Your top 10 reasons for rejecting Christianity

[Learner]

I have one reason.

In our life time we will see billions of people die and not one come back. There is no reason for me to go any further.

What scares me is when we raise a dead person, and I believe we will, people will soon forget that we couldn't do it and will use it as proof that it could have happened.

That's interesting. You have likes from four other individuals who also seem to believe, eventually, "man himself will raise the dead!!?"
So there is faith, among the secular. Welcome aboard?

He is saying that he has confidence in the scientific method, as well he should. Because the scientific method works, and doctors use modern medicine to bring people back from "the dead" all the fucking time. Praying to an imaginary skybeast we have no evidence for and believe in based purely on faith, does not. Do you really not understand the difference?

Hello again Atrib... So ressurection is plausible in your cats eyes? Would you still call the ressurected (who have been dead for some time, then brought to life) zombies, or have you changed your mind on the idea, that dead people could come alive again? You never believed it was ever possible by all your previous posts. Zombies etc.. Of course you'll going to say there's a difference now, between a biblical and a modern medicine idea for a human ressurection.

Think about what you're saying and agreeing to. Resurrection?

 

[Rhea]

I have one reason.

In our life time we will see billions of people die and not one come back. There is no reason for me to go any further.

What scares me is when we raise a dead person, and I believe we will, people will soon forget that we couldn't do it and will use it as proof that it could have happened.

That's interesting. You have likes from four other individuals who also seem to believe, eventually, "man himself will raise the dead!!?"
So there is faith, among the secular. Welcome aboard?

Adding another perspective to help you see why you are interpreting this incorrectly:

the secularists read the relevant and important part as “what scares me is…” that religious people will see a scientific medical success and decide that it’s the same as their miracle story and consider their “faith” validated. But the reality is that medical science studied the way the human body works, found out what it needs to be restarted and successfully did it and it have absolutley no connection to their bible story, but they’ll think it does.

You can consider this action having already happened with the invention of CPR and the defribulator. Humans flatline - the heart stops, the lungs stop. By ancient rules, they are DEAD. Then CPR is applied, or a defib (tools of science created through physical understanding of the natural world) and the person is “resurrected.”

You use the word “resurrected,” with what seems like giddy delight while doing exactly… EXACTLY! what SIB fears you will do, considering the medical advancement as some proof of your religious myth.

It’s not.

Instead, it quite debunks your religious myth, proving that people who are considered “dead” still have physical attributes that are acessible as “life” given the right conditions. CPR and the defribulator have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that “life” persists for some time after a heartbeat and breathing stop. Indeed, we know in conditions of cold (such as drowning victims in icy water), this can be more than an hour, then the heartbeat and breathing can be restored through science and the person revived. Brought back to life. “Ressurected.” And it is 100% scientifically understandable and predictable. And it does not in any way validate your religious myth that a divine power exists.

Indeed, it is well known that people whose vital signs still exist but are severely depressed (extemely slow heartbeat and extremely shallow breathing) are thought of as “dead,” sometimes for days, and their body later re-established normal patterns and they “wake from the dead,” while we know they were not actually dead. These “ressurections” have happened numerous times, inluding people “waking up” in a morgue.

And here you are, showing exactly the problem with uncritical acceptance of a myth; you see someone talking about medical advancements making that bodily return from low response or lackk of heartbeat to normal oprating conditions, and you let us watch you decide, “see? This validates my Jesus story!”

It doesn’t. But that’s SIB’s fear that people like you will see good scientific evidence and completely misinterpret iit to bolster a dangerous belief.

We just watched you do it, right now, when you gleefully asked if we were having a “faith” moment. It was a weird thing to see you say because, no, there was no “faith” there at all. There was extrapolation that advancing science will likely continue to advance, as it has, and uncritical people will continue to think it is magic.

Fair viewpoint Jahyn, thanks for your decent response, ( I was really intrigued that Atrib and Bilby liked SIB's post, which suggested man being ressurected.)

