[CliveG]

I said that my personal feeling (not backed by Tarot) was that Amy Klobuchar might have a shot at the presidency. When she failed so badly I thought that was the end of that thought. But if she becomes Biden's running mate and he gets ill at a critical stage then she might just end up as the Democratic contender. Is it possible? Life is strange. I like her as a good middle of the road contender.

[Bored chemist]

Once more - the motivation is to prevent an excessive demand on masks. Do what China did and set up a factory to churn them out.

The media created the excessive demand for masks (and other goods that are now in short supply).
We have plenty of masks, it's just that they were bought by people who had been conned into thinking that they needed one.

[Bored chemist]

Once more you set up a straw-man of expecting perfection

"Perfection" is an interesting description for having the basic human decency to not actively support slavery, sexism, homophobia and racism.

You do it with God and you do it with the Christian and Muslim religions.

The Jews are pretty much in the same boat. The Old Testament is essentially the same in all 3  major Abrahamic religions.
But, given your previous displays of ignorance, it doesn't shock me that you missed that.

Is it just possible that the whole of society around the world supported racism, sexism, homophobia, slavery and other norms now considered immoral?

Yes, and when the rest of the world tried to shake off those abhorrent traits, the Churches told them that they needed  to continue them- because the scriptures say so.

Religions retard progress.

Look at your history books.

[Bored chemist]

Was secular and atheist society any better?

The people (in the West) saying " We should not keep slaves" did so in direct contradiction of the scriptures.
So, yes, those people were atheists or secular.

[Bored chemist]

What are your solutions to get humankind to work cooperatively?

If the book doesn't agree with the observation one of two things happens.
Religion rejects the observations and keeps the book.
Science keeps the observations and updates the book.

Don't you understand how, even if there was a God, the people would be better off following facts than old myths?

If you want people to cooperate the thing you need to avoid doing is splitting them into groups by race, sex, religion sexuality or anything else.
So, do you see how ditching a book that divides them on all those categories would be a good thing?

I can tell you that in my research on various religions

Given that your research didn't even let you know that Judaism and Islam also rely on the Old Testament, your research is pretty poor, isn't it?

[Bored chemist]

I said that my personal feeling (not backed by Tarot) was that Amy Klobuchar might have a shot at the presidency. When she failed so badly I thought that was the end of that thought. But if she becomes Biden's running mate and he gets ill at a critical stage then she might just end up as the Democratic contender. Is it possible? Life is strange. I like her as a good middle of the road contender.

That may be many things, but it is not scientific proof of the existence of God.
Why did you post it?

[CliveG]

Quote from: CliveG on Yesterday at 12:55:50

    What are your solutions to get humankind to work cooperatively?

If the book doesn't agree with the observation one of two things happens.
Religion rejects the observations and keeps the book.
Science keeps the observations and updates the book.

Don't you understand how, even if there was a God, the people would be better off following facts than old myths?

If you want people to cooperate the thing you need to avoid doing is splitting them into groups by race, sex, religion sexuality or anything else.
So, do you see how ditching a book that divides them on all those categories would be a good thing?

Your only comment worth responding to. The others are fake facts which can be show to be fake by reading my various posts.

Finally you get it. Update the religions. But why ditch the book(s) when there is so much good stuff in them? And when 90% of people get benefits from religion despite the bad guys misusing religion for their own purposes.

Let's get specific. Are the ten commandments good? Should we keep them? If you want to modify them, which ones and why?

[CliveG]

I said that my personal feeling (not backed by Tarot) was that Amy Klobuchar might have a shot at the presidency. When she failed so badly I thought that was the end of that thought. But if she becomes Biden's running mate and he gets ill at a critical stage then she might just end up as the Democratic contender. Is it possible? Life is strange. I like her as a good middle of the road contender.

That may be many things, but it is not scientific proof of the existence of God.
Why did you post it?

They say God works in mysterious ways. Getting Klobuchar elected as the first woman president in a very round-about way might be one of those ways. Biden has serious flaws. So get him a good running mate who will take over when he fails.

[hamdani yusuf]

Let's get specific. Are the ten commandments good? Should we keep them? If you want to modify them, which ones and why?

