Karl Popper on Religion

[radind]

(07-24-2016, 02:19 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-21-2016, 02:30 PM)radind Wrote:

(07-21-2016, 01:49 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yes, and Hillary represents true Biblical ideals; Trump does not.

You won't find the truth in the Bible, unless you first (or also) find it within yourself.

Neither Trump nor Clinton represent Biblical ideals. I think that Clinton is a Secular Humanist who advocates the killing of unborn babies.  I think that Trump is areligious with no concern for any religion.
Secular Humanists have no  real use for the Bible.

We can choose and select which beliefs and behaviors by Clinton or Trump to label as in accord with Biblical ideals, or not. There's plenty to focus on either way.

Many secular humanists have great interest in the Bible. By making blanket statements like that, it seems to me you are not following Jesus' advice. Take the moat out of your own eye.

There are many factors. 
A key one to me is the killing of unborn babies supported by Obama and Clinton.

[JonLaw]

(07-21-2016, 01:49 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yes, and Hillary represents true Biblical ideals; Trump does not.

You won't find the truth in the Bible, unless you first (or also) find it within yourself.

I'm pretty sure that Hillary represents Hillary.  

Not as much as Trump represents Trump, though.

[Eric the Green]

(08-02-2016, 01:21 PM)radind Wrote:

(07-24-2016, 02:19 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-21-2016, 02:30 PM)radind Wrote:

(07-21-2016, 01:49 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yes, and Hillary represents true Biblical ideals; Trump does not.

You won't find the truth in the Bible, unless you first (or also) find it within yourself.

Neither Trump nor Clinton represent Biblical ideals. I think that Clinton is a Secular Humanist who advocates the killing of unborn babies.  I think that Trump is areligious with no concern for any religion.
Secular Humanists have no  real use for the Bible.

We can choose and select which beliefs and behaviors by Clinton or Trump to label as in accord with Biblical ideals, or not. There's plenty to focus on either way.

Many secular humanists have great interest in the Bible. By making blanket statements like that, it seems to me you are not following Jesus' advice. Take the moat out of your own eye.

There are many factors. 
A key one to me is the killing of unborn babies supported by Obama and Clinton.

Many "unborn babies" will always be killed by their mothers. The difference is whether we allow the mothers to live afterward or not.

Show me chapter and verse where Jesus says abortion is not allowed.

Otherwise, it is just your interpretation of "Christianity" against mine. It is anyway, of course. Always, anyone's interpretation only. It is moderns who have erred in that respect, taking the Bible literally. Or actually, trying unsuccessfully to do so, and to impose their interpretation on people.

[radind]

(08-02-2016, 04:55 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-02-2016, 01:21 PM)radind Wrote:

(07-24-2016, 02:19 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-21-2016, 02:30 PM)radind Wrote:

(07-21-2016, 01:49 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yes, and Hillary represents true Biblical ideals; Trump does not.

You won't find the truth in the Bible, unless you first (or also) find it within yourself.

Neither Trump nor Clinton represent Biblical ideals. I think that Clinton is a Secular Humanist who advocates the killing of unborn babies.  I think that Trump is areligious with no concern for any religion.
Secular Humanists have no  real use for the Bible.

We can choose and select which beliefs and behaviors by Clinton or Trump to label as in accord with Biblical ideals, or not. There's plenty to focus on either way.

Many secular humanists have great interest in the Bible. By making blanket statements like that, it seems to me you are not following Jesus' advice. Take the moat out of your own eye.

There are many factors. 
A key one to me is the killing of unborn babies supported by Obama and Clinton.

Many "unborn babies" will always be killed by their mothers. The difference is whether we allow the mothers to live afterward or not.

Show me chapter and verse where Jesus says abortion is not allowed.

Otherwise, it is just your interpretation of "Christianity" against mine. It is anyway, of course. Always, anyone's interpretation only. It is moderns who have erred in that respect, taking the Bible literally. Or actually, trying unsuccessfully to do so, and to impose their interpretation on people.

I am not a book chapter verse person. 
In my opinion the taking of innocent life is wrong.
No rights for defenseless unborn babies.

[radind]

I agree with this perspective.

Quote:http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/e...bible.html

… “Personhood is endowed by God at the moment of creation - before which there was not a human being and after which there is”…

[radind]

(08-02-2016, 09:14 PM)taramarie Wrote: While I do not like abortion i do not think it is anyone's right to tell someone to live by a Christian belief. That is not a secular nation if you wish that to be law. At the same time there are instances where the mother's life is in danger while giving birth, rape cases as well as children who are raped and end up pregnant. Are we to save their lives if we are to value life? Are their lives as valuable as a fertilized egg/developing human? Or how about those who do not want to have a child, end up pregnant, are forced to have the child, then end up dumping the very aware baby out in the street? It is not as black and white as some make it to be. Case by case there are times where do you save the life of the mother (who may be a raped child), someone who may be unable to support the wee one, or someone who will die if she has the child. Death during pregnancy etc. People get up in arms about saving an unborn baby but do i hear of the same people weighing the outcomes as well as the wee ones quality of life once out of the womb or even the life of the mother who may fit into one of the examples i gave out? And is this not the same as imposing a value onto another like in the case of telling business owners to serve those they do not want to serve...or forcing people to marry who they do not want to etc? Or is your value more important than ours?