You misinterpreted what part of that they were “like”ing.
You assumed it was liking ressurection.
But you did not consider that perhaps they were liking the acknowledgement that uncritical people will use the data wrong and try to sell it as proof of their myth.

He is saying that he has confidence in the scientific method, as well he should. Because the scientific method works, and doctors use modern medicine to bring people back from "the dead" all the fucking time. Praying to an imaginary skybeast we have no evidence for and believe in based purely on faith, does not. Do you really not understand the difference?

Hello again Atrib... So ressurection is plausible in your cats eyes? Would you still call the ressurected (who have been dead for some time, then brought to life) zombies, or have you changed your mind on the idea, that dead people could come alive again? You never believed it was ever possible by all your previous posts. Zombies etc.. Of course you'll going to say there's a difference now, between a biblical and a modern medicine idea for a human ressurection.

Think about what you're saying and agreeing to. Resurrection?

You seem to be using this word “ressurection” in a way that the rest of us are not using it. ANd then trying to assign your definition to us.

Question:
- Do you use the word “resurrection” to mean a divine miracle?
- And you are asking if we are admitting to belief in a divine miracle?

Clarification
- When we use the term “bring back from the dead” we mean scientifically, medically, restarting body processes by understanding the body processes and how to connect them to their power source. We mean science understanding how a brain stores data and re-establishing blood flow and heartbeat and oxygenation to support the brain. We understand that “dead” is often thought of as a cessation of heartbeat, even though science has shown us that the brain continues to operate for some time, and if the heartbeat can be restored in time, the person is able to resume function. We call that “bringing back,” or even “bringing back from the dead,” because the definition of dead, for so many millenia prior to th understanding of the brain was that the heartbeat was the threshold. But at this point, it’s a euphemism, since the brain was not yet dead. And we extrapolate that science will continue to stretch this window for more and more time…
- And that people like you will think it is supernatural and proves your Jesus story.
- But essentially, it’s just you using the term “resurrection” to mean god-derived and thinking that we mean the same thing when we say “brought back from the dead,” beacuse you wish to believe that deep down we support your myth. But it’s just you misusing language to avoid understanding science.

 

[Jarhyn]

I have one reason.

In our life time we will see billions of people die and not one come back. There is no reason for me to go any further.

What scares me is when we raise a dead person, and I believe we will, people will soon forget that we couldn't do it and will use it as proof that it could have happened.

That's interesting. You have likes from four other individuals who also seem to believe, eventually, "man himself will raise the dead!!?"
So there is faith, among the secular. Welcome aboard?

Adding another perspective to help you see why you are interpreting this incorrectly:

the secularists read the relevant and important part as “what scares me is…” that religious people will see a scientific medical success and decide that it’s the same as their miracle story and consider their “faith” validated. But the reality is that medical science studied the way the human body works, found out what it needs to be restarted and successfully did it and it have absolutley no connection to their bible story, but they’ll think it does.

You can consider this action having already happened with the invention of CPR and the defribulator. Humans flatline - the heart stops, the lungs stop. By ancient rules, they are DEAD. Then CPR is applied, or a defib (tools of science created through physical understanding of the natural world) and the person is “resurrected.”

You use the word “resurrected,” with what seems like giddy delight while doing exactly… EXACTLY! what SIB fears you will do, considering the medical advancement as some proof of your religious myth.

It’s not.

Instead, it quite debunks your religious myth, proving that people who are considered “dead” still have physical attributes that are acessible as “life” given the right conditions. CPR and the defribulator have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that “life” persists for some time after a heartbeat and breathing stop. Indeed, we know in conditions of cold (such as drowning victims in icy water), this can be more than an hour, then the heartbeat and breathing can be restored through science and the person revived. Brought back to life. “Ressurected.” And it is 100% scientifically understandable and predictable. And it does not in any way validate your religious myth that a divine power exists.

