All it will take is one major nation to step down (or players from a nation to refuse to play) … I hope one does. — I like sushi

Denmark has already done some steps down to prevent Qatar 2022 worldcup but nobody actually listened to them because it is not a "top" national team so nobody would care if they end up not going to the tournament.

Football is business and it goes where it can gets some benefits. FIFA does not care about political/social issues. According to your argument (or plea) World Cup would have never taken place in some tournaments as South Africa 2010; Argentina 1978 or Italy 1934 where these countries were far away from being a democracy.

What are your thoughts? — I like sushi

I would ban the championship. Nevertheless, I understand that it is a very important tournament for the players (and other interests involved) because millions and millions of persons will see these matches. It is even a chance for young players because if they play good, important teams would sign up some of them afterwards.

What I am doing is applying reason to the matter. I am questioning a basic assumption that many Christians make about the bible,but that is not in the bible. — Bartricks

Where is it then?

Yes, I understood your OP. That's why I explained that Christians use faith to encourage God's existence rather than reason.
It looks like that in your first post you try to explain Genesis and Christianity with reason or critical thinking.

• Japanese literature, cinema and arts.
• Poetry
• Eating Persimmons

If you are afraid of seeing how other users start doubting on Christianity, why did you start this OP then?

I think the main issue of your OP is that you are trying to explain Genesis with critical thought or reasoning. We have to keep in mind that "Genesis", "Bible", "old Testament", etc... are based on metaphors. These are the responsible to explain the creation of the world and why all are here.
Christians believe in God because otherwise would be contradictory. Christianity is based on the role of Jesus as a prophet and he spread his messages on one belief: the faith of God's mercy.
Without God, a Christian would be "naked".

It goes further than that. A Christian already believes in God's existence, he is not using Christianity to believe but encourage the existence itself.

Whether or not one believes in a god, cowardice is sin against oneself, and many, maybe most, are damned to remain cowards their entire lives. — 180 Proof

:up: :sparkle:

Nah, not at all. It would be an interesting discussion indeed. :eyes:

Numbering makes me mentally exhausted. It even limits the powerful of vocabulary. Where all the words would go if we only use numbers?

Yes, they are not afraid of experiencing 'things' after death. But they fear no longer existing, no longer experiencing, no longer being alive. — Bylaw

Fear depends on each individual. I respect those who are fear about no longer keep living for whatever reasons when death is approaching to them. Despite is an opened debate about how we should "handle" our last moments, I still think religion is not the answer. As you explained in your post, it helps for some people because it calms their anxiety down.
Atheists can be soothed too but with a different attitude. I personally believe that, sooner or later, we would experience a feeling where your own awareness says to you that there is no more time to keep living. Again, this is something complex that only experience all of those whose death is near.

And the people who lack a belief in god or believe there is no God, but are terrifed of death, they aren't real atheists? — Bylaw

It is not correlated. You are speaking about death but I was referring of what happens afterwards. An atheist would not have fear about the emptiness because he doesn’t believe in anything or the existence of a “heaven” or “hell”

It's better than nothing! — Michael McMahon

If I don't want an afterlife, then I don't find anything at all. It is contradictory. A real atheist would not find "peace" in Christianity (or other dogmas) because he already accepted the emptiness of afterlife.

What would happen if we meditated to Jesus instead of praying to Jesus? — Michael McMahon

What's the real difference? I have checked a quick research on the distinction between "meditation" and "praying" and I found out: The difference between prayer and meditation lies in the internal intentions of the person. Meditation is an exercise in practicing awareness performed to achieve a stillness or inner peace, and a separation of one’s identity from their thoughts. Prayer is usually an internal plea to a being or deity that absolves someone of the ill feelings regarding their current circumstances.

The definition is ambiguous indeed. But what I reach as conclusion is that meditation cannot be connected with Jesus because with the act of meditation we are separating ourselves from any kind of identity.
So, we can only "pray" to Jesus not meditate about him.

