The police having knowledge does not stop the criminals. — elucid

Well, get rid of the police force, and see how your town's life shapes up after that.

I know it's an impossible proposition to carry out.

But I do believe that policing does deter some elements (not all) from criminal activity.

And you're right, police can only act on the fet acompli of a criminal act. Police can only arrest people suspected of already having committed a crime. But then again, jail is not a bed of roses, and many, many people reform their lives out of jail. And many, many people hold themselves back from committing crime because they know what the consequences will be if they get caught.

So in a way, depending on how you define criminals, yes, you're right, police does not stop already committed crime. But not gaining knowledge will hinder them in finding those who have committed crimes, and helping the court system to get them corrected.

Thanks for delving into the issue of how to be childlike in the Christian sense to illuminate the wording for my sake. I hope there was something in it for you, too... and it looks like there was.

Rule 8. The personal pronouns hers, ours, yours, theirs, its, whose, and the pronoun oneself never take an apostrophe. — Serving Zion

It's this pronoun I am talking about. Its proper spelling lacks an apostrophe. It's not a big deal, but it's the most common mistake made in English spelling even by its most learned users. It's a world of a difference when it reflects its users academic ability and learnedness.

This realisation gives one an extra tool, besides one's thinking alone. — Punshhh

I am curious what further insight into the existence or nonexistence of god did you gain by realizing you have a body which is independent of your soul.

I will state objections, if I see anything, but I am actually this time genuinely curious how the knowledge of your physical existence in your quest of knowledge of swaying the "equiprobability" in either direction works in helping your to decide the god-nogod dilemma.

For example, how did the Moslims get into Spain and southern France, if not to assist the Arians in their fight against the Catholics (=Chalcedonians)?

Julian, Count of Ceuta (Spanish: Don Julián, Conde de Ceuta,[nb 1], Arabic: يليان‎, (Īlyan [nb 2]) was, according to some sources a renegade governor, possibly a former comes in Byzantine service in Ceuta and Tangiers who subsequently submitted to the king of Visigothic Spain before joining the Muslims.[3]:256 According to Arab chroniclers, Julian had an important role in the Umayyad conquest of Hispania, a key event in the history of Islam, in which al-Andalus was to play an important part, and in the subsequent history of what were to become Spain and Portugal.

Every Muslim conquest followed the same pattern. The region was inhabited by non-Chalcedonian Christians who were sick and tired of the Byzantine religious persecutions, and who were happy to invite the Muslims with a view on expelling the Byzantines; because the Muslims had promised religious freedom. Furthermore, it is because the Muslims kept their promise of religious freedom that it was so hard for the Chalcedonians to ever come back. — alcontali

I love this. So fucking beautifully complicated, yet sensible and logical. Except the Byzantines would not get expelled, due to lack of religious persecutions, and they would continue to strive. But without their upper hand of oppressing other religions, of course.

What a screwhole of events.

Thanks, SZ. So you need to repent, and prepare yourself for preeminence by humbling yourself. These are the qualities of the children, that Jesus names must be assumed by the Christians in order to secure a premium seat in heaven.

But other qualities of children are not shown here as prerequisites.

You also wrote, that the above applies, because:

When you look at children, they don't have such shame in their wholeness of character. In fact, children have no shame whatsoever, until pride works it's way in through the workings of the sin in the world around them, that develops a sense of insecurity and shame for the parts of the boy that it is ashamed by. — Serving Zion

But how can a child humble himself when he has no shame? To humble oneself, one must have pride. Humbling yourself is a process of losing pride and shame. Once you went through the humbing, then you achieve the state of being humble. If you have no pride, no shame, then there is no objective in humbling yourself... it's like telling a fish to burp, or telling a lion to give up eating carrots. (Sorry, not wanting to make it sound trivial or funny. These two apply in the sense that you can't give something that you don't have.)

So I could see the point if Jesus had said, "You must become like a child, without pride, without shame; and you must humble yourself to achieve that state." This would mean what you see in the quote. But the quote says "You must humble yourself like the child" which means that the child went already through the phase or action of humbling himself or is in that phase or action. Which is not true, because he can't give up pride or shame, since he's got none.

I may sound like I am splitting hairs, and lo and behold, indeed I am splitting hairs. My expectations are high of a believed almighty, who knows everything. He should know the elements of style, and what constitutes clear communication.