Indeed, it is well known that people whose vital signs still exist but are severely depressed (extemely slow heartbeat and extremely shallow breathing) are thought of as “dead,” sometimes for days, and their body later re-established normal patterns and they “wake from the dead,” while we know they were not actually dead. These “ressurections” have happened numerous times, inluding people “waking up” in a morgue.

And here you are, showing exactly the problem with uncritical acceptance of a myth; you see someone talking about medical advancements making that bodily return from low response or lackk of heartbeat to normal oprating conditions, and you let us watch you decide, “see? This validates my Jesus story!”

It doesn’t. But that’s SIB’s fear that people like you will see good scientific evidence and completely misinterpret iit to bolster a dangerous belief.

We just watched you do it, right now, when you gleefully asked if we were having a “faith” moment. It was a weird thing to see you say because, no, there was no “faith” there at all. There was extrapolation that advancing science will likely continue to advance, as it has, and uncritical people will continue to think it is magic.

Fair viewpoint Jahyn, thanks for your decent response, ( I was really intrigued that Atrib and Bilby liked SIB's post, which suggested man being ressurected.)

You misinterpreted what part of that they were “like”ing.
You assumed it was liking ressurection.
But you did not consider that perhaps they were liking the acknowledgement that uncritical people will use the data wrong and try to sell it as proof of their myth.

He is saying that he has confidence in the scientific method, as well he should. Because the scientific method works, and doctors use modern medicine to bring people back from "the dead" all the fucking time. Praying to an imaginary skybeast we have no evidence for and believe in based purely on faith, does not. Do you really not understand the difference?

Hello again Atrib... So ressurection is plausible in your cats eyes? Would you still call the ressurected (who have been dead for some time, then brought to life) zombies, or have you changed your mind on the idea, that dead people could come alive again? You never believed it was ever possible by all your previous posts. Zombies etc.. Of course you'll going to say there's a difference now, between a biblical and a modern medicine idea for a human ressurection.

Think about what you're saying and agreeing to. Resurrection?

You seem to be using this word “ressurection” in a way that the rest of us are not using it. ANd then trying to assign your definition to us.

Question:
- Do you use the word “resurrection” to mean a divine miracle?
- And you are asking if we are admitting to belief in a divine miracle?

Clarification
- When we use the term “bring back from the dead” we mean scientifically, medically, restarting body processes by understanding the body processes and how to connect them to their power source. We mean science understanding how a brain stores data and re-establishing blood flow and heartbeat and oxygenation to support the brain. We understand that “dead” is often thought of as a cessation of heartbeat, even though science has shown us that the brain continues to operate for some time, and if the heartbeat can be restored in time, the person is able to resume function. We call that “bringing back,” or even “bringing back from the dead,” because the definition of dead, for so many millenia prior to th understanding of the brain was that the heartbeat was the threshold. But at this point, it’s a euphemism, since the brain was not yet dead. And we extrapolate that science will continue to stretch this window for more and more time…
- And that people like you will think it is supernatural and proves your Jesus story.
- But essentially, it’s just you using the term “resurrection” to mean god-derived and thinking that we mean the same thing when we say “brought back from the dead,” beacuse you wish to believe that deep down we support your myth. But it’s just you misusing language to avoid understanding science.

And not only this, at some point we will have the means to crack open a skull, scan a brain, and get enough of the waveform from it to kickstart it in a different neural implementation.

I fully expect that at some point "dead" will change from "the brain stopped working and won't restart" to "there are no backups", and a situation where you can trivially kill and revive someone under the old definitions with a power switch or reset button.