Let's get more specific. What makes something considered as good? What is the most reliable method/criteria to determine that something is good?
Why the number is limited to ten? Are they listed in the correct order based on priority? Is there something more important than those ten which are not included in the list?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments#Numbering

The Ten Commandments
T   R   LXX   P   L   S   A   C   Main article   Exodus 20:1-17   Deuteronomy 5:4-21
1   (1)   —   —   —   —   —   1   I am the Lord thy God   2[28]   6[28]
2   1   1   1   1   1   1   1   Thou shalt have no other gods before me   3[29]   7[29]
2   2   2   2   1   1   1   1   Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image   4–6[30]   8–10[30]
3   3   3   3   2   2   2   2   Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain   7[31]   11[31]
4   4   4   4   3   3   3   3   Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy   8–11[32]   12–15[33]
5   5   5   5   4   4   4   4   Honour thy father and thy mother   12[34]   16[35]
6   6   6   7   5   5   5   5   Thou shalt not murder   13[36]   17[36]
7   7   7   6   6   6   6   6   Thou shalt not commit adultery   14[37]   18[38]
8   8   8   8   7   7   7   7   Thou shalt not steal   15[39]   19[40]
9   9   9   9   8   8   8   8   Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour   16[41]   20[42]
10   10   10   10   9   9   10   10   Thou shalt not covet (neighbour's house)   17a[43]   21b[44]
10   10   10   10   10   9   9   9   Thou shalt not covet (neighbour's wife)   17b[45]   21a[46]
10   10   10   10   10   9   10   10   Thou shalt not covet (neighbour's slaves, animals, or anything else)   17c[47]   21c[48]
—   —   —   —   —   10   —   —   You shall set up these stones, which I command you today, on Mount Gerizim.   14c[49][50]   18c[49][51]
All scripture quotes above are from the King James Version unless otherwise stated.

I am the Lord thy God.

Is this a command at all?

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

  Many societies have/had different gods without much problems. This one is dispensable.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image

This one is dispensable for the same reason.

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain

This one is dispensable for the same reason.

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy

This one is dispensable for the same reason. To apply this commandment to firefighters and other public servants is detrimental to the society.

[Europan Ocean]

The old church was not necessarily a pass at true Christian practice.

The revised, enlightened and new churches are different.

WW1 and 2 were secular.

William Wilberforce wrote True Christianity supporting that true Christians don't want slavery. With correct exegesis. Lots of false debates can use Bible quotes, or other writers quotes.

The Bible is not a science book. It is about revealing the supernatural is with us for relationship. It is a summary.

The ancients loved the idea that, the love between the gods, "agape" was something they could have with each other, and a real God that loved them with interest was new. If they had seen the demise of Christianity, either they would ready to avoid the cold church or they would not turn to it.

Faith in Christ rests on power, not rationality.

Other beliefs systems are different.

How can people go wrong worshipping love? Somehow they did, there were challenges. Nero then Constantine, later Islam, then schism... But if God was war, things would be worse. Ireland may not exist, she could have become an English colony... A lot of evil would have happened. Maybe an enlightenment with weapons at the forefront. Instead of expression, science, good character, dualism...

People can go more wrong worshipping Mars...

I think God wanted us independent to some extent for free will. He really wanted interdependence. With free choice the jealous adversary damaged things. The Garden of Eden means the Garden of pleasure. We lost it. There are rewards for faith amidst the darkness of our times. If Christ were to appear now to fix the injustice and darkness in the world, He would also have to judge us, that before most have a chance to repent. As it was in Noah's day.

There is purpose in life for slow learning. Instead of things being spelled out for us. But it could have been in pleasures instead of suffering, however suffering enables us to better appreciate the pleasures of the afterlife.

[alancalverd]

Let's get specific. Are the ten commandments good? Should we keep them? If you want to modify them, which ones and why?

There are many more than ten, but these are considered by most faiths to be the most important.

About half of them make  good sense: honouring parents, not committing murder, theft, adultery, or dishonesty, are the basis for almost any form of cohesive society, though a few pay less attention to adultery or consider property to be communal.

The other stuff  defines a monotheistic religion and thus sets its adherents apart from other groups. This can be the excuse for eternal conflict between groups who have nothing of value to fight about, and the social dominance of old perverts.

If you take the sky fairy out of Leviticus, you end up with some pretty good rules for maintaining health and social order.

Keeping the sabbath makes sense in employment law, provided everyone can have his own sabbath - it's a worker's right, not a universal duty to all down tools on the same day. 

[CliveG]

Quote from: CliveG on Today at 05:13:39

    Let's get specific. Are the ten commandments good? Should we keep them? If you want to modify them, which ones and why?

Let's get more specific. What makes something considered as good? What is the most reliable method/criteria to determine that something is good?

This is where science fails. Goodness is hard to define using a set of rules. The rules for goodness flow from a human understanding of what is good. Trying to debate it often fails because of the complexity.

