JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => Ask Posters Show Threads => Topic started by: Ben m on May 03, 2010, 06:15:57 AM
-
well,this is the tread when you can ask me questions about my self or my views or just questions or start debating and i will try to answer to you in the best way i can.
-
How old are you?
are you married/have a gf?
-
Are you really an atheist?
If so when did you become one and why?
Also were you always an atheist?
If not what religion did you follow?
-
How old are you?
are you married/have a gf?
well i am 16 years old, in the last time i cheked my iindentity card i was labelled as single ;D and i didn't found yet the perfect girl so i don't currently have a girlfriend (and i don't think i will have soon as i am very busy before the matriculum exams-the bagrut).
-
Are you really an atheist?
If so when did you become one and why?
Also were you always an atheist?
If not what religion did you follow?
1) yes i am realy an atheist,i am actually a hard core one and had many debates about god's existence.
2)i become atheist in the age of 10 six years ago.i was recognised as a gifted by the ministry of education two years ago and i was in love with science (metaphoricaly) :laugh: i read my first book of steven howking ''Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays'' and in the begining i there was a chapter on that discussed the existence of god.hawking said that from a scientific point of view the existence of god is an open question,must like bigfoot.i had only the habit of dissmissing this option as unreal unless prove otherwise and so i am naturally became an atheist and since then this is part of my conciosness.
3)no i am an atheist for only six years.
4)before my ''conversion'' to atheism i was a secular /traditionalist jew,.
sincerely,normal atheist.
-
Are you really an atheist?
If so when did you become one and why?
Also were you always an atheist?
If not what religion did you follow?
1) yes i am realy an atheist,i am actually a hard core one and had many debates about G-d's existence.
2)i become atheist in the age of 10 six years ago.i was recognised as a gifted by the ministry of education two years ago and i was in love with science (metaphoricaly) :laugh: i read my first book of steven howking ''Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays'' and in the begining i there was a chapter on that discussed the existence of G-d.hawking said that from a scientific point of view the existence of G-d is an open question,must like bigfoot.i had only the habit of dissmissing this option as unreal unless prove otherwise and so i am naturally became an atheist and since then this is part of my conciosness.
3)no i am an atheist for only six years.
4)before my ''conversion'' to atheism i was a secular /traditionalist jew,.
sincerely,normal atheist.
Im so sorry to hear that... You are still young and there is no reason to believe you will believe the silly things you believe when you are 16... Heck I had some very far out ideas when I was that age... I too was a child prodigee who was self-employed in the computer field at the age of 16... I appeared on the television show 20/20 in 1982 when I was 17 years old and they called me a Computer Whiz kid...
There is always time to do teshuva for a Jew... I will reserve judging you till you grow up..
-
You are not really an atheist but a fool. Basically you describe your path to atheism as: Someone who is really smart at math and science is an atheist and so I will be one too. And since you are "in love" with science, you should study real science rather than popular science book.
-
I am not a jew - I wanted to mention in "Introduce yourself" but I forgot - anyway... my words may be useful...
well i am 16 years old, ...
1) yes i am realy an atheist,i am actually a hard core one and had many debates about G-d's existence.
2)i become atheist in the age of 10 six years ago.i was recognised as a gifted by the ministry of education two years ago and i was in love with science
well, if you have 16 years old and until now you concluded that G-d cannot exist, then consider that you may have 44-54 years to keep thinking about it (depending on how long you live). I say this bec. you are still young and very many people use to get to a point when they say "the truth is this. RESOLVED." and refuse after to think about it, or at least with seriousness.
Also there is a lot of trouble with "seeking the truth" about life as life is not math, where you have a hypothesis, you check something for validity and demonstrate it, and all agree. In life nothing is 100% clear & obvious and even if it was there would still be people who would get to other conclusions (isn't that odd?). And now I don't speak about mentally ill people.
another thing - even the greatest mathematician ever, or the greatest biologist ever, or even the smartest man ever (whichever the age he lived in) has/had things which he sees wrong, wrong points of view, get to some wrong conclusions (also, sometimes, that may even not be a problem in reason). But people easily take other people for gods (that is, a kind of "whatever he says/does, he is right" as he would be perfect/divine). So my advice would be, if you take it, don't expect anyone to be right because "he is smart, and I trust his judgement", and avoid having "heroes" (people that you greatly admire).
I hope my words are welcomed.
Shalom.
-
I read black holes and baby universes a few years ago and I also thought it was a great book. :) Stephen Hawking is a brilliant scientist and I think that science in general and physics in particular owe a lot to him.
I don't think you should be so quick to dismiss God. The Bible is not a science book but that doesn't mean that God couldn't have worked through natural processes to create the universe, or in any other way.
The Bible does say that light is the first thing God created. Every atom is made up of smaller particles which are actually tightly packed waves of energy when you get down to the smallest levels. Matter and energy can be converted to each other. These waves of energy are similar to light in the fact that they have a wavelength and can also function as a particle. It doesn't prove God but it's one thing to ponder if you sincerely have an open mind about it.
Take brane theory for example. If the Big Bang occurred because of two colliding branes then that just strengthens the case in two ways. First, there doesn't need to be a beginning for God. Each brane has its own space-time fabric and even within a brane, time varies due to gravity. God can be eternal with no contradictions with science. Second, there is a definite beginning to this particular universe/brane. That's in contradiction to such ideas as the old steady state theory, etc. which claimed things have always been as they are.
There are some people who reject some portions of science because they feel that it doesn't mesh with the Bible. I actually believe that science is exploring the creation and I don't think that any scientific theory should outright be rejected on that basis, but only on the basis of the evidence. If people really believe the Bible is true, then evidence-based reasoning should not cause fear but should strengthen their faith.
Science can't prove or disprove God. However we can definitely say, as Hawking did, that it's an open question. I think personally that it's reasonable to believe in God regardless of the fact that God can't be proven with science alone.
-
to all the psoters here.first i want to thank you for your open mindness.i understand why you dislike or even despise atheist,i am myself get sick when i hear some of them speaking in public.but not all atheists are liberals or communists and it doesn't mean we can't appreciate religious persons.i am myself an admire or rabbi kahane and i think he was one of the most prominent persomn of the 20th century and i am considering my self very close to kahanism in view expect for the religous part,i don't hate religious people nor trying to convert others to atheism.i do belive nthat if god truly exist he will accept you if you are a good and honorable person regardless if you belived him or not in your life (i don't think he is so childish).for zehar,popular science is not contradicted with what you called ''real science''.it is a real science simplified so the average reader can understand them and steven hawking was a genius in this field (and in physics,i realy enjoyed reading his books it was so enlightening).if sombody here is the fool it is you beacuse you show disprove of not just controversies but of scientific fact,and yes for those who want to know i read thie book (i don't remeber the name or the book nor the name of the author but it is quite famous) that prove that a lot of scientific stuff was wrriten in the torah and talmud which is another way to describe our great culture and the importance of genetical purity.to rubystar,thank you for reminded me about the membranes theory.i quite forgot it since i eneter physics class in 7th grade.
sincerily,normal atheist.
-
I didn't say that popular science is junk reading material, it is however different from actual science. if you want to learn physics you must learn to deal with equations and math etc. Sort of like you can't learn to drive a car just by reading car magazines.
Your argument that God is not so petty that he exacts revenge from a person for not believing in him makes sense. But you need to understand that the question of God is entirely different from the question of which religion if any is true. I am secular Jewish myself so basically I don't believe in any religion but I don't deny God. The question of God is also not a scientific question only, that is the difference between physics and metaphysics... I grant you the fact that so far nobody has been able to "measure" God in a physical way, which is good because by definition everything that can be measured is not God but part of the universe, which God creates. Is it possible to scientifically disprove God- of course it is impossible to disprove a concept that is no physical. That would be even harder than trying to disprove that a certain idea exists.
Finally the Torah and the Talmud are not scientific documents, they are not supposed to teach you science and you can't learn science by studying Torah.
-
I didn't say that popular science is junk reading material, it is however different from actual science. if you want to learn physics you must learn to deal with equations and math etc. Sort of like you can't learn to drive a car just by reading car magazines.
Your argument that G-d is not so petty that he exacts revenge from a person for not believing in him makes sense. But you need to understand that the question of G-d is entirely different from the question of which religion if any is true. I am secular Jewish myself so basically I don't believe in any religion but I don't deny G-d. The question of G-d is also not a scientific question only, that is the difference between physics and metaphysics... I grant you the fact that so far nobody has been able to "measure" G-d in a physical way, which is good because by definition everything that can be measured is not G-d but part of the universe, which G-d creates. Is it possible to scientifically disprove G-d- of course it is impossible to disprove a concept that is no physical. That would be even harder than trying to disprove that a certain idea exists.
Finally the Torah and the Talmud are not scientific documents, they are not supposed to teach you science and you can't learn science by studying Torah.
zelhar,i am currently learning the equations in a little step at a time.in the meantime i am reading popuar science to understand the nature of the equations when i will get to it around several years from now.now for the question of god,i have a few questions for you (and for everyone else here)
1)did you hear about the the occam's razor,it is said that entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity.in other words it is said that when you get to a question,especialy for a complex question like god's existence the simplest solution is probably the true one,there are many much more simpler solutions than god for example,evolution of religion or natural forces.so what do you have about this?how do you simplified god? (i know it is sound very lame,i just can't think of better words right now)
2)how do you explains the obious contradiction between the torah and the new testament,like in the subject of kashrut or the indentity of the messiah? very weird to me that god with his infinite wisdon would contradicte itself (i am not talking about the quarn on purpose,even when i belived god i didn't belive it to be a legitimate revelation but a sick and sadistic book for psychopats).
3)if god is so benevolent then why evil exists? why he permitted the holocaust or the influx of muslims to europe or the murder of great peoples like kahane and goldstein,i personally do not think of terms of good and evil but it seems to me flawed that god permit evil to exist.if the trend continue maybe i would need to consider to pray to satan instead of god as i see only evil in this world.
4)and again why in both revelations god punish all the people that didn't belived him even when they never heard about the revelations (like the ancient idoll worshippers or the unbaptized according to christianity).again i think it is pretty childish and evil and so it is connected to argument number 3.
5)again if god is so benevolent one should expect he creates all the organism of this world with optimal design,most of the organisms designs is clearly suboptimal and too much fragile.
6)if god exists and want beliver why didn't he just force people to worship him? and if he don't want to do a better job in gathering worshippers it is implied that he want atheists to exist in this world therefore i am only fullfilling god's will.
7)who has the burden of proof.since you believe in something that cannot be measured and under controversy and i do not belive in such thing the burden of proof is currently iles upon your shoulders.
8) god need to be at least as complex as the entire universe so logicaly somebody would have need to create him as such thing's by your logic can't evolve naturaly but also this creator need creator and we get a chain of infinite creator.this is very flawed and illogical.
9)could god create a stone he couldn't lift? could he create a man more smarter then him? if he can't he isn't omnipotent and therefore don't exist and if he can he don't beig omnipotent and therefore don't exist,i alway enjoy to see people run in circles trying to create ways around this question.
10) if god is so benevolent then why is he sending people to hell most of the times for nothing?i don't think i deserve eternal damnation for beign an atheist for a limited time and it is implying that he is nothing more than a servant of satan,maybe i sould embrace statanism.
11)why an omniscient beig with no needs or desire would create the universe? maybe he has some need asnd therefore not a true god.
12)most of the ancient religions proved to be untrue,why should it be differnete with contemporary ones.like stephen f robert said ''I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.''
5)
-
You ask many questions and virtually all of them have been asked before and there are many deep answers to them...