I don't know. I'm more interested in health than veganism, which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the health of humans or of the world.

In the US, we need a government agency to start reorganizing the way we approach food. What we have is the result of industries that have profits on their minds instead of health. — frank

:up: :sparkle:

Now that the deficit of supplies is approaching, the government finally will make more reasonable decisions in order to consume food. We have wasted tons of aliments for decades and the water is getting scarce more than ever.
What makes me mad is that all the governments in the world are taking too late these solutions.

An independent Scotland would try to re-join the European union.
I would go further, I love the idea of a continent called the UPE, The United Peoples of Europe! — universeness

Sounds formidable! :100:

That's why the European Union was established. One of the main objectives was avoid both USA and Soviet block. It was not easy because Americans tend to have a lot of power inside economics. But the creation of common treaties and common monetary policies were key to fight against dollar. It is true that European Union is not perfect but we can be agree here in the fact that they did their best to develop a system where fits different languages, cultures, governments, policies, etc...
I wish Scotland will be a member in the future.

We have to stop competing as if we still have to live under jungle rules.
We have to stop competing at all levels, family level, local community level, city level, national level, international level, cultural level, emotional level, historical level etc etc.
We need to COOPERATE NOT COMPETE! Capitalism must be reduced very very significantly. — universeness

Agreed :sparkle: :sparkle:

But with countries like China and USA it would be impossible.

I don't think you are being negative about this thread. We have big problems in the wrold as we know today but at least there are aspects which are not based on numbering. That's the point I want to reach. I mean, it is not necessary to be so competitive in everything. Scotland has the best whisky in the world and I think this is due to Scottish land. If Scotland would be named "number ten" instead, we would never know the taste of Scottish whisky.

Cite a culture or society of any antiquity that completely lacks religious iconography or rites (i.e. storytelling aka "myths") — 180 Proof

I am thinking about Vascones, as a pre-Roman tribe. I have read an interesting paper called: some considerations on the christianization of Vascones. But you are right, even in Iberian groups there were some kind of "myths" around.
But that's far from Christianity or God. I would call those practices as pure rites.

Perhaps we could even use such a system of naming countries to silence all those people who think their country is the best country in the world! — universeness

Yes, it could be a rational solution.

But I still don't see appropriate to classify countries in just numbers. If you think it deeply this technique would let people live in more inequality than we consider it nowadays. Because a citizen who lives in a number one will always be more prosperous than a citizen from number one hundred. This is biased and relative. This is why it is impossible to put numerical standards. For example: China holds the highest GDP, so it would be named as "number one" meanwhile GDP of Spain is in the 14th position so my country would be called "number fourteen". Nevertheless, these digits are so relative because despite Spain (or "number fourteen") is poorer than China ("number one") the latter is sh*t at human rights and it is completely a dictatorship.
Paradoxically, you would live better in country fourteen rather than number one

I imagine a world more competitive than we used to know. Named the countries as competitive imperative needs some standards or basic notions of why one country is called "number one" but other country is called "number one hundred ninety seven"
It would affect us. Humanity will not be the same as we know it nowadays because everything would depend on digits instead other values which doesn't have measure. For example: how can we measure the standards of living in a country? Because all of this is so much relative. We can be agree here that Nordics have the highest standards in the world but they are not in the top in terms of economics. Then, who is lying here? The measure of the GDP or Gini index?

In the other hand, numerical ratings tend to have variations. Imagine our country is called "number three" but for some reasons it gets better and changes to "number one". I see this a nonsense because the culture and customs of one country tend to be static so numerical ratings would mean a world based on countries without culture. I imagine a homogeneous world instead of the diversity as we know nowadays.

Interesting thoughts.

I don't see a possibility to name the countries with just numbers neither the fact to classify them in terms of power or wealth. It is an opened debate which country is the number "one". According to GDP is between USA and China. But if we look into Gini index it is Norway the top country.