Forcing people to have a child does not necessarily mean that child will grow up in a loving home. It does not guarantee that the mother will not just abandon the child. Do you care about this too?

People are interesting, aren't they?

It is just a simple belief in the life of the unborn baby. I realize that the US law makes abortion legal, but I do not have to agree with these decisions. And, I do not plan to  support or vote for those supporting abortion.

[Eric the Green]

(08-02-2016, 07:02 PM)radind Wrote:

(08-02-2016, 04:55 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-02-2016, 01:21 PM)radind Wrote:

(07-24-2016, 02:19 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-21-2016, 02:30 PM)radind Wrote: Neither Trump nor Clinton represent Biblical ideals. I think that Clinton is a Secular Humanist who advocates the killing of unborn babies.  I think that Trump is areligious with no concern for any religion.
Secular Humanists have no  real use for the Bible.

We can choose and select which beliefs and behaviors by Clinton or Trump to label as in accord with Biblical ideals, or not. There's plenty to focus on either way.

Many secular humanists have great interest in the Bible. By making blanket statements like that, it seems to me you are not following Jesus' advice. Take the moat out of your own eye.

There are many factors. 
A key one to me is the killing of unborn babies supported by Obama and Clinton.

Many "unborn babies" will always be killed by their mothers. The difference is whether we allow the mothers to live afterward or not.

Show me chapter and verse where Jesus says abortion is not allowed.

Otherwise, it is just your interpretation of "Christianity" against mine. It is anyway, of course. Always, anyone's interpretation only. It is moderns who have erred in that respect, taking the Bible literally. Or actually, trying unsuccessfully to do so, and to impose their interpretation on people.

I am not a book chapter verse person. 
In my opinion the taking of innocent life is wrong.
No rights for defenseless unborn babies.

Fine, as long as you don't support your decision as "Biblical" or "Christian," which it is not.

Democrats support a woman's right to choose whether or not to bear a child in its 1st trimester. That does not say that the women should choose to have an abortion. It does not support a law to put in jail a woman who makes a choice not to bear a child. I understand that is taking the life of an unborn fetus in its 1st trimester.

Republicans started a war in Iraq for no reason that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians who had done nothing. Republicans say we should have continued that war. These are not unborn fetuses, but real live human beings.

Republicans want to endanger all life on this planet by denying the human causes of climate change, so that oil and coal companies can continue pumping pollution into our air and water. Millions have already died due to their denial policies, which go back 36 years.

These in the minds of most liberals and Democrats and many moderates are more significant "takings of innocent life" than taking the life of an unborn fetus in its first trimester. Especially since if the abortion pill were made available to all, the issue would be off the political table.

And that's not even to mention the gun debate. Or how Republicans cut off people who need financial support in hard times. Or take away health care, and endanger workers and consumers with their laissez faire policies.

[MillsT_98]

(08-02-2016, 11:28 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(08-02-2016, 11:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-02-2016, 07:02 PM)radind Wrote:

(08-02-2016, 04:55 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-02-2016, 01:21 PM)radind Wrote: There are many factors. 
A key one to me is the killing of unborn babies supported by Obama and Clinton.

Many "unborn babies" will always be killed by their mothers. The difference is whether we allow the mothers to live afterward or not.

Show me chapter and verse where Jesus says abortion is not allowed.

Otherwise, it is just your interpretation of "Christianity" against mine. It is anyway, of course. Always, anyone's interpretation only. It is moderns who have erred in that respect, taking the Bible literally. Or actually, trying unsuccessfully to do so, and to impose their interpretation on people.

I am not a book chapter verse person. 
In my opinion the taking of innocent life is wrong.
No rights for defenseless unborn babies.

Fine, as long as you don't support your decision as "Biblical" or "Christian," which it is not.

Democrats support a woman's right to choose whether or not to bear a child in its 1st trimester. That does not say that the women should choose to have an abortion. It does not support a law to put in jail a woman who makes a choice not to bear a child. I understand that is taking the life of an unborn fetus in its 1st trimester.

Republicans started a war in Iraq for no reason that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians who had done nothing. Republicans say we should have continued that war. These are not unborn fetuses, but real live human beings.

Republicans want to endanger all life on this planet by denying the human causes of climate change, so that oil and coal companies can continue pumping pollution into our air and water. Millions have already died due to their denial policies, which go back 36 years.