Oh, and one bit of advice, meant well, and sincerely, to improve your style to make it even more reflective of a wise old soul. You wrote, "until pride works it's way in through" whereas you should have written "its" in the middle. No apostrophe.

I would never correct anyone's English on this site, it is a bit insulting, and who should throw the first stone anyway? I make my share of mistakes in Engish already. I hope you are above that and receive my gentle correction with the same spirit as I give it to you with. I give this advice to you only with positive intentions.

I agree with you. Things that are knowable can be used against you.

If a criminal or a bad person gets his hand on knowledge, much like Adam bit into the fruit of the forbidden tree, the criminal can cause bad things.

You propose that knowledge not be disseminated for that reason.

But then police won't have knowledge, either. Police uses knowledge to nab crimianls, and the justice system uses knowledge to discourage criminal activity. If the police has no knowledge, they are helpless in catching criminals.

The problem with general banning of dissemination of knowledge is that it has to be universal. That way, the hooligans will stay dumb, but so will the police.

If it's not universal, then you, or somebody has to decide whom to give knowledge to. Well, the Pentagon, the CIA, and the FBI decided that for themselves. A CIA agent who is trained to protect you from foreign terrorists, knows more than you do about terrorism.

So I think your fear is valid, but it not founded right. The trick is for protection agencies to be smarter, better informed than how the damage agencies are.

SZ, to wit: I did an honest effort doing an Internet search to find the quote you used. I searched the ultimate Bible website, but it found no matches in four versions of the Bible. The search function can be applied to 61 versions or different translations of the bible. I had no patientce to search all 61, I searched 4 of the most common ones.

Please provide the translation name, and the line numbers of the quote "turn back and become again as a little child".

Looking forward to reading it in context, much appreciation for your future requested effort.

That's why Jesus says that we must "turn back and become again as a little child", and other language in the same faith explains that we must "circumcise the foreskin of our heart" (which is poetry, of course - does a heart have foreskin? .. no, but of course there is a parallel effect of the foreskin as being a garment, just as our pride shields our heart from exposure). — Serving Zion

SZ, you appear to be connecting the wisdom of an old soul with the wisdom of the scriptures.

You must forgive me, but I am skeptical of the scriptures. Can you please quote the book and line number of the quote by jesus up in the quoted quote? Thanks. I wish to check the CONTEXT in which J said "turn back and become again as a little child".

Would you please be so kind and provide the name of the translation, the book, and the line numbers? Thanks.

I will be frank why I ask you this: I believe one must handle stand-alone quotations with extreme care. The media is full of misplaced quotes that mean polidirectionally other than in the context they had been uttered.

thanks, for clarifying both of my questions for me. Much appreciated.

The same is true of all modern states and equally a (major) problem — Pfhorrest

The same what? Unreferenced pronoun. No clear antecedent. Actually, no antecedent at all. Please provide. Thanks.

Christianity adopted philosophical thoughts that originated with Greeks who were polytheists — Pfhorrest

By no means have I read all or most or even a sizeable amount of the scriptures or of Greek mythology and philosophy, but the readings I've done showed up no connection between the scriptures and Greek stuff.

This is not the first reference that I read to that movement.

I can imagine that there were tiny, microscopic elements of the Greek art of thought in the Christian scriptures, but to me, there were no visible marks of it.

Other than that Mark was one of the evangelists.

To say that science is somehow rooted in a hollowed out Christianity is thus akin to saying that Christianity is rooted in a hollowed out Greek polytheism, because Christianity adopted philosophical thoughts that originated with Greeks who were polytheists — Pfhorrest

Agreed. And Jews took most of their mythology from Babilonian tales.

The Babilonians took their tales from Jihodanian legends, and the Jihodanians based their legends on Futriamass folklore. The Futiamass folklore originated in, and took on many elements of the Haddecombi dances, and the Haddecombi dances were mainly offshoots of Dingdongbatty tattoos and other skin arts. ETC.

I’m thankful for the medieval churches for providing some form of education when there was none other — Pfhorrest

The church first destroyed all other cultures that provided education. Naturally, there was no alternative. This is not a merit of the church, it is, instead, its shame.

For example, take a cheer that New Jersey Devils fans shout during games--"Rangers suck, Islanders blow, Flyers swallow"--that's a Devils pride chant. — Terrapin Station

This I find rather odd. To have pride because someone roots for a particular set of complete strangers to him to win a game.
- there is no personal accomplishment involved
- the accomplishment is by total strangers
- the accomplishment is completely independent of the person who is happy about it with pride.