You must seek the truth by asking questions to those who have wisdom. Wisdom is not learned from science books. You cannot reduce life to simple equations and models because life is very complex. There are things which you do not have control over. Humans are made in the image of G-d and yet we are limited and we are finite. We must do our best to learn while we are alive. But I think it is a very big error to put your faith in science which is simply a tool of mankind. Science is a tool which we use to explain how Hashem works in this world, the physical world. But there is no science which will explain to you how the spiritual world works. This is also built into the nature of creation.
Regarding the other false religions... Of course Hashem allows all other religions to exist. He also allows falsehood to exist. This is the greatest invention which Hashem created... This is called Free Will...
There are many resources on the Internet which you could, if you were interested, learn from....
Do not close your mind to the awesomeness of the one who created everything, even yourself..
PS: Are you sure you are Jewish? You seem to mention a lot of Christian ideas such as the Devil and Hell... Jews don't exactly believe in eternal damnation in hell, nor do we believe those who don't believe in Hashem go to hell...
PPS: Regarding the Jewish explanation as to why Hashem created this Universe... He created it in order to be able to do kindness to his creations. This is the primary explanation as to why he created this world... One cannot be a giver unless one has someone to give to...
-
zelhar,i am currently learning the equations in a little step at a time.in the meantime i am reading popuar science to understand the nature of the equations when i will get to it around several years from now.now for the question of G-d,i have a few questions for you (and for everyone else here)
1)did you hear about the the occam's razor,it is said that entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity.in other words it is said that when you get to a question,especialy for a complex question like G-d's existence the simplest solution is probably the true one,there are many much more simpler solutions than G-d for example,evolution of religion or natural forces.so what do you have about this?how do you simplified G-d? (i know it is sound very lame,i just can't think of better words right now)
Occam's razor is not a method of proof, it is a method of tracing back the cause to phenomenon etc. basically it is a "rule of thumb" and pretty effective at that. So anyway it is irrelevant to the question of God, but at i can tell you the way I see things, the simplest explanation is that God created the universe, the rule of nature like gravity etc. and then he let things run on their own. If there is no God to initiate this thing, I have no idea how or why there is something like the universe at all.
2)how do you explains the obious contradiction between the torah and the new testament,like in the subject of kashrut or the identity of the messiah? very weird to me that G-d with his infinite wisdon would contradicte itself (i am not talking about the quarn on purpose,even when i belived G-d i didn't belive it to be a legitimate revelation but a sick and sadistic book for psychopats).
You mix two different issues- whether there is God at all is one, and whether God actually spoke to Moses or to Jesus or to anyone is another. My position is: Yes there is God, did he spoke to Moses and gave us the Torah ? possibly. Did he then manifested himself as Jesus and gave the new testament ? Of course I don't believe so, I'm a Jew, but I think everyone can agree that if the new testament is real, then so is the Torah, because the NT itself claims so. Hence if there is a contradiction between "old" and "new", then the "new" is wrong for sure.
3)if G-d is so benevolent then why evil exists? why he permitted the holocaust or the influx of muslims to europe or the murder of great peoples like kahane and goldstein,i personally do not think of terms of good and evil but it seems to me flawed that G-d permit evil to exist.if the trend continue maybe i would need to consider to pray to satan instead of G-d as i see only evil in this world.
I don't understand God and I don't understand nature either. If there is God then maybe he has his hidden way of compensating humans for the suffer they have to endure on earth (like heaven). I can't say for sure that God is benevolent, but it is simpler in my mind to assume that. Obviously God has no need to envy us mortals, so it makes sense that he would be benevolent with us. I guess he don't want to spoil us too much either, for our own good.
4)and again why in both revelations G-d punish all the people that didn't belived him even when they never heard about the revelations (like the ancient idoll worshippers or the unbaptized according to christianity).again i think it is pretty childish and evil and so it is connected to argument number 3.
I don't believe literally in any revelation but again, this has nothing to do with God. For example- the Quran is a text out of the demented mind of Muhammad. i.e. Muhammad made up the false claim that God spoke to him and dictated the verses of the Quran, while in fact it was just his sick demented mind. If he herd voices, they probably were interenal voices like schizophrenia have sometimes.
5)again if G-d is so benevolent one should expect he creates all the organism of this world with optimal design,most of the organisms designs is clearly suboptimal and too much fragile.
Maybe if you were God you do things differently. But seriously this is not a valid argument. We have things the way God wanted them to be and that's it.
6)if G-d exists and want beliver why didn't he just force people to worship him? and if he don't want to do a better job in gathering worshippers it is implied that he want atheists to exist in this world therefore i am only fullfilling G-d's will.
I don't know, why would God bother with us mortals anyway ? what are we to him ? less than ants are to me I suppose. I can't comprehend the thoughts of God.
7)who has the burden of proof.since you believe in something that cannot be measured and under controversy and i do not belive in such thing the burden of proof is currently iles upon your shoulders.
But there is a good reason to assume God exists even though it is unprovable. It makes things more clear if there is indeed a God who created the universe. And by created I mean broadly- God could also create the principle of evolution in nature, because I don't follow any specific text as to how God actually made things the way they are. So, if you claimed you are agnostic that would be logically accepted, but atheism is really a sort of dogmatic narrow mildness that refuses to acknowledge our inability to know some fundamental things for certain.
8) G-d need to be at least as complex as the entire universe so logicaly somebody would have need to create him as such thing's by your logic can't evolve naturaly but also this creator need creator and we get a chain of infinite creator.this is very flawed and illogical.
No, God is not part of nature and so we as part of nature cannot comprehend something so un-natural. Time is also a natural quantity- which doesn't limit God and doesn't apply to him.
9)could G-d create a stone he couldn't lift? could he create a man more smarter then him? if he can't he isn't omnipotent and therefore don't exist and if he can he don't beig omnipotent and therefore don't exist,i alway enjoy to see people run in circles trying to create ways around this question.
The thing is God is all powerful in regard to any object other than him. Basically the "can God nullify himself" is a semantic contradiction. It's like the sentence: "This sentence is false". I can't tell you if that sentence is true or false (it has something to do with the concept of truth itself and how it needs to be defined); Yet that sentence exists, and so God may exists as well regardless of the stone and he could still squeeze you like a bug ;)
10) if G-d is so benevolent then why is he sending people to hell most of the times for nothing?i don't think i deserve eternal damnation for beign an atheist for a limited time and it is implying that he is nothing more than a servant of satan,maybe i sould embrace statanism.
Again whether there is hell and whether what people tell you of hell is a different issue. Maybe people lied and made up the concept of hell, and maybe God actually revealed this information to someone.
11)why an omniscient beig with no needs or desire would create the universe? maybe he has some need asnd therefore not a true G-d.
I don't think we can understand or comprehend the way God thinks and operate. He is unnatural and we cannot grasp such things that are not within our realm of existence.
12)most of the ancient religions proved to be untrue,why should it be differnete with contemporary ones.like stephen f robert said ''I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer G-d than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.''
The religions might all be false, yet God is here nevertheless. You see, man didn't invented God, even though man can invent a religion and then claim that God told him to do that. People lie all time you know... all I am saying is that there can be God, and more than likely there is God, and the fact that many people lie or imagine that God spoke to them and they start a religion is a different issue. I don't claim that I know what God wants from us, what he does, or anything, I just think it makes sense that God is the reason why I am.
-
To normal atheist:
I'll try to give you some explanations.
[1)did you hear about the the occam's razor,it is said that entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity.in other words it is said that when you get to a question,especialy for a complex question like G-d's existence the simplest solution is probably the true one,there are many much more simpler solutions than G-d for example,evolution of religion or natural forces.so what do you have about this?how do you simplified G-d? (i know it is sound very lame,i just can't think of better words right now)
in part, I agree with you. people DO use to complicate things and make a 'smart' 200 pages book that hardly explains in way too many words a very simple issue, and too many times, in a stupid manner. Yet, "simple is probably true" does not mean "first thing that gets into one's mind is probably true" either.
I've heard some theories of how religions appeard (apart from aliens' contribution). One was that people saw that they died, they feared, they saw thunders, etc. and couldn't explain them, etc. and because of fear they brought sacrifices to what they understood as "gods". However, I found out that people are living more relaxed with the thought that "there is no god" than the thought that they have to please Him/them. And even in antiquity there were atheists, people which saw no problem in saying about thunders, etc. that "this is nature, it has always been like this". One think I observed is that people 'became' gods. that is, great leaders (i.e. pharaohs), etc. were being venerated during their lifetime (maybe the feeling all like, of superiority, and to have people serve him, loyal people), and even after. And that's how we came to have 'gods' that invented, taught the people, etc. and that acted exactly as common human beings, only that they were 'superior in nature'. that's the same way "praying to ancestors" is in the religion that chinese believed (or believe), in orthodoxism and catholicism (saints), etc. and this seems more logical to me. By the way, if one is born far away in the wilderness, with no one around, doesn't it require lot of imagination to put "human beings" behind rain? (that is, gods). Anyway, I never heard a child in my life to invent gods, even for thunders or alike. Or, is it required they would reach... maturity? if they are taught since children of gods, they of course, believe.
- then, if people evolved progressively, shouldn't have been already accustomed to the natural phenomenon when they reached 'reason'? so no fear should have existed. People have no problem in believing that "nothing happens after you die" and all it means is "enjoy life as much as you can as long as you live"... scary enough?
- then, "evolution of religion" seems quite odd to me. if you ask me, I don't think that monotheism is superior to polytheism, if this is what you refere to (if it evolved from polytheism to monotheism). If so, compare Islam and Hinduism. Then, from atheistic perspective, if no god exist, I see no difference beween believeing in 10 gods and believing in only one. Also, if in top there is "atheism", consider that even in antiquity there were atheists, and that people are "educated" into atheism as well. we cannot tell when atheism first appeared, because not all that was thought was written and most of what was written does not exist anymore. as well of the theory of evolution, that all came from one being. There were people that believed that in ancient greece, if I remember right, but we cannot teleport in time to the first man an check all to see which believed it first.
I think that I already wrote too much...
2)how do you explains the obious contradiction between the torah and the new testament,like in the subject of kashrut or the indentity of the messiah? very weird to me that G-d with his infinite wisdon would contradicte itself (i am not talking about the quarn on purpose,even when i belived G-d i didn't belive it to be a legitimate revelation but a sick and sadistic book for psychopats).
first off, the existence of God has nothing to do with any text or belief. I don't know what kashrut is, sory.
And, there is one IMPORTANT thing you should consider: not everything is easy to understand and clear (like muslims say, I think it's from the qur'an "the truth stands clear out of err"). People can have great problems with understanding the text, even if that is clear enough, and mostly because of the traditional understanding of the text or because somebody pointed out in a certain manner, so that it was created an issue for the public (like the creation in genesis, "Let them be as a snail which melts away as it goes along", number pi and the measuring of something round, etc.). So, anything it is, I don't think it is by the saying "the truth stands clear out of err" (in other words, if you don't understand is err, if you understand - however you understand it - is true).
3)if G-d is so benevolent then why evil exists? why he permitted the holocaust or the influx of muslims to europe or the murder of great peoples like kahane and goldstein,i personally do not think of terms of good and evil but it seems to me flawed that G-d permit evil to exist.if the trend continue maybe i would need to consider to pray to satan instead of G-d as i see only evil in this world.
This is what PEOPLE around told you about God. People even find correct this thinking: "If God exists, no matter what I do, if I swear Him, I mock Him, I rape children, etc. He should act as nothing happend and give me all the things I wish. If He doesn't do so, it means He doesn't exist.". If you want to know how is the God of the Bible, read the Bible. And, by the way, your statement cannot prove that Allah can't exist either. He should not be as we like to or we imagine, in order to exist.