In the other hand, it is not only about heritage but history. Every country's name represents all of our ancestors and explains where we come from.
A good example: European Union. This name comes from Greek. In classical Greek mythology, Europa was a Phoenician princess. One view is that her name derives from the Ancient Greek elements εὐρύς (eurús) 'wide, broad', and ὤψ (ōps, gen. ὠπός, ōpós) 'eye, face, countenance', hence their composite Eurṓpē would mean 'wide-gazing' or 'broad of aspect.
As you see typing each nation or group with a name has a big importance. Doing the opposite would be worthless.

What I mean to say is that one country's name is not arbitrary. It represents a lot of culture and history on the citizens.

I only tried to explain that Brazil (despite all the negative characteristics you put over Portugal) is not an indigenous concept but Portuguese. I was speaking about etymology.
If you want from me to recognise how bloody my country is I would say yes. You are right. Spain has committed a lot of bad stuff around America but this is another different topic and I think we already discussed this issue at the "shoutbox"
If you want to me to say sorry I will not do it. Because the "genocide" was perpetrated by landlords and vassals of the king. My family (and the most part of Spanish families) were not involved in such stuff.
"Spain" is a concept created by Romans too. I guess I should find some responsibilities to the Italians. Italy bad and bloody for making disappear the Iberians.

That's the whole point Javi. — universeness

Thanks for understanding me, friend.
:up: :sparkle:

Javi or readers will think you have lost your way. — universeness

They already believe I completely lost my way... :sparkle:

Are there no native Americans because that place became named after a mapmaker? — universeness

I didn't say that. I said that "Brazil" is a state created due to the independence from Portugal.
Before Portuguese galleons arrived to America, there were living indigenous people but that specific territory wasn't named as "Brazil" until the Portuguese conquerors decided to put this name.

"Magical thinking" is just a superstitious thought with a type of fallacious thinking and is a common source of invalid causal inferences: PSYCHEDELIC DRUGS, MAGICAL THINKING AND PSYCHOSIS .
Drives to religiousity? I think no. Whenever someone experiences a superstition they tend to attach it to religion because they were taught a religious education, so that's the only manner to explain the "unknown" for those.
Imagine being born and raised by atheist family. It would be impossible to be superstitious and if "Magical thinking" ever happens it would be explained as a oneiric trip, but not related to "God" and "Bible" and such doctrinal stuff.

The OP said that we cannot deny the religiousity of our ancestors. That's a fallacy. Religion has not existed forever or everywhere.

:sparkle: :up:
We all learn something new everyday here!

No, I guess you already know I am Spanish! :eyes:

:lol: :100:

I am not satirizing anything.

Don't you mean, learn the language of those who conquered the native peoples of Brazil in the 15th century? — universeness

There weren’t native peoples of Brazil because “Brazil” is a creation of Portugal and the only official language of Brazil is Portuguese. The rest are just spoken languages.

self-proclaimed political critics and foreign pseudo-philosophers — Gus Lamarch

Aren’t we all?

So no matter how much you or your society reject God, you are still influenced by the genes of religious ancestors. — Michael McMahon

Disagree. Being religious is not inherited in our DNA. It is a way of life chosen by some believers. Despite there are millions of persons who believe in God, there are also an important community of atheists. So, it is impossible that my genes are influenced by religious affairs. What about the families who are raised by agnostic parents and randomly their child ends up being Christian? That's would be interesting but it could show that religion is a choice and it is not a natural behaviour.

Would you put yourself in heaven if you could externally assess your past life once you had died? — Michael McMahon

Yes, why not? I am not scared of being judged by "heaven"

If your mind expanded after you died, would you be able to excuse your past crimes as "work"?! — Michael McMahon

What do you consider as "past crimes"? Are you taking about sins or what?