 

[Rhea]

My top 1 reason for rejecting Christianity: it's evil. It's fractally morally wrong, immoral on every scale in every detail. Adam sinned by disobeying before he'd been given a chance to know disobeying was wrong? "Original sin": guilt by inheritance from somebody else's sin? Thou shalt not kill but God gets to kill all He pleases and is still called good? Job was stripped of all he had and proved he was still loyal so God rewards him by restoring him to his good life, well isn't that nice, but all Job's original family and servants are still dead, but that's okay because they're just chattel so who cares about them? God drowns the entire human race apart from one family? And on and on in the same vein. Did God have some good reason for being a massively parallel killer that we just don't know about? God tells the Israelites to murder all the Amelekites, including little kids, why? He says why: revenge. Revenge, against little kids, for what their tribe's adults had done? And last and worst: hellfire. Infinite torture as punishment for finite crime, and for the non-crimes of ignorance, disbelief and nonworship? And this outrage against every form of justice is called a morality? How can any thinking person with a conscience not recoil in horror from such an ideology? If there were a God and if He wanted us to be Christian, then as conscious moral agents we'd have a duty to judge that He's a villain, that He is exactly what Erdos called Him: "The Supreme Fascist".

This is a big part of my thought process as well, but with a twist.
For me, the fractal moral wrongness of it creates an inability to believe.

It does not make sense that such evil is supernatural. It just doesn’t make any fucking sense.
I am unable to imagine any divine being that would do that.

I find it quite easy to believe that nationalistic (tribalistic) authoritarians, especially with psychopathic or nacissistic disorders would design such a story. It makes perfect sense that an Idi Amin, or a Pol Pot or a Stalin or a Torquemeda… or an Abraham or a Moses or Mohammed or a Jesus… would invent such a backstory. That makes perfect sense. A twisted human would totally create a self-aggrandizing story where they are the personal hero and everyone else can be killed and tortured in righteousness to support the feeling of godliness they think they deserve.

The whole bible story makes perfect sense if written by those people. It’s twisted, it deals out punishments, it doesn’t care if it is internally consistent, the story changes to suit the day. It makes one group highlighted and the rest barely human. It’s exactly what a malignant narcissist would write.

.

To me the moral wrongness of it on every level is the thing that makes it impossible to be true. It stops me from being able to believe it. If there were a god, it could not possibly look like that. It does not compute.

Therre are other thngs that don’t compute, I’ll put those in a separate post because this one is absolutely a show-stopper on its own, and was a big part of what prevented me from ever believing, even though I was raised in a religious house.

 

[Rhea]

And not only this, at some point we will have the means to crack open a skull, scan a brain, and get enough of the waveform from it to kickstart it in a different neural implementation.

I fully expect that at some point "dead" will change from "the brain stopped working and won't restart" to "there are no backups", and a situation where you can trivially kill and revive someone under the old definitions with a power switch or reset button.

A very interesting novel on the topic:

Skinned (novel) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It has some interesting interpersonal scenes about how people react to the person’s brain downloaded into an artifical body. Basicall, they download the memories at the moment of death, and then the artifical mech creates new memories to continue “living” from then on. But it’s not ~quite~ perfect, because theyy think differently about emotions and risk. And if something goes badly wrong, they “reset” back to that moment of death download and start again. Which also creeps people out.

 

[Jarhyn]

My top 1 reason for rejecting Christianity: it's evil. It's fractally morally wrong, immoral on every scale in every detail. Adam sinned by disobeying before he'd been given a chance to know disobeying was wrong? "Original sin": guilt by inheritance from somebody else's sin? Thou shalt not kill but God gets to kill all He pleases and is still called good? Job was stripped of all he had and proved he was still loyal so God rewards him by restoring him to his good life, well isn't that nice, but all Job's original family and servants are still dead, but that's okay because they're just chattel so who cares about them? God drowns the entire human race apart from one family? And on and on in the same vein. Did God have some good reason for being a massively parallel killer that we just don't know about? God tells the Israelites to murder all the Amelekites, including little kids, why? He says why: revenge. Revenge, against little kids, for what their tribe's adults had done? And last and worst: hellfire. Infinite torture as punishment for finite crime, and for the non-crimes of ignorance, disbelief and nonworship? And this outrage against every form of justice is called a morality? How can any thinking person with a conscience not recoil in horror from such an ideology? If there were a God and if He wanted us to be Christian, then as conscious moral agents we'd have a duty to judge that He's a villain, that He is exactly what Erdos called Him: "The Supreme Fascist".