Here is how one defines good. Take a group of older wise people and ask them to give examples of what is good. Their experience of the human condition and their common sense and an innate sense of right and wrong.

This will allow a set of rules such as the ten commandments.

When these wise people are restricted to priests and clerics their human failings (such as ego and a desire for power) color their judgment and some rules serve the religion and not the people.

Clearly some rules are common sense such as murder. Lies and distrust cause communities to fail. The reason for the commandment to have one God without earthly characteristics that are seen in idols is the unity and the threat (a real threat if God exists which most religions claim) of punishment. Some people say "It is not illegal if there is no consequence". God sees all and God gives judgment to all. Hence respect for God is a very necessary component to a moral society. The Old Testament was God fearing. The New Testament was God loving. The Quran incorporated both but stressed mercy. Mercy for those who failed and mercy for those who were conquered.

Jesus used parables to teach how to live a good life. The Quran and the Old Testament incorporated a set of laws for a just society. Muhammad taught that a house cannot have two captains and the default was man. But the man had responsibilities with regard to the woman, even in divorce.

Today there is no reason a woman cannot be the captain. I told my sixth wife that she was the captain and I was the advisor. She had been abused by men her whole life and could not believe that a strong leader such as myself would be a follower. But it made sense - and it worked so well. We had a marvelous marriage. Unfortunately she died. My current wife is also the captain. This is an example of an update. Do not throw out the one captain rule but instead modify it.

[CliveG]

One simple rules for good would be "Do no harm" which is similar to the Golden Rule of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Many of the religious laws were dietary and sanitary - intended to prevent death and disease. A number of those are outdated. A well-known one is the prohibition on pork.

Muhammad said that alcohol in moderation could be beneficial but was too often abused so he decided a blanket prohibition was in the best overall interest.

A big problem is how to treat enemies. Killing in battle is accepted by secular and religious morality. Killing civilians is frowned upon. The fire bombing of Dresden was an obvious war-crime even at the time, and the guy in charge was quietly side-lined. The Islamic extremists  do not follow the Quran in treating their prisoners with mercy. Not do some ultra-Orthodox Israeli soldiers who consider some of their enemies to be Amalekites who have to be killed - even unarmed women and children.

Combat teaches a nation to treat an enemy as vermin - cockroaches to be killed and destroyed without conscience. The rules of war were intended to stop outright crimes, but it happens in all nations.

There is a modern problem with strict rules of morality. "Consenting adults" eats away at some rules. "There was no harm" is another. This last one is extended to financial fraud where it is argued that the insurance money pays, or that the investors were greedy and should have known the rule of "high return means high risk".

Once more, there is a tendency to label all rules as inapplicable because others are brought into question.

BTW - To label all clergy as "old perverts" shows an intolerance that borders on bigotry. Change religion - do not attempt wholesale destruction.

[alancalverd]

Here is how one defines good. Take a group of older wise people and ask them to give examples of what is good. Their experience of the human condition and their common sense and an innate sense of right and wrong.

Hence pogroms, the Inquisition, the Crusades, forcible "conversion" by the Conquistadores, prohibition of contraception, covering up child sex abuse, and every fatwah and jihad ordained by other old perverts.

[Bored chemist]

Combat teaches a nation to treat an enemy as vermin

So does religion; that's the problem.
And it explicitly requires the murder of some groups
whether that's stoning homosexuals or not "suffering witches to live"

[alancalverd]

He really wanted interdependence.

It is nonsense to say "God wanted X". The omniscient, omnipotent creator of everything, creates exactly what he wants.

[CliveG]

Combat teaches a nation to treat an enemy as vermin

So does religion; that's the problem.
And it explicitly requires the murder of some groups
whether that's stoning homosexuals or not "suffering witches to live"

Be specific. Which religions and which parts of the religious texts? The only one I am aware of is the interpretation of the Old Testament to slay the Amalekites.

And what do you mean by murder? The death penalty has been used until very recently for many crimes. Society decides on the crimes and the punishments. With the exception of the Inquisition which was a distinct aberration the Church has not been at the forefront of "murdering" groups.

You often conflate societal norms with religious norms. Do some reading about the punishments meted out by judges in London in the middle ages. They were horrific. They were designed to deter crime - partly because crime was so rife because of desperation.

Why are you so determined to dump all of societies crimes on religion? Religion was often a force for good, yet you want to ascribe the bad to religion and thus do away with religion.