4)and again why in both revelations G-d punish all the people that didn't belived him even when they never heard about the revelations (like the ancient idoll worshippers or the unbaptized according to christianity).again i think it is pretty childish and evil and so it is connected to argument number 3.
You should be more concrete, tell me the exact story.
By the way, I also don't believe God just punishes people for not believing in Him while they could have not heard of Him. I think both the Tanakh and New Testament agree with that, although many christians do not agree with me. Hoever, what you thirst for means a lot, and there are many things that depend on you, no matter where you were born and what teachings you received. Also, ignorance and self-righteousness are bad things. If God doesn't punish one for being an 'unbeliever', He will punish him for not carying to see which is the truth, but enjoying doing all the things he likes (and may be bad) because he says "I don't know the truth, so I'm forgivable". The same with self-righteousness: everybody likes to say "people like me should go to heaven", and that's the excuse for everything.
5)again if G-d is so benevolent one should expect he creates all the organism of this world with optimal design,most of the organisms designs is clearly suboptimal and too much fragile.
1. you should expect this world not to be heaven;
2. expect heaven to be perfect;
3. If Adam and Eve had not fallen, the earth would have not been cursed and fragility would have had no problem because none would have suffered or died (now, I don't speak about grass, because I really can't believe it suffers pain). Weakness is bad only when there is somebody/something that harms.
6)if G-d exists and want beliver why didn't he just force people to worship him? and if he don't want to do a better job in gathering worshippers it is implied that he want atheists to exist in this world therefore i am only fullfilling G-d's will.
As seen from the Bible, God did not intend to create robots or 'zombies' that obey commandments without thinking. it would have been utterly useless: what to do with them? But if people have free will, they can choose how to be, and what to believe as well.
7)who has the burden of proof.since you believe in something that cannot be measured and under controversy and i do not belive in such thing the burden of proof is currently iles upon your shoulders
Asking of evidence is also flawd, because people can believe anything and can call anything "proof". The only possible way for all people to believe in God is, I think, if He would make Himself manifest (visible, etc.) permanently and come with angels everywhere so that whoever does any mistake, would be killed, so that none will doubt anything. Look at the miracles of the qur'an which seem very logical to many, and hear those who say that they do not have any evidence that the holocaust ever existed, that nazi ever killed any jew, etc. And their LOGIC tells them it is so. If there would be a calculation or something that would prove the Bible/Tanakh is right and all that goes with it, how many would have found the 'evidence' satisfacatory?
by the way, people believe what they want to believe, and the 'evidence' belongs to the one which wants to believe it. for the one that doesn't want to believe it, there is no 'evidence'.
G-d need to be at least as complex as the entire universe so logicaly somebody would have need to create him as such thing's by your logic can't evolve naturaly but also this creator need creator and we get a chain of infinite creator.this is very flawed and illogical.
The same problems applies to everything: what caused the big-bang? what gave birth to the laws of the universe? we have the laws of how life can exist, but why is it so? why does the gravity exist? who created it? why is it not ok to sleep with an 8 years old boy? (biologically and psychologically we have explanations, but those themselves are laws of the nature). Just tell me how everything appeared and how the laws appeared. What caused the beginning? the beginning must have been caused by something that was itself caused by something that was caused, etc. so we go nowhere. If you have an image of how the cosmic space should have existed in the "very" beginning, why did it exist? if you believe there was something in the very beginning, why did it exist? So some logic of mine tells me that nothing should have existed ever, yet I cannot understand nothingness either (if you say "in the beginning there was nothing" what do you imagine?) so "God forever existed" seems to me as logic as "what you see around exists". for me, my questions are the same as yours.
9)could G-d create a stone he couldn't lift? could he create a man more smarter then him? if he can't he isn't omnipotent and therefore don't exist and if he can he don't beig omnipotent and therefore don't exist,i alway enjoy to see people run in circles trying to create ways around this question.
Those questions are also - my opinion - misplaced. We invented the word "ominpotent" and we assigned it to God. I don't think God can teleport anybody in past, because I personally think time is just an abstract term we invented. If anybody has other understanding, I believe that God is Almighty, in the limits of logic.
11)why an omniscient beig with no needs or desire would create the universe? maybe he has some need asnd therefore not a true G-d.
First off, you define what God should be. By your logic, you find that things do not work out, but you don't come to deny the logic, but God. If omnisicence, as people define it, exists, then there is no free will (what is the difference between saying "God ordained that leaf 4 millions of years ago to fall today" and "God knew that that leaf would have fallen 4 millions of years ago"?). For muslims, if God doesn't preordain even that before the beginning of the creation, then He is not God (which seems odd to me). They also define God, in my opinion, in a strange way. Our thinking of how God should be does not change reality. And people imagine and define how God should be, but from where do they get the info???
12)most of the ancient religions proved to be untrue,why should it be differnete with contemporary ones.like stephen f robert said ''I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer G-d than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.''
atheism existed in antiquity as well, so why does the time when it appeared matter?
by the way, if 99% of the population of the earth believes X, it doesn't mean X is true either.
I just hope I will not receive a reply of the same length or bigger ; ) ).
-
Once you learn the lessons of life then you will be in a position to be able to have an opinion on the topic. At 16 years old you have lived in a cocoon of your parents... Once you understand the parameters of real life then you will do some real learning. Learning science from textbooks is one thing but experience cannot be compared to.
I also suggest that you spend some time learning how to write English. I didn't read whether or not English is your primary language but evidently you need to do a little more learning in this area. It is essential for a bright person to be able to express him/herself in a respectable manner.
-
PS: Are you sure you are Jewish? You seem to mention a lot of Christian ideas such as the Devil and Hell... Jews don't exactly believe in eternal damnation in hell, nor do we believe those who don't believe in Hashem go to hell...
PPS: Regarding the Jewish explanation as to why Hashem created this Universe... He created it in order to be able to do kindness to his creations. This is the primary explanation as to why he created this world... One cannot be a giver unless one has someone to give to...
i was born as a secular jew.i had a christian friend since primary school anmd most of my debates in theology were with him and his familty (i remeber an ocassion they contacted they relatives in tampa so they will try to ''educate'' me about god ;D).anf for your argument to why god created the universe.i don't answering my question.you said that god can't be a giver if he didn't have anybody to give to,but if he needless and why he wanted to be a giver in the first place? he don't have any needs according to the bible and therefore don't have the need of beigng giver.
sincerely,normal atheist.
-
zelhar,i am currently learning the equations in a little step at a time.in the meantime i am reading popuar science to understand the nature of the equations when i will get to it around several years from now.now for the question of G-d,i have a few questions for you (and for everyone else here)
1)did you hear about the the occam's razor,it is said that entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity.in other words it is said that when you get to a question,especialy for a complex question like G-d's existence the simplest solution is probably the true one,there are many much more simpler solutions than G-d for example,evolution of religion or natural forces.so what do you have about this?how do you simplified G-d? (i know it is sound very lame,i just can't think of better words right now)
Occam's razor is not a method of proof, it is a method of tracing back the cause to phenomenon etc. basically it is a "rule of thumb" and pretty effective at that. So anyway it is irrelevant to the question of G-d, but at i can tell you the way I see things, the simplest explanation is that G-d created the universe, the rule of nature like gravity etc. and then he let things run on their own. If there is no G-d to initiate this thing, I have no idea how or why there is something like the universe at all.
2)how do you explains the obious contradiction between the torah and the new testament,like in the subject of kashrut or the identity of the messiah? very weird to me that G-d with his infinite wisdon would contradicte itself (i am not talking about the quarn on purpose,even when i belived G-d i didn't belive it to be a legitimate revelation but a sick and sadistic book for psychopats).
You mix two different issues- whether there is G-d at all is one, and whether G-d actually spoke to Moses or to Jesus or to anyone is another. My position is: Yes there is G-d, did he spoke to Moses and gave us the Torah ? possibly. Did he then manifested himself as Jesus and gave the new testament ? Of course I don't believe so, I'm a Jew, but I think everyone can agree that if the new testament is real, then so is the Torah, because the NT itself claims so. Hence if there is a contradiction between "old" and "new", then the "new" is wrong for sure.
3)if G-d is so benevolent then why evil exists? why he permitted the holocaust or the influx of muslims to europe or the murder of great peoples like kahane and goldstein,i personally do not think of terms of good and evil but it seems to me flawed that G-d permit evil to exist.if the trend continue maybe i would need to consider to pray to satan instead of G-d as i see only evil in this world.
I don't understand G-d and I don't understand nature either. If there is G-d then maybe he has his hidden way of compensating humans for the suffer they have to endure on earth (like heaven). I can't say for sure that G-d is benevolent, but it is simpler in my mind to assume that. Obviously G-d has no need to envy us mortals, so it makes sense that he would be benevolent with us. I guess he don't want to spoil us too much either, for our own good.
4)and again why in both revelations G-d punish all the people that didn't belived him even when they never heard about the revelations (like the ancient idoll worshippers or the unbaptized according to christianity).again i think it is pretty childish and evil and so it is connected to argument number 3.
I don't believe literally in any revelation but again, this has nothing to do with G-d. For example- the Quran is a text out of the demented mind of Muhammad. i.e. Muhammad made up the false claim that G-d spoke to him and dictated the verses of the Quran, while in fact it was just his sick demented mind. If he herd voices, they probably were interenal voices like schizophrenia have sometimes.
5)again if G-d is so benevolent one should expect he creates all the organism of this world with optimal design,most of the organisms designs is clearly suboptimal and too much fragile.
Maybe if you were G-d you do things differently. But seriously this is not a valid argument. We have things the way G-d wanted them to be and that's it.
6)if G-d exists and want beliver why didn't he just force people to worship him? and if he don't want to do a better job in gathering worshippers it is implied that he want atheists to exist in this world therefore i am only fullfilling G-d's will.
I don't know, why would G-d bother with us mortals anyway ? what are we to him ? less than ants are to me I suppose. I can't comprehend the thoughts of G-d.
7)who has the burden of proof.since you believe in something that cannot be measured and under controversy and i do not belive in such thing the burden of proof is currently iles upon your shoulders.
But there is a good reason to assume G-d exists even though it is unprovable. It makes things more clear if there is indeed a G-d who created the universe. And by created I mean broadly- G-d could also create the principle of evolution in nature, because I don't follow any specific text as to how G-d actually made things the way they are. So, if you claimed you are agnostic that would be logically accepted, but atheism is really a sort of dogmatic narrow mildness that refuses to acknowledge our inability to know some fundamental things for certain.
8) G-d need to be at least as complex as the entire universe so logicaly somebody would have need to create him as such thing's by your logic can't evolve naturaly but also this creator need creator and we get a chain of infinite creator.this is very flawed and illogical.
No, G-d is not part of nature and so we as part of nature cannot comprehend something so un-natural. Time is also a natural quantity- which doesn't limit G-d and doesn't apply to him.
9)could G-d create a stone he couldn't lift? could he create a man more smarter then him? if he can't he isn't omnipotent and therefore don't exist and if he can he don't beig omnipotent and therefore don't exist,i alway enjoy to see people run in circles trying to create ways around this question.
The thing is G-d is all powerful in regard to any object other than him. Basically the "can G-d nullify himself" is a semantic contradiction. It's like the sentence: "This sentence is false". I can't tell you if that sentence is true or false (it has something to do with the concept of truth itself and how it needs to be defined); Yet that sentence exists, and so G-d may exists as well regardless of the stone and he could still squeeze you like a bug ;)
10) if G-d is so benevolent then why is he sending people to hell most of the times for nothing?i don't think i deserve eternal damnation for beign an atheist for a limited time and it is implying that he is nothing more than a servant of satan,maybe i sould embrace statanism.
