Indian people seem to be the only people scrupulous about not killing bugs. Joe Rogan had a great comedy set on vegetarian lifestyle. I mean, it brings up questions interesting to philosophy

Christianity is based on a questionable premise: the making of evil people into good people with a POOF! It's called mercy by honest people, but then maybe mercy is questionable

Even quantum eraser effects verge on miracle

Even Islam says not to look to signs. A devil could have been in Jesus and caused him to appear dead

My argument against the resurrection as historical fact: there are miracles claims in all religions. Thats what a religion is. Prophecy has to be about the unpredictable, the highly unlikely, and what was not deliberately fulfulled. The Gospels contradict each other, so we have likelihood of Chrisitians making up history 40 years after Jesus. Who knows anything about the rumors 40 years before

Fundamentalist Christians think it's more likely that we know what the writings from thousands of years ago really meant in those days, than that our scientific testing on rocks is accurate. That is an interesting debate

Abraham was told to kill Isaac. Sure, God prevented it at the end by an angel. But Abraham was told to form his intent to kill and attempt to carry it out, which is exactly what he did. So according to Christianity God can, hypothetically, order killings. The new Testament has much to say, but is silent on this. So we have two religions, Islam and Christianity, that have a soft underbelly compared to secularism. The latter does not have some "other person out there" who's mind we can not read who can order killings of people who are not obviously deserving of capital punishment. I asked a Christian apologist once to prove Jesus didn't command September 11. All he could say was "I don't think God would act like that". Again, you might think you can read God's mind, but your Scriptures say you cant. These religions have a dangerous thesis in their dogmas

You picked the weak songs. "I'll Be Back" is great. I have always thought the Beatles aura-mystique was atheistic, but Rome likes them now. Are they stealing our material? Youtube has a live version of Take Five which is neat to watch (white guys in glasses doing it!).

Well the old Testament has the Jews killing pregnant women by tearing out the fetus. God commanded. Christians try to cover themselves by saying Jesus changed this in the New Covenant, but it is not in the New Testament

The Adam and Eve story is interesting. In the Bible Eve tells the snake that she is not allowed even to touch the tree, although God had only told Adam not to eat of it. Adam must have told her "don't even go near it or touch it". Shame came upon them after they ate of the fruit but was that the shame of guilt?

Eve may have seen the forked tongue of the snake and thought of the underside of Adam's penis and not wanting to be obedient to him but to possess him through knowledge of the tree, she went and ate.

Were the first humans were truly vegetarians? Their evolutionary ancestors ate meat ("were dirt" as Genesis says) but were Adam and Eve were an evolved identical twin couple? I was thinking about males and females. I think they are inversions of each other with the male simply being more assertive (because of the fall?). Men have penises, women have vaginas, men have balls and women have boobs, females have a clitoris and men have a prostate.

The Bible account presents a difficulty for me though. Why would Adam tell Eve not to touch the tree? At least it seems he did since God told Adam simply not to eat from it but Eve told the snake she wasn't allowed even to touch it. It doesn't sound reasonable to say God gave a different unrecorded command to Eve. But why didn't Adam trust Eve? I don't see how he wouldn't have trusted her at first since God presented her to him. Did they have relations in the garden and after they opened up to each other he became fearful of her femininity?

But since creation was supposedly perfect then she would have been pregnant at the time of the Fall and Adam would have been less likely to let her eat from the forbidden tree ("Adam who was with her"), for the sake of the child.

So the story has a flaw in my opinion

Were the sexual positions allowed by God different before and after the fall?


"Wanting to know more
Always allowed to roam
Will the valley ever tear
For she felt just like home"

Modern scholarship in Christianity don't even take the Gospels at face value

Could you image the first time someone saw a snake moving? Weird. Or the first time someone reported a homosexual act. "You put what in .. what?"

Religions like Christianity and Islam (as opposed to Indian religions) say that God is the lord of life and can order killings. This is a confusingly dangerous doctrine, because it can be asked: "if the death penalty for murder is allowed, how can you be sure the perpetrator didn't act on God's command?" You will have to have religious people in trials who, allegedly, know God and can determine if the murder was commanded by God or not. So those religions clearly imply that religion and government should be intertwined. Then there is the problem of rulers thinking God is telling them to start a war.