These in the minds of most liberals and Democrats and many moderates are more significant "takings of innocent life" than taking the life of an unborn fetus in its first trimester. Especially since if the abortion pill were made available to all, the issue would be off the political table.

And that's not even to mention the gun debate. Or how Republicans cut off people who need financial support in hard times. Or take away health care, and endanger workers and consumers with their laissez faire policies.

I have heard all of this and if true for repubs it is a fantastic point. Calling all repubs! What is your counter argument for this? Are their lives not worthy because they are OUT of the precious womb? Seems to me that once you are out of the womb they do not give a shit. I would LOVE to hear their response. I am waiting......

Sounds very self-centered if you ask me. They're basically saying, "I don't give a shit about anyone but myself" by not caring about the quality of life for babies outside the womb, and by denying health care and financial support for anyone who isn't rich.

[Odin]

Traditionally it was believed by Europeans that abortion was OK before "quickening", when the baby's movements started being felt by the mother, that was when it was believed that the fetus got a soul. The modern "pro-life" sentiment is a creation of the 19th Century

[radind]

In my opinion, John Lennox provides a good presentation of Science and God.

Science and God, by Dr. John Lennox https://youtu.be/DoLTcv-RPdM via @YouTube

[Eric the Green]

I have watched a lot of these discussions and debates between traditional atheists and traditional Christians.

It is of course interesting to watch them from the higher New Age and mystical worldview point of view.

It is amazing that these people can't think outside the box, as if they didn't even know that mysticism exists. Two straw men battling each other. God is assumed to be the traditional myth of the supernatural dictator, and the physical universe is assumed to be without any life or spirit. It is an impossible debate. You can't solve a problem from within the point of view of the problem, as Einstein might have said.

But the mystical point of view is there for those who are interested.

[Eric the Green]

Listening to Lennox prattle on, his notion is that "God" is something to "believe in," that "belief in God is not a delusion." But science is about "knowledge." "Belief" can never defeat "knowledge." "knowledge of God" is the only alternative between the two "delusions" and "wish fulfillments."

"Belief in God" is favored by conservatives, because they want a social control mechanism. It is about social control, in my opinion. Humans can't be trusted to ever do the right thing without control by religious authority. It is also based on the pessimism about whether humans can ever know the truth.

[radind]

(08-05-2016, 12:43 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Listening to Lennox prattle on, his notion is that "God" is something to "believe in," that "belief in God is not a delusion." But science is about "knowledge." "Belief" can never defeat "knowledge." "knowledge of God" is the only alternative between the two "delusions" and "wish fulfillments."

"Belief in God" is favored by conservatives, because they want a social control mechanism. It is about social control, in my opinion. Humans can't be trusted to ever do the right thing without control by religious authority. It is also based on the pessimism about whether humans can ever know the truth.

A difference of worldviews.

[Eric the Green]

One worldview works, the other doesn't.

[radind]

(08-12-2016, 02:52 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(08-12-2016, 02:38 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

One worldview works, the other doesn't.

i agree to that. You either take the steps to avoid even getting pregnant (and provide the tools to avoid it as humans will have sex. It is part of nature.) They will either have sex protected or not. If people do not like abortion PROVIDE THE TOOLS TO PREVENT ABORTIONS FROM HAPPENING! Seriously they cannot be this ideologically blind, can they? One other point i must bring up. In some cases this would not work. In the case of kidnap/rape, one time rapes, and child molestation/rape. Unless the person is actually on the pill which is not one hundred per cent full proof on its own. So what to do for these poor souls. There is a device that can prevent rape.....but may lead to a very angry and wounded rapist. I think it should be compulsory for women to learn self defense or a martial art and carry pepper spray at all times.The attacker cannot attack if he cannot see. Learn this at an early age too so this would cover everyone that i just mentioned.

I favor all means to prevent rape and severe  prison sentences for those convicted of rape.

[Odin]

(08-12-2016, 02:38 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

One worldview works, the other doesn't.

Eric praising a Flyover State?

[Eric the Green]

Not only that, I "flew" there myself to promote my book in 1997. It was a good experience.

[Ragnarök_62]

(08-15-2016, 01:31 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Not only that, I "flew" there myself to promote my book in 1997. It was a good experience.

Hmmmmm.... Musta been a good LSD trip, man.











Didya see Ozzy?

[Eric the Green]

No, I was high on astrology, man. A real cosmic trip!

[radind]

Update on worldview survey.

Quote:Survey Finds Just 10 Percent Of Americans Have A Biblical Worldview
http://www.westernjournalism.com/survey-...worldview/
… "A new survey released Monday revealed just 10 percent of Americans truly have a biblical worldview, despite four times that amount believing that they do.
The American Culture and Faith Institute, headed by pollster George Barna, interviewed approximately 6,000 people from the general population and in church leadership in early February.”…