Again whether there is hell and whether what people tell you of hell is a different issue. Maybe people lied and made up the concept of hell, and maybe G-d actually revealed this information to someone.
11)why an omniscient beig with no needs or desire would create the universe? maybe he has some need asnd therefore not a true G-d.
I don't think we can understand or comprehend the way G-d thinks and operate. He is unnatural and we cannot grasp such things that are not within our realm of existence.
12)most of the ancient religions proved to be untrue,why should it be differnete with contemporary ones.like stephen f robert said ''I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer G-d than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.''
The religions might all be false, yet G-d is here nevertheless. You see, man didn't invented G-d, even though man can invent a religion and then claim that G-d told him to do that. People lie all time you know... all I am saying is that there can be G-d, and more than likely there is G-d, and the fact that many people lie or imagine that G-d spoke to them and they start a religion is a different issue. I don't claim that I know what G-d wants from us, what he does, or anything, I just think it makes sense that G-d is the reason why I am.
thank you for the answers.as for your answer to argument number 7.you say that god probably exist beacuse it will make thing clearer.if that is true we would need to belive in ether or demons or ghost beacuse it will make things more clearer.but it will not make this things scientificaly true.
sincerely,normal atheist.
-
To normal atheist:
I'll try to give you some explanations.
[1)did you hear about the the occam's razor,it is said that entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity.in other words it is said that when you get to a question,especialy for a complex question like G-d's existence the simplest solution is probably the true one,there are many much more simpler solutions than G-d for example,evolution of religion or natural forces.so what do you have about this?how do you simplified G-d? (i know it is sound very lame,i just can't think of better words right now)
in part, I agree with you. people DO use to complicate things and make a 'smart' 200 pages book that hardly explains in way too many words a very simple issue, and too many times, in a stupid manner. Yet, "simple is probably true" does not mean "first thing that gets into one's mind is probably true" either.
I've heard some theories of how religions appeard (apart from aliens' contribution). One was that people saw that they died, they feared, they saw thunders, etc. and couldn't explain them, etc. and because of fear they brought sacrifices to what they understood as "gods". However, I found out that people are living more relaxed with the thought that "there is no G-d" than the thought that they have to please Him/them. And even in antiquity there were atheists, people which saw no problem in saying about thunders, etc. that "this is nature, it has always been like this". One think I observed is that people 'became' gods. that is, great leaders (i.e. pharaohs), etc. were being venerated during their lifetime (maybe the feeling all like, of superiority, and to have people serve him, loyal people), and even after. And that's how we came to have 'gods' that invented, taught the people, etc. and that acted exactly as common human beings, only that they were 'superior in nature'. that's the same way "praying to ancestors" is in the religion that chinese believed (or believe), in orthodoxism and catholicism (saints), etc. and this seems more logical to me. By the way, if one is born far away in the wilderness, with no one around, doesn't it require lot of imagination to put "human beings" behind rain? (that is, gods). Anyway, I never heard a child in my life to invent gods, even for thunders or alike. Or, is it required they would reach... maturity? if they are taught since children of gods, they of course, believe.
- then, if people evolved progressively, shouldn't have been already accustomed to the natural phenomenon when they reached 'reason'? so no fear should have existed. People have no problem in believing that "nothing happens after you die" and all it means is "enjoy life as much as you can as long as you live"... scary enough?
- then, "evolution of religion" seems quite odd to me. if you ask me, I don't think that monotheism is superior to polytheism, if this is what you refere to (if it evolved from polytheism to monotheism). If so, compare Islam and Hinduism. Then, from atheistic perspective, if no G-d exist, I see no difference beween believeing in 10 gods and believing in only one. Also, if in top there is "atheism", consider that even in antiquity there were atheists, and that people are "educated" into atheism as well. we cannot tell when atheism first appeared, because not all that was thought was written and most of what was written does not exist anymore. as well of the theory of evolution, that all came from one being. There were people that believed that in ancient greece, if I remember right, but we cannot teleport in time to the first man an check all to see which believed it first.
I think that I already wrote too much...
2)how do you explains the obious contradiction between the torah and the new testament,like in the subject of kashrut or the indentity of the messiah? very weird to me that G-d with his infinite wisdon would contradicte itself (i am not talking about the quarn on purpose,even when i belived G-d i didn't belive it to be a legitimate revelation but a sick and sadistic book for psychopats).
first off, the existence of G-d has nothing to do with any text or belief. I don't know what kashrut is, sory.
And, there is one IMPORTANT thing you should consider: not everything is easy to understand and clear (like muslims say, I think it's from the qur'an "the truth stands clear out of err"). People can have great problems with understanding the text, even if that is clear enough, and mostly because of the traditional understanding of the text or because somebody pointed out in a certain manner, so that it was created an issue for the public (like the creation in genesis, "Let them be as a snail which melts away as it goes along", number pi and the measuring of something round, etc.). So, anything it is, I don't think it is by the saying "the truth stands clear out of err" (in other words, if you don't understand is err, if you understand - however you understand it - is true).
3)if G-d is so benevolent then why evil exists? why he permitted the holocaust or the influx of muslims to europe or the murder of great peoples like kahane and goldstein,i personally do not think of terms of good and evil but it seems to me flawed that G-d permit evil to exist.if the trend continue maybe i would need to consider to pray to satan instead of G-d as i see only evil in this world.
This is what PEOPLE around told you about G-d. People even find correct this thinking: "If G-d exists, no matter what I do, if I swear Him, I mock Him, I rape children, etc. He should act as nothing happend and give me all the things I wish. If He doesn't do so, it means He doesn't exist.". If you want to know how is the G-d of the Bible, read the Bible. And, by the way, your statement cannot prove that Allah can't exist either. He should not be as we like to or we imagine, in order to exist.
4)and again why in both revelations G-d punish all the people that didn't belived him even when they never heard about the revelations (like the ancient idoll worshippers or the unbaptized according to christianity).again i think it is pretty childish and evil and so it is connected to argument number 3.
You should be more concrete, tell me the exact story.
By the way, I also don't believe G-d just punishes people for not believing in Him while they could have not heard of Him. I think both the Tanakh and New Testament agree with that, although many christians do not agree with me. Hoever, what you thirst for means a lot, and there are many things that depend on you, no matter where you were born and what teachings you received. Also, ignorance and self-righteousness are bad things. If G-d doesn't punish one for being an 'unbeliever', He will punish him for not carying to see which is the truth, but enjoying doing all the things he likes (and may be bad) because he says "I don't know the truth, so I'm forgivable". The same with self-righteousness: everybody likes to say "people like me should go to heaven", and that's the excuse for everything.
5)again if G-d is so benevolent one should expect he creates all the organism of this world with optimal design,most of the organisms designs is clearly suboptimal and too much fragile.
1. you should expect this world not to be heaven;
2. expect heaven to be perfect;
3. If Adam and Eve had not fallen, the earth would have not been cursed and fragility would have had no problem because none would have suffered or died (now, I don't speak about grass, because I really can't believe it suffers pain). Weakness is bad only when there is somebody/something that harms.
6)if G-d exists and want beliver why didn't he just force people to worship him? and if he don't want to do a better job in gathering worshippers it is implied that he want atheists to exist in this world therefore i am only fullfilling G-d's will.
As seen from the Bible, G-d did not intend to create robots or 'zombies' that obey commandments without thinking. it would have been utterly useless: what to do with them? But if people have free will, they can choose how to be, and what to believe as well.
7)who has the burden of proof.since you believe in something that cannot be measured and under controversy and i do not belive in such thing the burden of proof is currently iles upon your shoulders
Asking of evidence is also flawd, because people can believe anything and can call anything "proof". The only possible way for all people to believe in G-d is, I think, if He would make Himself manifest (visible, etc.) permanently and come with angels everywhere so that whoever does any mistake, would be killed, so that none will doubt anything. Look at the miracles of the qur'an which seem very logical to many, and hear those who say that they do not have any evidence that the holocaust ever existed, that nazi ever killed any jew, etc. And their LOGIC tells them it is so. If there would be a calculation or something that would prove the Bible/Tanakh is right and all that goes with it, how many would have found the 'evidence' satisfacatory?
by the way, people believe what they want to believe, and the 'evidence' belongs to the one which wants to believe it. for the one that doesn't want to believe it, there is no 'evidence'.
G-d need to be at least as complex as the entire universe so logicaly somebody would have need to create him as such thing's by your logic can't evolve naturaly but also this creator need creator and we get a chain of infinite creator.this is very flawed and illogical.
The same problems applies to everything: what caused the big-bang? what gave birth to the laws of the universe? we have the laws of how life can exist, but why is it so? why does the gravity exist? who created it? why is it not ok to sleep with an 8 years old boy? (biologically and psychologically we have explanations, but those themselves are laws of the nature). Just tell me how everything appeared and how the laws appeared. What caused the beginning? the beginning must have been caused by something that was itself caused by something that was caused, etc. so we go nowhere. If you have an image of how the cosmic space should have existed in the "very" beginning, why did it exist? if you believe there was something in the very beginning, why did it exist? So some logic of mine tells me that nothing should have existed ever, yet I cannot understand nothingness either (if you say "in the beginning there was nothing" what do you imagine?) so "G-d forever existed" seems to me as logic as "what you see around exists". for me, my questions are the same as yours.
9)could G-d create a stone he couldn't lift? could he create a man more smarter then him? if he can't he isn't omnipotent and therefore don't exist and if he can he don't beig omnipotent and therefore don't exist,i alway enjoy to see people run in circles trying to create ways around this question.
Those questions are also - my opinion - misplaced. We invented the word "ominpotent" and we assigned it to G-d. I don't think G-d can teleport anybody in past, because I personally think time is just an abstract term we invented. If anybody has other understanding, I believe that G-d is Almighty, in the limits of logic.
11)why an omniscient beig with no needs or desire would create the universe? maybe he has some need asnd therefore not a true G-d.
First off, you define what G-d should be. By your logic, you find that things do not work out, but you don't come to deny the logic, but G-d. If omnisicence, as people define it, exists, then there is no free will (what is the difference between saying "G-d ordained that leaf 4 millions of years ago to fall today" and "G-d knew that that leaf would have fallen 4 millions of years ago"?). For muslims, if G-d doesn't preordain even that before the beginning of the creation, then He is not G-d (which seems odd to me). They also define G-d, in my opinion, in a strange way. Our thinking of how G-d should be does not change reality. And people imagine and define how G-d should be, but from where do they get the info???
12)most of the ancient religions proved to be untrue,why should it be differnete with contemporary ones.like stephen f robert said ''I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer G-d than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.''
atheism existed in antiquity as well, so why does the time when it appeared matter?
by the way, if 99% of the population of the earth believes X, it doesn't mean X is true either.
I just hope I will not receive a reply of the same length or bigger ; ) ).
don't wrry i always trying to express my points with the least number of words possible.i can agree with most of your answers expect maybe with the evidence argument.while i am honoring you as very intellegent ands clever person (are you a doctor at theology or physics?) i would appreciate if you would not give examples using islam.by using this fake religion of criminally insane people you destroy your wonderfull arguments and ruining your thesis.
sincerely,normal ayheist.
-
Scientists today speak of the Laws of Physics.
As well they speak of the Laws governing Nature.
With each day comes more new discoveries and more knowledge of our world and the Universe, and these are infinite in scope and open ended.
