talking about some people who didn't read it, and a lot of speculation, and a lot of stuff that exists nowhere in the text.

What I see as a problem is irrelevant to the topics you've introduced, and now you've jumped from "God is Satanic" to whether or not I personally endorse certain religions.

That the killing was stopped is the whole point of the story, and I would argue that the whole point of the story matters to the story.

Hey man, if you think you've got all my responses figured out, just carry on both ends of a conversation in your head. This is a public forum though.