I'm proud of personal accomplishments and personal qualities.

Then again, someone would be also right, who said that I ought not to be proud of those, if I believe in determinism. (Which I believe in. In fact, it's impossible to believe otherwise, if you think logically.)

So I have no reason to feel pride, or to boast about it, either.

Maybe this is why pride is included in the set of seven deadly sins. Because it is a logically unwarranted phenomenon.

I located it. Do a search on youtube with this term: "ethics private and public 2019 09 22"

MODS:
If this is illegal by TPF standards, please delete this post and I apologize and I promise never to publish search terms again for Youtubel, until such time that I become a subscriber. Thanks. I know the law (only subscribers can post links) but I don't knwo if the law applies to posting search terms in lieu of links.

I am really at odds whether I'm breaking the rules or not. Please don't punish me, but help me out by interpreting the law (rule) for me. Thanks.

"Atheist" means (that) one has a faith that there is no god. — god must be atheist

I think this above is a better description what an atheist is, then this following:

"An atheist does not believe in god."

The two are not equivalent. As per the thought experiment derived from my moniker.

It would be ridiculous to say God knows he exists, but does not believe it. — Coben

I appreciate this is true. But I did not claim this. I said,

Faith or belief is not necessary for his knowledge to know he exists. — god must be atheist

In a sense, however, I believe you are right. "Atheist" means not that one requires no faith in god, but means one has a faith that there is no god. And a person or an entity would never believe that he, himself does not exist.

I admit you are right, I just think you did not put it forward properly, if you don't mind my saying so.

Your thoughts were right on, but your language did not cover your thoughts precisely? I don't know.

And the emotionalism of your response speaks volumes. — Wayfarer

So does your propostition.

God would presumably believe God exists, making him a theist. — Coben

An atheist is one who does not believe in god. A theist is one who believes in god.

God does not believe in god. He KNOWS he exists. Faith or belief is not necessary for his knowledge to know he exists.

Theists don't know god exists. They believe in god.

If god-knowledge was possible for theists and atheists, the question "Is there a god and if we don't know, then should I believe in it?" would disappear overnight.

but since faith is a word bandied about only by some theists, — Coben

Did you say this?

I got the message from you (especially because it was in a reply to my explanation why god is an atheist if he exists) that I ought not to use the word "faith", because I shouldn't. It is a word bandied about ONLY by some theists.
Then you said,

I didn't say that theists own a certain word. — Coben

????

Christian philosophical principles (for which see God's Philosophers, James Hannam). — Wayfarer

I simply don't buy that modern science has its fundations in the Scriptures.

If you say that early scientists in Christian Europe were all christians (such as alchemists), then I accept that. If a scientiific fact or theory is discovered, it matters absolutely not whether the scientist is Hindu, Christian, Buddhist or Atheist.

I think, @wayfarer, that it is simply Christian propaganda to say what you say, in order to inflate the importance of Christianity, as if it were the basis of science. Your post and your intentions are a partizan propaganda, in my opinion, which helps the self-confidence of Christians, by trying to "own" the genesis of science, and thus, the genesis of scientific thinking.

THERE IS NO OWNERSHIP OF LOGICAL, REASONABLE THOUGHT.

It a fallacy to think that just because someone of some religion or some nationality or some sex or some race thought of the first publishable scientific thought, all science owes everthing to the religion, race, nationality and sex of the first person who came up with something.

I view your post as a tribalistically patriotic statement. From your point of view.

From my point of view, it is a meaningless, biassed, fallacious claim.

Modern scientific atheism, of the kind advocated by popular science commentators, is constructed from the hollowed-out shell of Christian philosophy. — Wayfarer

What a fool I have been! I thought that science developed by observing natural phenomena, and explaining them. Now! NOW you tell me it's a subset of Christian dogma?

Why have I been mislead by my educators, who conducted experiments for me on gravity, on the preservation of momentum and energy, on many other stuff? On chemical equilibrium, on the Lomonosov Table of Elements, on valences, on electron paths and electron-path bonds, on ions, on many, many other stuff?

It seems, now @wayfarer tells us the truth, that all that is knowledge and scientific comes from a hollowed-out shell of Christian philosophy.