Albert Einstein was not a degreed scientist, but rather a lay person who was in his own lifetime ridiculed and humiliated; his 'theories' labeled as 'preposterous'.
Today, it is considered 'common knowledge' that silicone is capable of storing memory in the form of electrical currents, yet for thousands of years this very concept would have been laughed at and rejected by the world's greatest scientific minds of the day.
One need only ask themself "Where did all of this come from?" ..."How did it all get here?"...How is it that all the Laws of Physics and Nature, known and yet to be known, were always here awaiting us? "
The answer becomes obvious that there exists A Higher Consciousness than our own.
The onus to prove that "there is no G-d" rests on the atheists and scientists; not on those who readily accept the existence of a reality far beyond our comprehension.
"The scientific method" is itself proven unreliable, and its results are continually superseded by the results of future testing, in an infinite chain of "scientific advancements" -- yet not once does it provide an answer to the question "Who made all of this, and why?"
Men who for millenia have recognized that there is a Higher Consciousness, a Supreme Being, a Creator, have used the only means available at their disposal - scripture and the spoken word - in their attempts to explain the unexplainable.
The 'atheists' would claim that there is no reason or meaning to anything, no Creation, no Supreme Mind, no realm of the metaphysical -- only Chaos Theory; all while spending their entire lives hoping that academic "Peer Review" will bestow honor, recognition, and wealth upon them for 'discovering' what was always here long before they ever existed, and will always exist long after their names and lives are forgotten.
-
Scientists today speak of the Laws of Physics.
As well they speak of the Laws governing Nature.
With each day comes more new discoveries and more knowledge of our world and the Universe, and these are infinite in scope and open ended.
Albert Einstein was not a degreed scientist, but rather a lay person who was in his own lifetime ridiculed and humiliated; his 'theories' labeled as 'preposterous'.
Today, it is considered 'common knowledge' that silicone is capable of storing memory in the form of electrical currents, yet for thousands of years this very concept would have been laughed at and rejected by the world's greatest scientific minds of the day.
One need only ask themself "Where did all of this come from?" ..."How did it all get here?"...How is it that all the Laws of Physics and Nature, known and yet to be known, were always here awaiting us? "
The answer becomes obvious that there exists A Higher Consciousness than our own.
The onus to prove that "there is no G-d" rests on the atheists and scientists; not on those who readily accept the existence of a reality far beyond our comprehension.
"The scientific method" is itself proven unreliable, and its results are continually superseded by the results of future testing, in an infinite chain of "scientific advancements" -- yet not once does it provide an answer to the question "Who made all of this, and why?"
Men who for millenia have recognized that there is a Higher Consciousness, a Supreme Being, a Creator, have used the only means available at their disposal - scripture and the spoken word - in their attempts to explain the unexplainable.
The 'atheists' would claim that there is no reason or meaning to anything, no Creation, no Supreme Mind, no realm of the metaphysical -- only Chaos Theory; all while spending their entire lives hoping that academic "Peer Review" will bestow honor, recognition, and wealth upon them for 'discovering' what was always here long before they ever existed, and will always exist long after their names and lives are forgotten.
i belive that there is logic in the creation of the universe butwhy god? there much easier way to explain this.
-
I have a question:
If you walk through a field and happen to come upon a computer, sitting on the ground.
Did someone create it? or did it just exist by chance?
-
Normal atheist what is your position on the topics of abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide?
-
I have a question:
If you walk through a field and happen to come upon a computer, sitting on the ground.
Did someone create it? or did it just exist by chance?
of course i would think that humans built this computer,i didn't said there is no god and thats it,what i said is that i want more proof Aand until then it is for me a nice fairy tale and nothing more.
-
Normal atheist what is your position on the topics of abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide?
1)my opinion of abortion if made up from two parameters:first we will need to consider the case.if the woman was raped for example i completely support her right to abort the fetus beacuse it is being unfair to make her gave birth to the child of her rapist (it is also have the chances of being gentical defective like the father).if she have an economic problem she have the right in my opinion to abort the fetus beacuse otherwise the chilld will live in poverty and mysery for the rest of his life.the second parameter is race.we should encourage abortion in nigroes and muslims to postponed the birth of our enemy's future generation.on the contray we need to make harder criteria for white women who wish to abort their fetsuses.
2) i fully support euthensia for terminally desased people,geneticaly defect people and people with more then 80% disability beacuse to keep them alive serves nothing more then cruelty towards them.
3)i think it is good infantycide is outside the law and i think people who think otherwise (i don't even think such people exist) are sick and deformed.if you are not in israel please enter israeli news site in english like english ynet and you will find a plague her in israel of child abuses,rapes and murders (multiple cases every day).and to think this was until recent years the only country when you could walk out at 2 am salone and still feel safe and comfortable >:(.
-
I guess what I am saying is that, we know the computer was made by someone, it is much less complex than the universe.....
Did you think the universe just happened by mistake?
Tell us how you think the universde and human life, came to exist.
I have a question:
If you walk through a field and happen to come upon a computer, sitting on the ground.
Did someone create it? or did it just exist by chance?
of course i would think that humans built this computer,i didn't said there is no G-d and thats it,what i said is that i want more proof Aand until then it is for me a nice fairy tale and nothing more.
-
I guess what I am saying is that, we know the computer was made by someone, it is much less complex than the universe.....
Did you think the universe just happened by mistake?
Tell us how you think the universde and human life, came to exist.
I have a question:
If you walk through a field and happen to come upon a computer, sitting on the ground.
Did someone create it? or did it just exist by chance?
of course i would think that humans built this computer,i didn't said there is no G-d and thats it,what i said is that i want more proof Aand until then it is for me a nice fairy tale and nothing more.
i don't preten to have the ultimate knowledge of how the universe created.what i do know is taht the universe first created in the big bang.i don't pretend to know how it happened and i don't truely dissmiss the option that intellegent life created the universe (maybe as an expreiment like the one in the new particle accelerator but much more advanced) but i din't dissmissed the option that it was created by chance either.after several millions years the first galaxies began to appear.a few milliard years ago the solar systems was created.life on earth begin with single celled creatures on the primedal soup as amino accid joined together to create proteins and ultimately cells.around half a milliard years after that the first life created on land.the homo sapiens begin as a species i think two or three million years ago and split up to two subspecies,waht became the euroasian races (caucasians and mongoloids) and to the negroe subrace wich are geneticaly inferior to us.this is my verson on how life was created.
-
Do you honor your mother and father? If you do, why?
-
[i can agree with most of your answers expect maybe with the evidence argument.
that's because I told you no "evidence".
now, I'll try to explain something...
what do you understand of "evidence", which you request? Because, God is not a mathematical formula that can be proven (by some mathematical calculations). God is not a physical force that you can have an evidence that it exists (by some physical tests) and you can measure (with some instruments). So what kind of evidence do you need? at a certain point, if one desires a "scientfical evidence" to this, it sounds like attempting to study literature by mathematics, or attempting to study a political debate in chemistry, or a philosophy using physics. So, maybe you can tell me what kind of evidence you expect (so I’ll see if there is one like that).
Now, consider psychology and phylosophy. You have teachings there, but what is the evidence that they are true? if there are some things in psychology that can be tested (i.e. put people in a situation and see if they act that way), others are not. Also consider that the explanation of "why things happen that way" is mostly human reasoning, even when there were tests on people. There may be other causes but poor understanding leads to false conclusions. There may be many things that, altogether are the cause, but only some of them were found and others mistaken. So what is the evidence that something is true in psychology and phylosophy? We both call sciences, but, what is the evidence that what they say is true? (isn’t it like seeking to prove psychology with maths?)
I don't think that studying rocks or atoms or biology, mathematics, etc. can lead to a "scientifical law" or the existence of a certain object that is undoubtedly the "evidence" that God exists (if you think otherwise, tell me exactly what you expect to find, because I can't imagine anything like it), or that there are some scientific methods to find some kind of energy to be "God". However, I don't think that that “God” can prove to be a conscious creator of the universe, so the only clear evidence that God exists would be, as I stated in the previous post, if God would make himself manifested (visible) and bring with Him angels and punish everybody that "sins" as soon as they do that, so that they would not doubt that He is real (that would be evidence enough that He exists and He is real, maybe nothing less would be enough and more would be useless). So, if you know something else I didn't think about that could be a "scienfical evidence", tell me what you expect and could be "clear evidence". However, I think the thing that leads to believing in God is rather reasoning, than evidence (although some people may convert to Catholicism, for instance, because of something they saw and they call “appearance of Virgin Mary” – I say so because I don’t think she appeared anywhere). If you want to hear something that is “evidence”, just to be something, there are a lot like that, you may just choose which you wish to believe. But you may not believe them, and even Bible prophecies, no matter how clear they would be that has happened as it was written before, that will not be enough because there will always be questions of the kind “what if…?”. You can seek “bible prophecies” on the internet, read the bible, study, etc. but I don’t think it will ever be enough, and some may even be wrong interpretations, only to get to another fulfilled prophecy, so take care if you do that.
If you found that kind of evidence which you seek, let’s say you do. But one day the thought will come and say “but what if there is another explanation for that?”, and that which may be clear and good evidence, will not be an evidence for you anymore, and you will always search for something else, some other “evidences” because doubt can exist everywhere. And this is our freedom of belief: if there was something which, as much as we tried, could not doubt, then it would be something forced upon us to believe, which would mean that God wants or needs robots/zombies, which I can’t imagine why He would either need or want so.
Now I will to explain what it means not to exist God... I think I will get into the theory of evolution as well... .
The theory is something like this, if I remember right: in the beginning there was a big-bang that happened for no reason (or there is a "law" in the universe that tells that should happen with no reason). Fortunately, there were already way too many laws in the universe that were even that good as they made possible the formation of molecules from atoms, then planets, stars, etc. and to be grouped/structured into solar systems, galaxies, etc. Although I cannot believe "matter" is born out of no "matter" (but instead, that is born of energy, pressure, temperature, whatever), and even though I will be that kind of unbeliever that says "I don't believe unless I see with my own eyes", and thus I first expect to see such kind of experiment in a laboratory, or maybe just one broadcasted to the TV, I will ingore this for now. We now have a universe that has formed, and as it is possible, maybe this planet is the only planet which can support life (with all the things it needs) among very numerous other planets.
The “life” dillema.
Although we cannot understand what "life" is, I mean, what it makes a living cell to be a "living" thing, we say that "life" evolved from "non-life". Although I cannot imagine how a rock can evolve, or water, or a piece of "earth", let's say it's just the coincidence that some molecules somehow got into correct place so that would make a complet, complex cell (that would function properly and even give it the capability to multiply – great odds, right? Consider also what must have happened for a cell to get all the ‘ingredients’ in the right positions and in proper quantity), yet maybe it lacked the “life” component of it (that which is the difference between a living cell and a dead cell). Now, we don't know what made it alive/function (have its components move and start the chemical reactions), and I think we have never experienced the resurrection of a cell (because even for us is too hard to make a cell from atoms/molecules, so we need to step to the point when the cell already exists), or even, what can we say about the "birth" of another living cell from "non-living" matter? We learnt at school that only one cell became alive so far, and so we are all descendents of only one cell, although maybe nothing would have stopped the formation of another living cell, and thus beings did not evolve from only one being. Ok, we ignore this again, we just have one living cell that is “the miracle of life”. Still, what do we expect this “life” to be? What do we expect to have made its components move and start chemical reactions (and even continue doing that)? Is it a law of physics that started all? Is it another chemical component? But if life is just some chemical reactions and the moving due to physical laws, I think it is not wrong to say that the Sun is a living being too: it also moves and it experiences chemical reactions, and all is caused by something far in the past. Is there a difference? By this understanding, I think everything in the universe is “alive”, so there is no “miracle of life”. Moreover, we should be just like any other object in the nature (which is only subject to the laws of the universe), and our deeds, words and thoughts should be preordained by some chemical laws, which would mean we cannot have our own decisions, which would make us some kind of robots, which we aren’t. Am I missing something?