There have been many hospitals run by nuns. They have been fantastic. Hospitals today are businesses - and are poorer for it in terms of caring. Look at the history of hospitals in New York where nuns made such a difference in caring for the victims of various disasters that come into the city by sea.

One often sees the statement that more wars are started by religion than other reasons. That is outright rubbish and nonsense. There are simple reasons for war. Among these are territorial conquest; to control borders; secure trade routes; or respond to an internal challenge to political authority. In recent decades there is a new one, namely ‘national self-interest’.

Religion was always secondary and was a requirement to justify the war and to ensure solidarity of the nation. The encyclopedia of war states that only 7% of the 1763 wars listed had religion as their primary cause and caused only 2% of all war deaths. 3,000 died in the Inquisition, 3 million died in the Crusades and 35 million died in World War 1. The Mongol Asian rampage killed 30 million and had no religious component whatsoever. According to Steven Pinker, religion accounts for only 13 out of 100 of the world's worst atrocities in the history of the world.

The Iraq war is blamed on Bush being a ‘born-again Christian’. Give me a break! Oil was the key reason.

[CliveG]

Here is how one defines good. Take a group of older wise people and ask them to give examples of what is good. Their experience of the human condition and their common sense and an innate sense of right and wrong.

Hence pogroms, the Inquisition, the Crusades, forcible "conversion" by the Conquistadores, prohibition of contraception, covering up child sex abuse, and every fatwah and jihad ordained by other old perverts.

Strange answer to my statement about wise men. I never inferred that the wise men were religious - in fact I inferred the opposite.

There are many wrongs in history. Many are due to men in power who, by the way, were mostly kings and emperors. Religion actually modified the actions of some of these rulers to be less harsh. Religion is not perfect but there are only two clear examples of wrongs by clerics - the Inquisition and the sex abuse. Yet you tar every religion and every cleric with the same brush.

A fatwah is a legal opinion or ruling issued by an Islamic scholar. So why say "every fatwah... ordained by old perverts". One or two have condemned someone to death. A bit extreme, but so are some of the "Dead or Alive" US bounties. The extrajudicial assassinations of the Israeli secret service are even more deadly and abhorrent. Even then I would not ascribe them to religion. State terrorism it the standard term which applies to all nations.

Jihad is an Arabic word for "struggle". There are two struggles according to the Quran. One is the struggle for inner purity and the other is a struggle against the enemies of Islam. The latter is only invoked for enemies actively seeking the downfall of Islam. Even then, there are rules for this "defensive" struggle - with mercy to the defeated.

Your use of "older perverts" is bigotry. "The definition of bigotry is prejudice and the state of being intolerant. An example of bigotry is disliking people because of their culture." The term is similar to "dirty old man", and is meant in your context to evoke a similar reaction. It is an example of what is "bad". It is bad because it fosters conflict and wars.

You use pogrom as your first example. Most, if not all, pogroms were had little to do with religion, and were in effect part of revolutions where the ruling class were targeted along with their financial advisors and the wealthy bankers/tax collectors/land owners. Check your history carefully and drill down into older existing documents such as Estate Duties levied to confirm "facts". In some cases, the rulers avoided being deposed by giving in to societal pressure to get rid of the Jewish elite. Even during the Black Plague, the pogroms were a matter of using a convenient excuse to target a hated group who did the tax collecting. When I was in Brooklyn NY, the latest Crown Heights "pogrom" was a result of the block busting tactic of the Hassidim in displacing blacks. The blacks were suffering the effects. The Hassidim made their distain for the blacks quite clear. No doubt you will dispute my interpretation but please state what it is about the religion (and not the tribe) that made the Jews targets? I have said that the religion treated non-Jews differently but rioters did not know that as a religious concept but a social fact.

The conversion of Spanish Jews was in lieu of a pogrom - and it worked. A number of Jews were assimilated and many kept their fortunes and were still able to contribute. It may even have been a relief to them to not be associated with the hardliners.

The Crusades had societal pressures and origins. Apparently many knights had taken to collecting "taxes" and were giving the locals a hard time. Send them away on a mission. Once more religion was used as a pretext and took the blame.

[Europan Ocean]

He really wanted interdependence.

It is nonsense to say "God wanted X". The omniscient, omnipotent creator of everything, creates exactly what he wants.

With free will at work, and Satan deceiving, God does not get what he wants every time. God has to use what he did not choose.

[Bored chemist]

The death penalty has been used until very recently for many crimes. Society decides on the crimes and the punishments.

And they make that decision which says the Bible is wrong.

Humanity does a better job of being good then the Book does.

why can't you accept that?