This is a big part of my thought process as well, but with a twist.
For me, the fractal moral wrongness of it creates an inability to believe.

It does not make sense that such evil is supernatural. It just doesn’t make any fucking sense.
I am unable to imagine any divine being that would do that.

I find it quite easy to believe that nationalistic (tribalistic) authoritarians, especially with psychopathic or nacissistic disorders would design such a story. It makes perfect sense that an Idi Amin, or a Pol Pot or a Stalin or a Torquemeda… or an Abraham or a Moses or Mohammed or a Jesus… would invent such a backstory. That makes perfect sense. A twisted human would totally create a self-aggrandizing story where they are the personal hero and everyone else can be killed and tortured in righteousness to support the feeling of godliness they think they deserve.

The whole bible story makes perfect sense if written by those people. It’s twisted, it deals out punishments, it doesn’t care if it is internally consistent, the story changes to suit the day. It makes one group highlighted and the rest barely human. It’s exactly what a malignant narcissist would write.

.

To me the moral wrongness of it on every level is the thing that makes it impossible to be true. It stops me from being able to believe it. If there were a god, it could not possibly look like that. It does not compute.

Therre are other thngs that don’t compute, I’ll put those in a separate post because this one is absolutely a show-stopper on its own, and was a big part of what prevented me from ever believing, even though I was raised in a religious house.

So, not that I know all that many Christians or Narcissists in general that have the wherewithal to play a game with a learning curve that seems more like climbing a around a horizontal protrusion, but...

Well, it proves out the idea that such evil can be supernatural DOES make sense.

Somewhere on my hard drive there is a simulated universe where four kids got smashed out of existence under a lowering drawbridge because they were taking too much processing power to calculate their activities and preventing further immigration.

I did the same thing a couple times with an overpopulation of cats, and then also with a couple of dwarves that were completely miserable, would not remain exiled because they had local family, and who would take their misery out by fighting in the chowhall and had thus committed a few murders.

Things absolutely could compute if you accept some shitheel like me running the show, but that doesn't play well with Divine Command Theory

 

[Rhea]

The moral wrongness I posted above is one main reason I cannot believe.

Other reasons all likewise revolve around, “I am unable to believe this is true. It does not compute.” And I think of them mostly as questions, if this were true, then why would this other thing happen? Does not compute.

• If there were a heaven, and there was no suffering there, and the beings gave the god what it wanted (eternal worship?) then why even have earth? Why not make the beings perfect in the first place? This doesn’t make sense.
• If there were a hell, why would a god expend energy on it? Why would it not annihilate anything bad? Doesn’t compute. Hell makes no sense.
• If there were a message that the god needed to give mankind, and this god were capable of designing life! how could it not deliver the message unambiguously and instantaneously? Doesn’t compute. 2000 year old stories make no sense.
• If there were some misbehavior by some humans, why would any other human have to be punished or tested? That never works. It makes no sense. No god could be that dumb.

I could go on for nearly every single bible story. They just make no sense. You ask one question about it and realize there is no answer. It just makes no sense at all.

I am unable to muster one iota of “belief” in things that make no sense. I just can’t do it.
And I notice that the people who can decide to believe things that make no sense, are typically unwilling to engage in exploring why it makes no sense to me. They do not want to contemplate the questions that I find unavoidable.

… unless it was created by humans. Then it all makes sense. Humans would do all of those things.

 

[Rhea]

This is a big part of my thought process as well, but with a twist.
For me, the fractal moral wrongness of it creates an inability to believe.

It does not make sense that such evil is supernatural. It just doesn’t make any fucking sense.
I am unable to imagine any divine being that would do that.

So, not that I know all that many Christians or Narcissists in general that have the wherewithal to play a game with a learning curve that seems more like climbing a around a horizontal protrusion, but...

Well, it proves out the idea that such evil can be supernatural DOES make sense.

Somewhere on my hard drive there is a simulated universe where four kids got smashed out of existence under a lowering drawbridge because they were taking too much processing power to calculate their activities and preventing further immigration.