Ok, we ignore that as well, and try to study the process of evolution. First off, we understand “evolution” of species as follows: when a new creature is born, it is not 100% the same as previous (why?), yet there are some limits of the differences they have from their ancestors (for instance, human beings have a limit of height – i.e. don’t grow 50 meters in height -, have 2 eyes, properly placed, the mouth doesn’t grow exaggeratly big, and the nose does not cover all the face, etc.). However, there are some exceptions to these “laws” of the nature, which we call “mutations”. We know that too many of these mutations are “bad”, which mostly makes that creature not survive too long. Very, very rarerly are there those mutations that do neither evil nor good (like a normal tiger giving birth to a white tiger – if I know well, the white tiger is said to have been a “mutation” of a normal tiger). And extremly rare, it is the possibility that the mutation to be benefical (do we have a discovered example of this kind?). However, the theory of evolution of species goes like this: When a new creature is born there is a very, very, very small probablity that it would suffer a benefical mutation. The reasoning would be that those with more or better “benefical mutations” would survive, and those with less, would dissappear.
What I do not understand as a proper “theory of evolution” of atheism: Others understand “nature” as a kind of spiritual entity (should we call it Gaia?) that has aims, objectives, intentions, wishes, etc. and does not stop until it succeeds what has ‘planned’, and has a predefined understanding of what is “superior”. This way, the direction of evolution is, for instance, from creatures with 4 legs to creatures with 2 legs, from a lizard form to a human form. I heard once the idea that if the dinosaurs had survived, until now they would have had 2 legs, would have had a human form, but a reptile skin and some kind of reptile head. I think people believe that because they consider themselves superior and special (the sense, desire to be superior and special – even that they are happy with the idea that they are smarter than monkeys), and so they put themselves on top of evolution and thus measure the evolution line into “human” direction. I have also heard in a video that was talking about sexual life and said that it is not healthy to have excesive sex, but it should be more moderate, this “healthy way” being explained as “this is what the nature INTENDED for us.”, which is absurd. I have also heard the idea that the nature foresees when a great danger will take place and would evolve creatures so that they would survive when it happens. This explained the “quick” evolution from ape to man – and this idea was even used in a SF movie, I forgot its name. By this idea I understand that if I have a room where I raise rats, but every year I catch one of them and burn it in fire, the “nature” will seek to make the rest of the rats more resistant to fire, or maybe give them wings so that I would not be able to catch them anymore. I don’t know why I don’t expect that to happen… maybe because there are many species that have disapeared, and many times because their environment got destroyed, without the mother nature to interfere and help them adapt. About this “theory of evolution” I just explained: I don’t think this is a good theory of evolution (but rather much fantasy), in which there is no atheism, but there is one god: Gaia (although not fully developped). By this theory, the “nature” keeps in mind what it was trying to do, so it takes some million years until an eye is fully developped, because everything is done “step-by-step” (an attempt of an eye, a better attempt, …, an eye with great problems, an eye with some problems, an eye with no problem), as the “nature” keeps in mind what mutation it tries to perform and simply “builds atop” every generation.
Ok, we will take the first kind of “evolution”, and we will take an example, a creature, to follow its “evolution” to see how good the theory is.
Let’s take an imaginary species of lizard, that we chose to be brown coloured, and lives in grass or some other kind of vegetation. In order to survive aeons, it would need to evolve: here, it would need a camouflage, that is, the colour of its skin to be very similar to the shade of green of the vegetation it lives in (that is, if the lizard’s skin would become dark green and the vegetation is light green, there is no camouflage). As I do not know the procent of probability that this “benefical” mutation would happen, I will try to imagine something. Let’s imagine that of this specific species, there are 5 milions exemplars, and that hypothetically, this exact mutation would happen in 24 milion years (I hope it’s not an exaggerated number), and that through the ages, this number of exemplars would neither shorten, nor grow, and that every year, a new generation of this kind of lizards is hatched. So in 24 milion years, there would be 24 milion generations. Considering that there will always be 5 milion exemplars (this, to simplify calculation), it would mean that there were 24 milion * 5 milion lizards during this period of time. So 1 of 24 milion * 5 milion lizards mutated in what we hoped (that shade of green) in this period. So we would calculate the probability for a lizard to be hatched with this mutation (from a normal lizard): the probability is 1 / (24 milion * 5 million) = 1/120’000’000’000’000, which is a very, very small probability.
Now, let’s take it backwards. We have the probability for a lizard to be hatched with this mutation, and the number of exemplars, and we need to check how much time it will take that to happen. Here is the probabilty problem: From a simple probability lesson (maybe at school), you might have been taught about the throwing of a die, that the odds that the face with the number X (whichever number is X) will result when you throw the die is calculated this way: the number of favorable cases / the number of possible cases, and, whichever number you choose (between 1 and 6, of course), considering that you choose only one number, the possibilty that that number will result when you throw the die is 1/6 (clear enough? 1 number you wish, 6 different number are of all). However, pick a die, choose a number, and throw the die 6 times: It is possible that that number did not result when you threw the die in any of the 6 cases, although the possibility was 1/6. That is because it is almost impossible that when you throw the die 6 times, every time to result a different number than all before. So you may get the numbers 3, 6, 5, 2, 5, 3. You throw the die again, and maybe you will get 2, 6, 4, 5, 4, 3. And yet, “1” did not appear. When will it appear? Answer: impossible to know. Now consider the probability 1/120’000’000’000’000. If it was something that would generate random numbers in the range [1, 120’000’000’000’000], very many numbers will repeat in every row of 120’000’000’000’000 so there would be either impossible or almost impossible that a certain number will EVER result. So, this means that if the first animal that existed was of that species of brown lizard, that lives in grass/vegetation, until now it may have happened that none of this kind has EVER been hatched, and maybe, that it will never be hatched. This is what “probability” is: chance, not rule.
Yet, let’s say one has actually been created: it’s now in an egg. What is the probability that it would not be eaten by another creature that eats eggs, or that its mother does not die, so that it would be able to take care of it; or when it gets out of the egg, what is the possibility that it will get out of the grass and be spotted by a natural enemy and eaten? Or maybe, there is an earthquake that kills it, or maybe a rock falls on it, or maybe it does not find food. Or even, maybe it also has a “harmful” mutation that makes it die quickly. Also, if it reaches maturity, it may be killed, not necessary very hard, even though it has green sking: it may get out of the grass/vegetation, it may not find food, it may be killed by a bigger animal that accidentaly stepped on it, a natural disaster, a rain, a drought, a change of temperature in the region, or who knows what! And if it yet survives until it mates, maybe none of his descendants survive until they themselves mate, or maybe none is hatched with that mutation, or, if one is hatched, there is a great probability that it will die without having such descendants itself. So, do you understand what “random chance” evolution (with no god’s, not even Gaia’s intervention) means? I said “The reasoning would be that those with more or better “benefical mutations” would survive, and those with less, would dissappear.”, but it seems that “chance” means more than anything.
Now consider what you see in reality: there are way too many developped creatures with many astonishing abilities, very many complex creatures and very complex organs (consider the human eye which is very complex, and its possiblity to get here by random chance – and yes, consider the great flaws it would have had if one not-yet-human would have had partially evolved eyes that did not allow him to see or, even too see very poorly) living in a perfect environment(that supports life, sustains it, etc.), sustained by very many physical & chemical laws. By the way, if light had not existed, then no life could have existed, or even if the laws by which atoms can form molecules did not exist, or even those that allows them to be stable enough, nothing would have been. Yet there are too many (if not all) laws that ‘work’ one with another, creating an environment that could have not existed otherwise (i.e. could have not existed if at least one missed or was destructive). I think there are way too many things that are “just the way it was needed” so that everything around could exist.
So, there are some explanations for this, as we might have imagined:
- One I know is the theory by which there are million of parallel universes/worlds, that all or most are chaos (as random chance would create it), and by random chance, considering the millions of worlds that exist, or even more, our world is the only (or one of the only) that has the “just the way it was needed” laws and things (energies, matter, etc.). However, there are some problems with this theory: 1. We cannot prove there is any other parallel world than ours, and maybe the theory itself has been born from fantasy, or religion: that there are gods in another kind of world, there is a heaven and, or a hell, etc. (nothing scientifically). 2. There is neither an explanation as why would it be other worlds, nor how many - if there would be any (leaving it a pure idea/imagination). 3. By the problem of the probabilities, even if there would be an infinite number of worlds, it is possible that none would ‘function’.
- Other is the belief in a kind of Gaia. I had a teacher that he called himself an atheist and believed that God is a kind of “great mathematician”, but only that, because he couldn’t explain how everything could have been created and evolved by pure random chance to what is today, and found it unreasonable, and believed that Einstein had the same idea about what “God” is. He did not believe that God can, by any means ‘contact’/comunicate wih a human being (as it is told about Moses, etc.), perform miracles, etc. but it is a kind of ‘being’ without reason/thinking, limited to just “great mathematician”, who could have only created the universe, and, with some mistakes/lacks (mutations that made creatures not survive, etc.) has brought it here. He believed that, outside of creation, He is totally absent and unaware. Although this is a more “Gaia” than “no god” theory, I think it’s more reasonable than real atheism(“no god”) theory. Yet, I don’t agree with it either, and it seems that neither do you: You said G-d need to be at least as complex as the entire universe
, so if God created everything, he should be superior to everything. Also, my logic tells me that if there is something which we call “God” that is a “great mathematician”, able to create the entire universe, he must not only have a great memory to know what he did so far, so that He would continue doing/creating other things, which implies He would be conscious and think. And if He was a great mathematician, He needed reason/logic (I can’t imagine an illogical mathematician, because mathematics require logic), and if He could create everything, He would be, what we call, “Almighty”. Psalm 94.9-10 (KJV translation version) says “9.He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see?
10.He that chastiseth the heathen, shall not he correct? he that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know?” which is about the same and seems logical to me.
- Other is that evolved aliens created everything, or almost everything. But this theory is flawed, because you need only ask yourself “but how did the aliens appear?” to start all over again.
- If you have other theory, tell me, and I’ll think about it and tell you.
I’ve already stated which of them seems more reasonable to me. But, let’s get further with the explanations...
So far we’ve thought about things related to chemistry, biology, cosmos, etc. Now let’s take something more about “life” - that which we live.
There is a kind of force that binds a man into the way he is, the things he does, and the thing he feels. That is, if a man is one day stealing, next time it would be easier for him to steal than it was first time, and even the wish to steal is greater. So if one leaves himself ‘deceived’ by something bad/evil that he is attracted to (like stealing, selfishness, treachery, filthiness, etc.), that bad/evil thing will grow in strength in time as he is is doing it, and the man will become more and more vulnerable to it (the man will feel more attracted to it and more ease to do it), and he may get to a point where he cannot oppose it anymore (and do it every time he feels/can/the thought comes). If you have noticed, ‘bad’ people do not become ‘bad’ over night, when the previous day they were righteouss. The same is with decisions, we draw lines as “oh, I will only do that, nothing more”, “I will not exaggerate into X”, etc. but we always break the lines. Yet as we break a line, the desire grows, even if we draw a line a bit further. Maybe the only thing that gives us the strength to “break free” is if to suffer a lot of that bad/evil thing we did (consequences), which may not be enough sometimes. By the theory of evolution that we are taught, I think that this should never happen, but we should at least not be affected by how much we do them, but maybe we should even become stronger. Is there a scientifical explanation for this, or does the theory of evolution support it? Also, why is it easier to do evil than to do good, have you ever thought about that? The same, is there a scientifical explanation, or does the theory of evolution support it? Yet they are mental laws that did not exist in the universe before man existed (or, how can exist a law so that something, which does not exist and may never exist, would work in a certain way? Because the universe did not know we were supposed to be born).