Imagine!

I saw a video on the Internet that deals PRECISELY with that. I posted it, the link, here, on this site and within hours my post with the link disappeared. I don't know what rule I violated, but I shan't violate the same rule again. Anyhow, that video attempted to answer your question dead-on.

Maybe a MOD can clear up why videos from Youtube are not allowed to link?

Is it because I am not a supporter? I mean, a subscriber? Perfectly possible. I don't know.

To introduce #8, you must reject the conclusion stated as #5. These two contradict each other. But #5 is produced as a conclusion from #1, #3, and #4. So, the order which an orderer has, can only have been produced by a previous orderer, And #8, that an orderer could be produced by chance is excluded by these premises. — Metaphysician Undercover

They are mutually exclusive, yes. But they are both possible.

Much like it is possible that god exists, and possible that god does not exist. One excludes the other, but both are possible.

You have to see that. If you don't see that, then you can't see how your criticism isn't right.

Well, it's be off topic to discuss that, but since faith is a word bandied about only by some theists, I don't think that holds. God might be an afaithist, but God would presumably believe God exists, making him a theist. — Coben

The proof I provided used plain English words. To claim that theists own some words exclusively is absurd.

Order and order-makers may be randomly generated by a preponederantly choatic universe. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I would agree if I knew what "preponederantly" and "choatic" meant.

I say order and order-makers may be randomly generated. -- Period. No need to proceed farther.

Correct but order definitely involves an agent with intent or a plan if you will. — TheMadFool

This is not true at all. I won't respond to countering this, as this is an internal judgment, which you are unwilling to make. I don't blame you, because in this case I am unwilling to accept the judgement of which you are only capable of making.

I offer to agree to disagree.

But to reiterate, it shows a lack of more profound insight to not be able to see how order can be achieved without an agent or a plan.

And I can prove it too.

Here's the proof:

1. Order can only be achieved by an orderer.

2. Only intelligent planners can be orderers.

3. Planners and orderers have order inside of themselves. They are ordered.

4. Nobody can order himself from scratch.

5. Therefore orderers must be ordered by a previous orderer.

6. This leads to infinite regress of orderers.

7. This is possible.

8. But it does not exclude the chain of events, that an orderer can be created by chance in a chaotic system.

------------

So again, I accept that an infinite regress of orderers can exist, but I reject the idea that an absolute orderer of first order can exist. If 1. and 4. are accepted.

I’m the same way, I was never given any religious teaching or training and remained mostly ignorant of it until a later age. — NOS4A2

Same here. I was born and raised in an Eastern-block country, where I was never taught religion, never was told there was a god. I first encountered a religious person on the way to school, an old man, who told us, a bunch of seventh-graders walking to school, that god gives us power to breathe, to move, to have children. I got vexed hearing this, I thought, is this guy insane? We breathe because our oxygen levels go down, and our muscles act with our bones to move us and to increase or decrease our lung capacity. The VERY idea that we are some puppets of a big daddy and we are not autonomous things that achieve our successes on our own made me feel angry and hateful.

But I really got a glimpse to religion and how the religious think gradually over twenty or forty years. It is a complex system, belief, or can be; and it can be as complex or as simplex as the believer wants it to be.

I also found that it's easier and more enjoyable to argue against religion and religious tenets with smart people whose beliefs are complex, and who know the scriptures, than to argue with simpleton fools. To argue with simpleton fools, you must make them understand complex issues, or simple issues, which they can't. It is very, very frustrating to debate a topic with someone who is very, very limited intellectually.

What with your 'name' I figured. — Coben

My moniker has different roots.

This is how it goes:

God knows it exists (if he exists -- let's for a minute suppose he does)
Therefore he needs no faith to believe he exists
Therefore he has no faith
A person who has no faith in a god is an atheist
Ergo, God is an atheist.

Actually I think your main problem with your estimate is going to come from the other direction. That a non-believer, if you are one, thinks there's a fifty percent chance God exists, might well be viewed rather positively by many theists. But I think the other team is going to be all over that. — Coben

It is mere partizansm. There is no proof god exists; there is no proof god does not exist. I BELIEVE GOD DOES NOT EXIST. But I allow the validity for others to believe god exists.