So don't be scared of atheists killing people because they didn't find meaning in their lives (that would be their fault).

Definitely impressed by the arabesques. Hadnt heard of Zevon till now

I talked to a Christian once who said "if you are an atheist, why not kill people". I responded "so if you lose your faith you will become a murderer?" I think this demonstrates that there can be an atheist morality.

If I am on a bus, and I stand to stretch for a moment and somebody sneaks in to steal my seat, I would say "I was there first". I have therefore appealed to a law or rule. Islam will have to demonstrate that their system truly clarifies moral issues and gives us more motivation to follow them. I've been studying various religions and so far Catholicism has the best pedigree, except that there are issues like the sedevacantist one and the impossibility of determining if any official decrees in history have truly met the standard of infallibility. So the weaknesses of all the "systems" are showing themselves to me.

I get the idea that Muslims don't get the "moral of the story" when it comes to Nietzsche's writings, and that they have experienced a Sartre moment where "people are hell". People find different things to distract themselves in those situations. Duke Ellington said the best thing in life was food!

Finally, how are we to conceptualize a God who sustains nature every moment of it's existence, yet positively wills some things and not others?

I'm serious about Muslim trolls, because they can case some damage. They dont have the man power or resources to conquer the West East or anything. They are a dying breed, a sex addicted organized population. Christianity by itself can show them their contradictory ways. Are they even ready for atheism?

Muslims are ungenerous slave owners, so we don't want them ruling the West. Where is their art? I am the handsomest man in history, as strong as an ox say the cops, a certified black belt, and the best crooner and wrestler in town

Wait, Sinatra is a dog? Them fighting words. I'll publicly debate this Muslim. Message me Ancontali. You're a sun worshipper and I prefer the moon. No funny business cus I can snapped most people's spines with a hang nail

Try this, track 13 if you can get to the end of it..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Wee_Small_Hours

Use curse words from your own culture ancontali. Youre not an Italian mobster. You wouldn't get their jazz. Did you guys know there are twice as many people in Europe alone over the Middle East?

Muslims hate Hindus and Buddhists unless they can control them. They don't bother much with orientals and even allow themselves to be persecuted by them. Aquinas and Liguori called Muslims animals. Christians look to other sources for joy, and can appreciate pop wink wink. What the he'll does capito mean btw

About philosophy: Philosophical truth appears to be like roulette. You put in an input and what you want you get out, but in a random form. Scientific truth is existential truth, and there appears to be a meta-principle behind it all.

Jesus said in the Bible (so this is Christian dogma) that a steward once hired men to do a job and they agreed on a wage. Latter in the day other men came in and joined the working gang. At the end of the day the steward gave everyone the same amount of pay. The ones who had worked longer complained. "I gave you what we agreed" said the steward. "Are you envious that I was generous.".

My question: does this factor in with Islamic law or is it wrong by Islamic law? Why is it wrong to give people charity but not right for a Western government to do this? Where is the line to be drawn among political systems, so that it is clear which bodies can take and give out money and which ones can't?

1) If the world was created from nothing, you can't infer anything about the creator. So you can't say he is on yours or anyone else's side. Schopenhauer was right

2) Muslims are simply using The Secret to try to get into a sexual paradise, like many people do, excepting Christians

3) The no boundary hypothesis and the doctrine that there is no time without motion create a scenario where there is no need for a creator.

4) Islam is the meaning some people find given to them and which they impose on themselves and others within this self-contained universe. Just because a religion gives you meaning, this does not mean that it is the meaning of the universe.

If America is the "great Satan", and it was lawful for Mohammed to attack whole populations, then why wasn't September 11 justified, according to Islam? Was Osama bin Laden not worthy? Or was it those who did the attack who were not worthy of heaven and killing??

The Jews attacked whole populations in the Old Testament. Christians think Jesus stopped this, but they have no evidence Jesus didn't kill anybody. Organized religions stemming back hundreds and thousands of years are burdened with these problems. Mormonism wants to take over the West. Protestants say they have the Spirit. Everyone running around they hold the future. If Nietzsche was so dumb how did he predict these conundrums?