The mere fact that other people wholeheartedly endorsed Him meant that He must have been more confident in identifying such "hallucinations". This meant that He may have literally created an entire world of His own by cementing His "dreams". — Michael McMahon

I don't see it as a "cause and effect" argument. I mean, it seems that you see it as fact that God does exist because Jesus (the prophet) has a lot of believers who follow his "idea" of God's existence. So, according to your arguments, the cause is the confidence of Jesus and the cause all the believers of God in the world.
But you are missing an important point: faith. Believe or not believe in God depends on faith. It is not necessary to explain why Jesus has a lot of unconditional followers/believers. Those persons follow both Jesus and God because they just believe in them. I am not sure if they put reasonable arguments to explain why they "follow" such doctrines.

For example we can see how complex Middle Earth is from JRR Tolkien and the author didn't even have anyone praying to him — Michael McMahon

I don't understand this example but I must admit it made me laugh :rofl:

I respect your soliloquy, but this stunned me:

One core difference between Jesus and a deluded patient is that Jesus had lots of people praying to Him. — Michael McMahon

Explain.

What if I do not pray to Jesus? Am I a deluded patient too?

No— and who knows what Bolsonaro is going to do. He’s yet to concede. — Mikie

He has militarized important regions of the country in the past years. I am not doubt he would be ready Coup d'état.

That's not veganism. Not all Indians are practicing Hindus, any more than all Americans are all devout Christians; not all Indians are vegetarian, anymore than all Americans are tooth-and-claw carnivores, and not all vegetarians are vegan. — Vera Mont

I didn't say all Indians were Hindus but the fact that Indian gastronomy is based on vegetables, rice, spices, etc... So they are closer of being vegetarians rather than other cultures where the consumption of meat is pretty high.

I did a quick research on Indian gastronomy and I found out this: Indian cuisine consists of a variety of regional and traditional cuisines native to India. Given the diversity in soil, climate, culture, ethnic groups, and occupations, these cuisines vary substantially and use locally available spices, herbs, vegetables, and fruits.
Some Hindu communities consider beef taboo since they believed that Hindu scriptures condemn cow slaughter. Cow slaughter has been banned in many states of India. However, these restrictions are not followed in the North-Eastern states, West Bengal and Kerala. Vaishnavism followers generally are strict lacto-vegetarians due to an emphasis on Ahimsa. They also do not consume garlic and onions.
Jains follow a strict form of lacto-vegetarianism, known as Jain vegetarianism, which in addition to being completely lacto-vegetarian, also excludes all root vegetables such as carrots and potatoes because when the root is pulled up, organisms that live around the root also die.
Muslims do not eat pork or pork products.
Except in certain North-Eastern regions, canines are not considered suitable for consumption

What we can do instead, or in the meantime, is eat a vegetarian diet, and if necessary, add in whatever mineral, vitamin or amino acid may be insufficient. The Hindu population of India has managed to keep up its numbers, in spite of wars, foreign occupation and droughts, for a few thousand years with no pills at all. — Vera Mont

Agreed. But it is not the same having a controlled vegetarian diet as they tend to use in India than using chemicals substitutes. At least, when you consume only vegetables you are feeding yourself with real food. That's the point I want to make. If you do not want to eat animals I respect it but I am not agree with substitute them with pills or tablets.
In the other hand, while India is a good example of veganism they also consume animals as chickens.

What I try to say is that we cannot replace the proteins of animals with chemistry or technological stuff. I am agree those tablets or pills are full of vitamins, proteins, energy, etc... but they are just a "substitute"

And if a cow or plant for that matter, are not made of the same chemicals as I am what's the point in eating them? — Benj96

You would not be able to eat them because it would be dangerous to our organism

I see your point and I am partially agree. It is true that thanks to chemistry some scientists developed important tablets full of nutrients which can (more or less...) replace organic food as meat.
But after reading your arguments, I think you still defend that we consume animals just for fun or greed. Like we don't replace them with tablets or pills because we are assassins. It is more complex than we are debating here and I think it is not possible at all to completely substitute the nutrients of animals with some chemical stuff. They help us, for real but they are far of being a "real" steak.