About the relationship between man and woman:
Somehow it seems that we are ‘made’ “one man for one woman” to form something we call “marriage”. How that? Well, people fall in love, and when a man falls in love with a woman (or vice versa), he wishes to be with her “forever”, only with her, and her only with him, and also a “jealousy” is being born: we cannot be altruist here in the meaning “oh, go and have fun by sleeping with that other guy if you like, I love you, so I want you to be happy!”. People are able to kill for jealousy (i.e. if the other has cheated, has divorced and married another), kill themselves, loose their minds, etc., so “jealousy” is clearly not a breed of “selfishness” (and many times even the past matters for jealousy). Also, the human child reaches maturity (when he can handle life himself, alone) in a very long time compared to other creatures and he needs both parents for his proper development (considering both parents are mentally healthy, etc. of course) which supports the idea of “family”, as well as sex transmitted diseases do (which somehow happens even after the condons have been invented, and might have not happend if people did not fornicate like cats), and also there are many mental things that take place when a man sleeps with a woman (for both), which somehow is healthy if the aim of the man and the woman that sleep one with another is serious and responsible (like, in marriage & family), and somehow unhealthy if the aim is just “having fun” (i.e. a woman who has had slept 100 men, cannot love and be dedicated to a man with the same heart one which had none does, and most surely she cannot be satisfied with only one man, because she is used to many - the same it works for men).
And I don’t think these can be explained by either that which we call “science” or by the theory of evolution. In other words, I think life is too complex and has too many rules and laws (among which, the psychic ones, as how we think, how we feel) that cannot be explained by a chaotic random chance. Here, I think it is also included the sense of guilt: while we feel guilty for things we “think” they are bad, we clearly feel a strong feeling of guilt if we kill somebody, even though everybody says it is not our fault. Or if we do a great evil to somebody (even if we do not support consequences), it’s not at all the same with the feeling of guilt when we just said something bad, or made a mistake that upseted everybody. I think conscience is not something ‘educated’ by the society. Moreover, I think we could not have formed a society if we did not already have a conscience (to feel guilty, to ‘feel’ what is good and what is evil): even now, it is too hard for people to deprive themselves of the things they may have, so that others would feel good (so they steal, rob, cheat, etc.), so what would have happened if those in the past didn’t even feel any kind of guilt and killing a man would have been the same as smashing a bug? Also, interesting question: why does guilt exist? Yet we know it’s very helpful to us.
By the way, something that seems funny to me, yet seems a good question too: If we are created by random chance, how that we are all symmetrical? I don’t speak about mutants, but about normal creatures: the human being, the spider, the camel, the horse, and very many others. What were the odds for that if all was pure chance?
If it is to decide between reason and evidence, I think evidence is always doubtful, while reason is more trustful.
I don’t think the existence of the universe, all that exists, can have any explanation as why they exist, as they are, if a conscious creator did not exist. But if you have other explanation as why they exist, something which I didn’t think about, maybe you tell me. Until then, if you like to hear “evidence”, then the evidence that God exists is that all exists, the way they are. And creatures are also beautiful – if you think how they would have looked if none was symmetrical : )).
And maybe that's a more important thing, to have a reason as why to believes in God - except that, "I was told that", "This is what we believe", so that you would not feel as you pray to a rock.
And about the theory of evolution of species (as it is taught): I don’t think it has any scientific root. It is a great desire of people to feel superior to others and special, and that feeling of superiority is felt more as, “just because he is” one is superior to others. People use to see their parents (especially in the period of puberty) as old-fashioned, that cannot understand many things (which somehow the young ones do), that are left behind in their foolish past where people believed “foolish things”, not like the modern truths, we imagine people of the middle-age were all being retards (and some movies also helped in this way) “by their nature”, while there were many stupid people because of lack of education (like, they weren’t taught correct things, but were indoctrinated, etc.) and you may still get to see people today that you would think about them, that even apes are smarter than them(and I don’t speak about black people), and that’s because stupidity has no limits. And when we see in the early times great and smart things what people did in ages before, we don’t deny our logic, but we invent aliens that built them and taught people, and even mutated them to “human beings”, while we, in our “great wisdom” are not able to do the things that they did with the poor materials and technology and knowledge that they received. But we are still proud that we are smarter than everyone before, because “this is our nature”. And we don’t stop here either, we like the idea that we are smarter than most people of today, too. Many atheists feel superior to other people because they reached to the top of evolution process, while people that “still believe there is a god/there are gods” did not “evolve” enough to realize there is none, when many don’t even judge this seriously, because “it is already a foolish thing”. And in all religions that are people that feel that there are so smart that they realized their religion is “the true one”, not like the others, which are that fool, that they can’t even realize that! This is what I think, the theory of evolution got its roots from, the desire to feel superior, desire/feeling which everyone has.
i would appreciate if you would not give examples using islam.by using this fake religion of criminally insane people you destroy your wonderfull arguments and ruining your thesis.
Despite you hate to hear about islam and muslims, there is nothing bad talking about them. Actually, there is a good point in doing so: for any man, it is very hard to see that their thinking is wrong, or their deeds are wrong (or how seriously bad they are), but no matter how they are, they consider themselves right and good, so it’s pretty hard to tell them sometimes that they do wrong or that they think in an odd manner. In this case, you need an example of someone who does/thinks that, that both of you consider what that one does/thinks is bad (i.e. a muslim), or something that both of you consider to be wrong (i.e. Islam) and point out that bad example. It is easy to make an association, so that the ‘target’ gets to understand that that which he knows it’s stupid/bad – as he understands from that bad example – is the thing himself believes/does, it has a great effect. For instance, if you had some “great idea”, something that seemed to you very smart, astonishing, etc. and I’d find the same thing written in the qur’an or the hadiths, you would change your mind suddenly. So, as long as islam and muslims serve an example, I will use them.
The same ‘technique’ (someone else that is a bad example) was used by the prophet Nathan when David has slept with that woman and then killed her husband. (2 Samuel 12.1-14).
i am honoring you as very intellegent ands clever person (are you a doctor at theology or physics?)
1. My advice: do not honour/glorify people, nor receive honor/glory from people, but talk as from man to man, with the needed respect, nothing more, nothing less, no matter the age, no matter how smart or stupid, no matter how much or little he studied (school, university degrees, etc.). Do not honour/glorify people because this makes him conceit (feel superior to other people, etc.) and do not accept yourself to be honoured/glorified, because it makes you feel conceit (which is a kind of blind feeling of superiority).
2. It is a common belief that if one reaches finishes a high university degree is very smart, while one who didn’t do that is seen as a fool that hasn’t got even the right to say what he believes, because he is a fool, and he knows nothing or “only foolishness”. Despite the fact that you hate hearing about muslims and Islam, there are even muslims who reach high university degrees (even in countries as UK, as compared to muslim countries), about which it’s said that “they received high education”, they still believe the qur’an, hadiths and all those foolish miracles, and all that goes with it. This is because the “education” was received from home and from imams, while “professional knowledge” has been receieved from university. There is also another problem you should be aware of: In schools, universities, etc. – as in many other places – you are told the story, and asked to believe it. They do not ask you to think it, as much as they ask you to believe it. Because, if you think it, you have to get to the same conclusions as your teacher has, and that school has. The same with theology, psychology, philosophy that is taught in schools: if some things are wrong in the courses, moreover if this is the way of thinking of the entire university/faculty, they will most surely not accept that they are wrong, even if you are right, but will seek a method to silence you (because they should be the smart ones, and you the one who doesn’t know, not inverse). And if you don’t write in the courses what they taught, you should not expect the best mark. I hope you understand that the teachings you receieved in school (university, whatever the degree) does not mean everything.
And, no, I haven’t study any theology at any school, and I do not understand how physics could have been necessary to give a good reply to that post. I could have not reached the doctor degree because I am younger than that. Many things I know are because of what I’ve thought of (meditate), and talked with other people (which put me into the situation to think about many things and find answers, which is, yet meditation).
I hope my answers are good enough this time as well. Now I'll go to sleep, I'm very tired.
And, sory for the length of the text (I somehow get to always write much, while I never like to read much, I don't know how it happens : ))).
-
Every good courtroom attorney knows that
"Absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence !" ;D
-
Do you honor your mother and father? If you do, why?
yes i do honor my mother and father,as for the why,i don't exactly sure but i think that beacuse of cultural norms.
-
Hey normal atheist.
I see that you wrote on your signature that Negroes, Muslims and Commies/Liberals are enemies. Underneath, you have a list of supposed "allies" and on that list you have the European Union. You do realize that they are part of the problem? The EU hates Israel. Also, I hope you realize that not all black people are evil. I wouldn't use the term "Negro", we're not in the 1950s anymore.
-
Hey normal atheist.
I see that you wrote on your signature that Negroes, Muslims and Commies/Liberals are enemies. Underneath, you have a list of supposed "allies" and on that list you have the European Union. You do realize that they are part of the problem? The EU hates Israel. Also, I hope you realize that not all black people are evil. I wouldn't use the term "Negro", we're not in the 1950s anymore.
to serbian canadian.i wrote the european union in the catgory of the allies to save me the writing of all the eu memebrs.i realize that black are not evil.i do not think in terms of good and evil but in terms of survival and currently they are one of the main treats to our survival evil or not.and i am calling them negroes beacuse it is the formal way to describe them.we do not use the term negroe anymore beacuse of the politicali correct movement that added negative associations to the term but if you will reasd books from the the 19th century you will see that the term was in universal usage with neutral conotations.llets return again to the ruopean union for a moment.if you will look at the enemies list you will see commies/liberals on the list, guess to whom i referred? (besides china,cuba,north korea,vietnam,laos and the obama administartion and the current putin government).but in spite of all this i supportive of the creation of a pan white state (europe,russia,the united states,canada,argentina,chile and uruguay.south africa,greater israel and australia-new zealand) with laws to maintain the autonomy of the local populations (like greater israel to be granted the right to be governed by halacha and serbia as a state cleaned from ustasa croats).only whites and asians that integrated in our culture could be citizens with muslims and blacks would lovingly be kicked out.in alliance with this state there should be a native american autonomous state (possibly part of the pan white state but with greater autonomy to the local population) which is their right as well as we have right to our own state that will be dominated by our culture and a greater india (modern day india,sri lanka,pakistan,nepal bhutan and bangladesh but i wouldn't be concerned if they will expand toward southeast asia,china and the greater middle east).the state would be a socialist state (i know most of you will not love this part,but the happier the population,the less likly they will revolt).the state would encourage reaserch especialy in the fields of weaponry and space exploration and scientist would have one of the best sallaries in the country.it will with her allies form an organisation similar to the united nations but slightly more powerfully that will be dominated by the white state.africa and the muslim countries would be classified as danger zones and entry would not be allowed to any foreigners.only right wing parties would be allowed to participate in the elections but the elections should be fair and without frauds.
hope you enjoyed,normal atheist.
-
Sounds like you are a racist to me...
In general we don't believe race to be the factor which determines if you are good or evil. But you seem overly obsessed with race.. Would you mind telling us what race you are from?
-
Thanks for answering my previous question.
Now for the next one.