I did the same thing a couple times with an overpopulation of cats, and then also with a couple of dwarves that were completely miserable, would not remain exiled because they had local family, and who would take their misery out by fighting in the chowhall and had thus committed a few murders.

Things absolutely could compute if you accept some shitheel like me running the show, but that doesn't play well with Divine Command Theory

No, I don’t think it does prove that. Because you are not supernatural. When you design a game, you are still a human brain.

 

[Learner]

I have one reason.

In our life time we will see billions of people die and not one come back. There is no reason for me to go any further.

What scares me is when we raise a dead person, and I believe we will, people will soon forget that we couldn't do it and will use it as proof that it could have happened.

That's interesting. You have likes from four other individuals who also seem to believe, eventually, "man himself will raise the dead!!?"
So there is faith, among the secular. Welcome aboard?

Adding another perspective to help you see why you are interpreting this incorrectly:

the secularists read the relevant and important part as “what scares me is…” that religious people will see a scientific medical success and decide that it’s the same as their miracle story and consider their “faith” validated. But the reality is that medical science studied the way the human body works, found out what it needs to be restarted and successfully did it and it have absolutley no connection to their bible story, but they’ll think it does.

You can consider this action having already happened with the invention of CPR and the defribulator. Humans flatline - the heart stops, the lungs stop. By ancient rules, they are DEAD. Then CPR is applied, or a defib (tools of science created through physical understanding of the natural world) and the person is “resurrected.”

You use the word “resurrected,” with what seems like giddy delight while doing exactly… EXACTLY! what SIB fears you will do, considering the medical advancement as some proof of your religious myth.

Well I don't think the context was regarding 'short time death; or immediate flatlining, when the brain is still alive. Nice try posters!

The line from SIB's post , " when we raise a dead person, and I believe we will.." seems to me the implication means, that it's at some point in the future, we'll have the means. Literally raising the long deceased, brain dead - just as those who beleive in the same for the future in Cryonics, cryopreserving their bodies in the belief that ,the future advancement in science will to bring them back.

You are in great error to think this would be in the theists "favour", that this would be used as proof for Religion. It's odd, simply because the belief is: ONLY God can bring people back to life, not even satan could etc...

What you misunderstand - IF humans were able to be brought back to life, by humans. THEN Christianity will have a serious problem, there's no doubt about that. So why would that be a good idea to use that as proof?

It’s not.

Instead, it quite debunks your religious myth, proving that people who are considered “dead” still have physical attributes that are acessible as “life” given the right conditions. CPR and the defribulator have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that “life” persists for some time after a heartbeat and breathing stop. Indeed, we know in conditions of cold (such as drowning victims in icy water), this can be more than an hour, then the heartbeat and breathing can be restored through science and the person revived. Brought back to life. “Ressurected.” And it is 100% scientifically understandable and predictable. And it does not in any way validate your religious myth that a divine power exists.

More Irony:

Terms like ressurected and life after death will have new intepretive defintion meanings or perspectives, scientifically accepted and understood eventually.

Indeed, it is well known that people whose vital signs still exist but are severely depressed (extemely slow heartbeat and extremely shallow breathing) are thought of as “dead,” sometimes for days, and their body later re-established normal patterns and they “wake from the dead,” while we know they were not actually dead. These “ressurections” have happened numerous times, inluding people “waking up” in a morgue.

See the above.. short time death..

And here you are, showing exactly the problem with uncritical acceptance of a myth; you see someone talking about medical advancements making that bodily return from low response or lackk of heartbeat to normal oprating conditions, and you let us watch you decide, “see? This validates my Jesus story!”

It doesn’t. But that’s SIB’s fear that people like you will see good scientific evidence and completely misinterpret iit to bolster a dangerous belief.

We just watched you do it, right now, when you gleefully asked if we were having a “faith” moment. It was a weird thing to see you say because, no, there was no “faith” there at all. There was extrapolation that advancing science will likely continue to advance, as it has, and uncritical people will continue to think it is magic.