There is a deeper problem: whether god exists or not, we don't know what he wants, what he wants of us, what he is like, what he can do, what he will do. Those who claim knowledge are either delusional, or believe the scriptures. The sriptures are not god-inspired; they are mere fantasies of thinkers of older times. The lessons in the scriptures are meant to aid societies to keep social order in the manner the sripture writers intended it.

There is no proof that the scriptures were inspired by god. There is no proof that the scriptures were not inspired by god. But the plethora of self-contradictions included in the scriptures; their convoluted messages; their focus on only a few select subjects; their limited scope of reason and knowledge base all point at having been written by very enthusiastic dilettantes. Which, if you listen to a theist, is not what god is imagined to be.

What would be the intent/goal of the designer? Why would it create an enormous universe that is mostly inhospitable to life? What's the point? — Harry Hindu

I don't bemoan the lack of life in the enormously overwhelming proportion of the universe.

I claim that an all-knowing mind that is capable of creation would not create. It could know instantly what would happen when in this universe. So why go through the effort of making a model, when you know precisely what the model's state and vectors will be at any time in the infinite expanse of time?

Futile work, mere duplication, no purpose, to prove what's already obviously true to the all-knowing mind.

** Christianity and other monotheistic religions claim that the creator created the world and that the creator knows everything.

Women too? How does this manifest in?

Children, husband, nurturing? — Wallows

No, no. More like, "Everybody wants to bone me. Mm-mm."

So, from our limited perspective, according to this, there is a 50% probability God exists? — Coben

The answer is "yes". Some may argue that the probability is different, provided there is an additional (to me unfounded) belief that the scriptures are inspired by god.

accidental error

My atheism is a consequence of (a) not being at all indoctrinated with religion as a kid, and then (b) as a mid-teen, hearing some religious views finally and saying, "Wait--you can't be serious!" — Terrapin Station

Ditto here.

I am completely convinced that god could exist. Or that he does not exist. Either way.

The problem for me starts when people claim knowledge what god is, wants, wants of us, can do, will do. These are not known to people, whether god exists or not. So why can't the religious see that religions potentially have nothing to do with god, but are social superstructures, that help society to get along?

I don't think society and humans are building a technological god; we are, instead, one-by-one, replacing those institutions and ideals which we used to use to sustain society, by replacing ideals and fantasies with real things that do the same things for us.

have your definition of what this god is? — uncanni

I think it should be easier to define god by what it isn't.

According to pantheists, what isn't god, isn't.

According to Christians, what isn't god is evil. After god expectorated evil from himself, it became a stand-alone, autonomous entity.

According to Greek Mythology, what isn't god is not ever-living.

According to ancient Egyptian mythology, what isn't god, consumes.

According to us, atheists, what isn't god, is everything.

Re: the debate between your sister and you: I don't think you choose whom to love. If you could choose, you could potentially choose an enemy to love. Or thy neighbour. Or someone whom you really don't want to love.

Someone forceful could influence you to pick someone to love, only because the forceful person's insistence will make you choose that person to love.

I believe there is no choice in the matter.

I don't think we can define an already existing entity. It can be described, or delimited, or found out what it is. But define? To define is similar to design: you start from scratch, you name the parameters you wish to achieve, and you go about building something that acts according to what you set out for it to do in the parameters.

Thus, you can define a word, but you can't define what I am, what you are, what god is. These things are, and they exist without definition.

Same with love.

But maybe I'm just reading what you wrote, while in effect I should read what you wanted to write. @TessiePooh.

Normal people, including people who make the above counter-argument, actually think the exact opposite. We can run an experiment with two rooms A and B. A is in disarray with things in no particular order and B is neat and objects have been arranged in a discernable pattern. If someone, anyone, were to be taken into the two rooms and asked which room probably had an occupant then the answer would invariably be room B. I don't think anyone will/can disagree with this deduction. — TheMadFool

This is true. Under all circumstances.

But if you take a room in which movements of self-propelling objects are present, then without any designer they can take up a shape that looks like someone lives there, and several moments later there is disarray. And several moments later again there is the appearance that someone arranged the objects. IF the objects have a self-propelling ability.

The universe is not stagnant. It is not like a room with inanimate objects. Instead, the universe is full of self-propelling objects. It acts semi-randomly; the self-propelling objects take up all kinds of configurations, all different from the previous ones. There are instances when a section of the universe looks like someone lives there (to live with the analogy of your allegory); but mostly, vast amounts of sections look like there is nobody living there.