Aquinas said men are spiritually greater than women. But at least Mary was the holiest for him. In the Catholic church there is a current fierce debate over female deacons. Those who think like alcontali hate the idea. Those who are modern and think man and women are equal are for it. Females wouldn't be priests because the sexes have different roles. But holy orders being confirmed on women says they are equal. Spiritual development for alcontali looks like him shaking his ass at a Miley Cyrus concert. Seriously. Grow

Ancontali hates the West so much that he says he wants to destroy it. All because he thinks a book that was written by murderers is a better guide than the human spark in everyone. What a moron. Would it be wrong for his wife to beat him?

A Christian advocate is threatening to sue the NFL for discrimination towards Christians, showing immodesty without warning, and putting souls in danger. All because of the Lopez-Shakira show

Who is to say there will be genitals in heaven, or four limbs, assuming monotheism? What is the perfect or normal human body?

I know this creates questions, but what if Christians outlaw pornography and we have all the porn stars making an honest working at Jack in the box! Porn takes some guts but they will have to learn a new set in another profession. I see no way of weeding out the truly lazy in sociey. My "how can psychology become a science" thread presents more difficulties. They say Marx himself studied math and stats in order to predict the communist utopia. He worked on it tiil he died. But it sounds like everyone agrees there is free will in this thread's discussion, so we have to posit compatabilism if we are to say prophets are just really good sociologists\mafhematicians.

If experiments can prove B theory, then physics IS philosophy

Potential became actual at the first start of time. Motion causes time. There is a very real sense in which we can say, consistent with A theory, that reality is a self contained set starting from Zero and going into infinity. What kind of infinity that future is is the question

Tyra Banks said on her show once that older people can experience orgasms that last literally however long they want. "It get's better?" she said. Well one question is whether old people generally are honestly open about what really happens in their sex lives.I don't know if it's possible to have an objective psychology when there are so many philosophical variants of what can be questioned

There was nothing before the Big Bang. There was no time, so only a motion exists. Nothingness is fundamental perhaps to math, grammatical studies, and meditation, as has been pointed out above. And it is essential to reject absolute time and also understand nothingness is order to see the world as motion from point Zero, i.e. a projection

It's really hard to proceed in psychology when all you can do is measure brain waves and connect them to what the person is saying. All the various interpretations, like statistics what is likely for a group of humans to act, is sociology, with more tools. Yet avoiding all philosophical interpretation is vital and at the same time really hard. Donald Hoffman wants to map consciousness, but faces the problem of how to find out the relation between corporeal expression and specific experiences. Do I see your red? We have different eyes, but they are similar. We are drown back into philosophy

Nice!

Conservative logic says Hannity and the whole gang owe all their money to service men, police, and fire fighters. "It's not fair they put their lives and limbs on the line and you don't give them all your money" i say. Marxist at least understand the meaning of " society". In a sense i do owe them all my money. Society works on more principles, though, than conservatives know of

The Dining Kruber study is flawed like all psychological studies. You can't measure a person's intelligence. Conservatives say "freebies aren't fair, we are all equal" yet they believe the IQ myth because the like being cushy in the middle of the hambuger. Philosophy can rip wholes in all of psychology and almost all theoretical physics because those fields are really philosophy.

Inheriting wealth is a freebie (Trump). Winning the lottery even is a freebie. People get mad when it's the government who takes their money and helps others with it. Who is to say who works harder, the tax payer or the recipient? Who is the judge of who works the hardest? You must be some kind of saint or something alcontali to be so demanding about how society should treat you

If you are so smart and consider religion an intellectual en-devour, why not become Christian, since they have a stronger case in the historical and miracle department. I for one reject all miracles that imply a God, while accepting all the other incredible things that happen strangely in this world because you can't accept all of them. We are free to reject some, and Muhhameds stuff and Jesus's resurrection I just don't believe in. I believe most of the rest of history though. This is just an offer for you to have greater intellectual honesty. When assessing other people, you have to do it as a case by case situation

Are beautiful porn stars getting freebies too in this society? I bet they make more money than many on this forum.