See the above 'What you misunderstand..,' Again... It's actually the opposite to validating Jesus's story.

Fair viewpoint Jahyn, thanks for your decent response, ( I was really intrigued that Atrib and Bilby liked SIB's post, which suggested man being ressurected.)

You misinterpreted what part of that they were “like”ing.
You assumed it was liking ressurection.
But you did not consider that perhaps they were liking the acknowledgement that uncritical people will use the data wrong and try to sell it as proof of their myth.

You (like TGG) misinterpreted my post, and the use of the 'wink smiley'. It was just ironic humour.

Not neccessary to repsond to the rest of your post as my response will be taken from the same 'see the above' reponses.

 

[Elixir]

1) it’s stupid
2) it requires its followers to be stupid
3) it’s cruel
4) it makes its followers cruel
5) It’s greedy
6) it endorses greed in its followers
7) it is hypocritical
8) it endorses hypocrisy in its followers
9) child molesting perverts are over-represented among its leadership.

And the underlying reason for my rejection of Christianity and other superstitions:

10) my parents told me to study religions because “they’re interesting”, so I did.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

When that next guy resurrects I wonder if his followers are going to want to eat him too.

 

[Rhea]

You (like TGG) misinterpreted my post, and the use of the 'wink smiley'. It was just ironic humour.

Not neccessary to repsond to the rest of your post as my response will be taken from the same 'see the above' reponses.

I see we were victims of “Poe’s Law,”

• Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture stating that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, every parody of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied.

And unfortunately, insincere use of the smilie by evangelists has caused even that telltale to become ambiguous. So that when you, who are known for claiming people’s posts to mean something they do not, then claimed that SIB’s post meant something that it did not, your smilie did not offer a clue that you were joking.

Such is life on the internet.


It has nevertheless been an interesting discussion, and perhaps useful for others reading the thread.


My apologies for failing to note that you were not being serious.

 

[SIB]

Well I don't think the context was regarding 'short time death; or immediate flatlining, when the brain is still alive. Nice try posters!

The line from SIB's post , " when we raise a dead person, and I believe we will.." seems to me the implication means, that it's at some point in the future, we'll have the means. Literally raising the long deceased, brain dead - just as those who beleive in the same for the future in Cryonics, cryopreserving their bodies in the belief that ,the future advancement in science will to bring them back.

You are in great error to think this would be in the theists "favour", that this would be used as proof for Religion. It's odd, simply because the belief is: ONLY God can bring people back to life, not even satan could etc...

What you misunderstand - IF humans were able to be brought back to life, by humans. THEN Christianity will have a serious problem, there's no doubt about that. So why would that be a good idea to use that as proof?

Sorry, I am figuring out this site.

I would hope they would see your logic before then.

To me, Christians can have "a god" and even keep calling it Jesus if they would just move to using it as a "focal point" for a set of memes. Moving jesus from the "literal flesh" and moving him to more of a meme ... poof, one can have him rise as often as one would like.

In keeping with the religion, I think of a meme like I do a fish or a bird. A school of memes acting as a unit looks like life's journey through the here and now. Or is that a bait ball?

Even a bait ball is offering life.

 

[Jarhyn]

This is a big part of my thought process as well, but with a twist.
For me, the fractal moral wrongness of it creates an inability to believe.

It does not make sense that such evil is supernatural. It just doesn’t make any fucking sense.
I am unable to imagine any divine being that would do that.

So, not that I know all that many Christians or Narcissists in general that have the wherewithal to play a game with a learning curve that seems more like climbing a around a horizontal protrusion, but...

Well, it proves out the idea that such evil can be supernatural DOES make sense.

Somewhere on my hard drive there is a simulated universe where four kids got smashed out of existence under a lowering drawbridge because they were taking too much processing power to calculate their activities and preventing further immigration.

I did the same thing a couple times with an overpopulation of cats, and then also with a couple of dwarves that were completely miserable, would not remain exiled because they had local family, and who would take their misery out by fighting in the chowhall and had thus committed a few murders.

Things absolutely could compute if you accept some shitheel like me running the show, but that doesn't play well with Divine Command Theory

No, I don’t think it does prove that. Because you are not supernatural. When you design a game, you are still a human brain.

So, this requires understanding the idea in two different contexts at the same time.

With respect to you, I am natural.

With respect to a dwarf I am supernatural: I am not in any way bound by the structure of rules which gives rise to their existence.

I am a human brain, not a Dwarven one, is kind of the point I'm making.

And so my point is, I'm not going to absolutely rule out that "we are created in something's image", because we created things in our image, and we are every bit as fucked up as they are and visa versa.

As I said, it leaves a big sucking wound in the chest of the Divine Command Theory of Ethics.

 

[SIB]

So, this requires understanding the idea in two different contexts at the same time.

With respect to you, I am natural.

With respect to a dwarf I am supernatural: I am not in any way bound by the structure of rules which gives rise to their existence.

I am a human brain, not a Dwarven one, is kind of the point I'm making.

And so my point is, I'm not going to absolutely rule out that "we are created in something's image", because we created things in our image, and we are every bit as fucked up as they are and visa versa.

As I said, it leaves a big sucking wound in the chest of the Divine Command Theory of Ethics.

For me, for now, I think that image is the periodic table. From as far inside as we are that is. Kind of like one atom in one of our gizzard cells trying to determine our image. Or, even more difficult, it trying to describe the image we see ourselves as.

PS: I know, I just like the word.

 

[Politesse]

When that next guy resurrects I wonder if his followers are going to want to eat him too.

Oh, Europeans will eat any dead god they can find. Remember the mummy powder craze? And refusing to go veg in India? Europe never met a deity they didn't want in their mouth somehow.

 

[Elixir]

Kind of like one atom in one of our gizzard cells trying to determine our image. Or, even more difficult, it trying to describe the image we see ourselves as.

PS: I know, I just like the word.

Which word? “Gizzard”?
I’m all in!
Where else you gonna keep your gastroliths?
We need more words that rhyme with lizard anyhow.

 

[Bomb#20]

Kind of like one atom in one of our gizzard cells trying to determine our image. Or, even more difficult, it trying to describe the image we see ourselves as.

PS: I know, I just like the word.

Which word? “Gizzard”?
I’m all in!
Where else you gonna keep your gastroliths?
We need more words that rhyme with lizard anyhow.

 

[Bomb#20]

This is a big part of my thought process as well, but with a twist.
For me, the fractal moral wrongness of it creates an inability to believe.

It does not make sense that such evil is supernatural. ... I am unable to imagine any divine being that would do that.
... It makes perfect sense that an Idi Amin, or a Pol Pot or a Stalin or a Torquemeda… or an Abraham or a Moses or Mohammed or a Jesus… would invent such a backstory. That makes perfect sense. ... It’s exactly what a malignant narcissist would write.

So, not that I know all that many Christians or Narcissists in general that have the wherewithal to play a game with a learning curve that seems more like climbing a around a horizontal protrusion, but...

Well, it proves out the idea that such evil can be supernatural DOES make sense.

Somewhere on my hard drive there is a simulated universe where four kids got smashed out of existence under a lowering drawbridge because they were taking too much processing power to calculate their activities and preventing further immigration. ...

The concept of "supernatural" itself does not make sense, except as what it is: a genre of fiction. "Supernatural" means a story about a pretend world that doesn't work like the real world, one with a Harry Potter flavor instead of a Star Trek flavor. But a story about the real world not working like the real world does not make sense. "Natural law was violated" is self-contradictory nonsense -- it's just another way to say "Something happened that doesn't happen." When we observed violations of Newton's Law of Gravity, that didn't tell us we were in a supernatural world; it told us Newton was wrong.

 

[bilby]

Well I don't think the context was regarding 'short time death; or immediate flatlining, when the brain is still alive.

Why would what you don’t think be more important than what I do think, as an explanation for my having “liked” a post?