Did you know that all extant species are on the tips of branches and that evolution does not mean a forward progression? It only means a change in allele frequency in a population over time.
Chimpanzees are just as far removed from the common ancestor with humans as humans are, technically. They're not really more or less evolved.
Now on a moral level, yes I would consider them completely different, because we must value human life above all other life in a moral and spiritual sense.
However, just on the basis of biology and science, one is not more evolved than the other.
They just took different directions.
When you talk about one race being "genetically inferior" to another, that doesn't really make sense from a biology standpoint. They may be genetically more prone to do better at some tasks and worse at others however, and they will not be equal to other races in all ways. Blacks may be genetically prone to be less intelligent, but perhaps in the environment they were found in, the plains of Africa, the amount of intelligence they have is enough for what they needed.
Remember that in evolution there are always trade-offs. Large, complex brains need more energy to sustain themselves, more oxygen and food. There may be a cost-benefit ratio in that respect that was different in Africa than in Europe.
-
Sounds like you are a racist to me...
In general we don't believe race to be the factor which determines if you are good or evil. But you seem overly obsessed with race.. Would you mind telling us what race you are from?
yes i am a proud jew (which is mean that i belong to the white or in his other name the caucasian race).and yes i am racist by definition,and so almost all the posters here along with kahane and chaim ben pesach.according to oxford dictionary,racism is the belive that there are real different beween the races.i hope you are living in the united states beacuse if you are you just need to venture outside and carefully examined the behavior of the negroes and the behavior of whites and asians and then return to here and tell me about your finding beacuse i am sure every american will be glad to hear them.
-
Thanks for answering my previous question.
Now for the next one.
Did you know that all extant species are on the tips of branches and that evolution does not mean a forward progression? It only means a change in allele frequency in a population over time.
Chimpanzees are just as far removed from the common ancestor with humans as humans are, technically. They're not really more or less evolved.
Now on a moral level, yes I would consider them completely different, because we must value human life above all other life in a moral and spiritual sense.
However, just on the basis of biology and science, one is not more evolved than the other.
They just took different directions.
When you talk about one race being "genetically inferior" to another, that doesn't really make sense from a biology standpoint. They may be genetically more prone to do better at some tasks and worse at others however, and they will not be equal to other races in all ways. Blacks may be genetically prone to be less intelligent, but perhaps in the environment they were found in, the plains of Africa, the amount of intelligence they have is enough for what they needed.
Remember that in evolution there are always trade-offs. Large, complex brains need more energy to sustain themselves, more oxygen and food. There may be a cost-benefit ratio in that respect that was different in Africa than in Europe.
to canadian american,i don't deny the facts that you posted here.when i am talking about inferiority of the race i meant two thing
1) the average iq of the race's members.this is the key to the advancment of humankind in all areas.
2)tif their genes tend to be dominant or recesives.from looking at mixed white-black children or asian-black children it is clear that black genes are dominant.that is also the reason why i am considering them much more dangers than islam beacuse the muslims are just mentally ill but their mental illness (islam) is at least curable albeit so far with low success.
-
Sounds like you are a racist to me...
In general we don't believe race to be the factor which determines if you are good or evil. But you seem overly obsessed with race.. Would you mind telling us what race you are from?
yes i am a proud jew (which is mean that i belong to the white or in his other name the caucasian race).and yes i am racist by definition,and so almost all the posters here along with kahane and chaim ben pesach.according to oxford dictionary,racism is the belive that there are real different beween the races.i hope you are living in the united states beacuse if you are you just need to venture outside and carefully examined the behavior of the negroes and the behavior of whites and asians and then return to here and tell me about your finding beacuse i am sure every american will be glad to hear them.
I do not believe you are speaking the truth here. Kahanism is not racism, although those who try to speak evil about it call it thus... Judaism is not racist, never has been, never will be...
Judaism is composed of many races and none of them are intrinsically better than the other kind. Personally I care less what kind of 'Jew' you are because you have stated many times you don't care about Judaism. You do know that Judaism is not a race, and therefore you are incorrect if you pain Judaism as a racist religion.
Let me explain what I have learned the JTF position is, because it is the same position which I have had for almost 20 years {longer than you, na, have been alive}...
There are evil cultures in the world but the races are not evil. Evil is a product of evil actions. The soul is born nuetral and all humanity has a thing called free will. The free will is what determines whether an individual is good or evil.
I guess you don't get out much and don't have much contact with people who are different than you are. I have been around the world and I work with people from many cultures and I can tell you personally that they are not all evil. And not only white culture is not evil, there are also good blacks and good mexicans. You and your racial theories belong with Hitler and Nazi germany.
If you espouse such rabid racism you are not my brother, even though you claim to be a Jew. A Jew doesn't treat any human being with less dignity than himself {Love your neighbor as yourself}...
Once again you must understand that we are only fighting the enemies of Israel and the Jewish people. My only enemies are those who declared war against us, the muslims no matter what race they may come from. I live in a mixed neighborhood and some of my black neighbors are very good friends. I am 100% against gangster and thug culltures and have been called racist for those beliefs alone, but those who know me know that I am open to loving and caring for every human being on the planet.
It saddens me that you are such a racist... You do not make the Jewish people stronger nor do you make them proud.
It is also so silly to me that you have such a belief, being an atheist and all... You are so very lucky to have been born a Jew but you have 0% gratefulness for such a position in life. You take and you do not give, you are selfish and you do not have an iota of goodness in you... this is something to be ashamed of... And you are not too smart too...
-
You seem to me more like a Darwinazi than a Judean Nationalist.
-
1) the average iq of the race's members.this is the key to the advancment of humankind in all areas.
It's important for humans to be intelligent enough to be able to survive in the environment they find themselves in. Remember that because one person is smart and another is stupid doesn't make one better than the other one in any meaningful way other than intelligence itself and the ability to do certain intelligence-related tasks. I think people like Stephen Hawking are smarter than I am, but that doesn't mean that his life is worth more than mine. Likewise if someone has Down Syndrome and has a very low IQ they have the same right to live that I do. Human beings should not be ranked the way you want to rank them.
It's true that not all races are equal in all ways. Genes probably influence culture to a certain degree as well. However to say one is absolutely inferior and another superior begs the question. Inferior at what, and superior at what?
2)tif their genes tend to be dominant or recesives.from looking at mixed white-black children or asian-black children it is clear that black genes are dominant.that is also the reason why i am considering them much more dangers than islam beacuse the muslims are just mentally ill but their mental illness (islam) is at least curable albeit so far with low success.
Whites tend to be more vulnerable because so many of their features are recessive, but that's not really a value judgment in its own right. Many genetic diseases are recessive so recessive does not mean good.
-
Sounds like you are a racist to me...
In general we don't believe race to be the factor which determines if you are good or evil. But you seem overly obsessed with race.. Would you mind telling us what race you are from?
yes i am a proud jew (which is mean that i belong to the white or in his other name the caucasian race).and yes i am racist by definition,and so almost all the posters here along with kahane and chaim ben pesach.according to oxford dictionary,racism is the belive that there are real different beween the races.i hope you are living in the united states beacuse if you are you just need to venture outside and carefully examined the behavior of the negroes and the behavior of whites and asians and then return to here and tell me about your finding beacuse i am sure every american will be glad to hear them.
I do not believe you are speaking the truth here. Kahanism is not racism, although those who try to speak evil about it call it thus... Judaism is not racist, never has been, never will be...
Judaism is composed of many races and none of them are intrinsically better than the other kind. Personally I care less what kind of 'Jew' you are because you have stated many times you don't care about Judaism. You do know that Judaism is not a race, and therefore you are incorrect if you pain Judaism as a racist religion.
Let me explain what I have learned the JTF position is, because it is the same position which I have had for almost 20 years {longer than you, na, have been alive}...
There are evil cultures in the world but the races are not evil. Evil is a product of evil actions. The soul is born nuetral and all humanity has a thing called free will. The free will is what determines whether an individual is good or evil.
I guess you don't get out much and don't have much contact with people who are different than you are. I have been around the world and I work with people from many cultures and I can tell you personally that they are not all evil. And not only white culture is not evil, there are also good blacks and good mexicans. You and your racial theories belong with Hitler and Nazi germany.
If you espouse such rabid racism you are not my brother, even though you claim to be a Jew. A Jew doesn't treat any human being with less dignity than himself {Love your neighbor as yourself}...
Once again you must understand that we are only fighting the enemies of Israel and the Jewish people. My only enemies are those who declared war against us, the muslims no matter what race they may come from. I live in a mixed neighborhood and some of my black neighbors are very good friends. I am 100% against gangster and thug culltures and have been called racist for those beliefs alone, but those who know me know that I am open to loving and caring for every human being on the planet.
It saddens me that you are such a racist... You do not make the Jewish people stronger nor do you make them proud.
It is also so silly to me that you have such a belief, being an atheist and all... You are so very lucky to have been born a Jew but you have 0% gratefulness for such a position in life. You take and you do not give, you are selfish and you do not have an iota of goodness in you... this is something to be ashamed of... And you are not too smart too...
oysh please,such a bias.well i said you travelled around the world a lot.have you been to detroit lately? to the middle east (not israel)? to africa? if not i am inviting you to go there for an observation and then when you will return please tell us how it was.and now for the jewish part.i am a jew by ethnicity but not by religion,i prefer to rely on equation than to rely on some 2000 years old books beacuse equations never lie.
-
1) the average iq of the race's members.this is the key to the advancment of humankind in all areas.
It's important for humans to be intelligent enough to be able to survive in the environment they find themselves in. Remember that because one person is smart and another is stupid doesn't make one better than the other one in any meaningful way other than intelligence itself and the ability to do certain intelligence-related tasks. I think people like Stephen Hawking are smarter than I am, but that doesn't mean that his life is worth more than mine. Likewise if someone has Down Syndrome and has a very low IQ they have the same right to live that I do. Human beings should not be ranked the way you want to rank them.
It's true that not all races are equal in all ways. Genes probably influence culture to a certain degree as well. However to say one is absolutely inferior and another superior begs the question. Inferior at what, and superior at what?
2)tif their genes tend to be dominant or recesives.from looking at mixed white-black children or asian-black children it is clear that black genes are dominant.that is also the reason why i am considering them much more dangers than islam beacuse the muslims are just mentally ill but their mental illness (islam) is at least curable albeit so far with low success.
Whites tend to be more vulnerable because so many of their features are recessive, but that's not really a value judgment in its own right. Many genetic diseases are recessive so recessive does not mean good.
1) i already posted that.i consider race superiority by average iq.our ablitiy to be smart and creative is the key to our future.i don't hate any race but we don't need to interfere with blacks beacuse if we will mix with them it will lower our children average iq.and without iq we don't have any future,we can just as well slit our troats in a mass suicide.
2)well i agree with you in that point.but you need to remeber that most of the genetical diseases are connected to some good traits (the most prominent example is ty sachs,this is a disease that until recent time appeard only in ashkeazi jews.recent reserches found that the same gene that caused the intellegence of the ashkenazi people had caused them also the ty sachs).
-
1) i already posted that.i consider race superiority by average iq.our ablitiy to be smart and creative is the key to our future.i don't hate any race but we don't need to interfere with blacks beacuse if we will mix with them it will lower our children average iq.and without iq we don't have any future,we can just as well slit our troats in a mass suicide.
I don't think the races should marry each other and I think that different races should remain as distinct as possible. I agree that if whites intermarry with blacks then their children will usually be of lower IQ than if they married a fellow white.
However I think you misunderstand something. There would still be a future, but it would be a future perhaps worse than dying off. Look at how the average black lives in Detroit or New Orleans. Now imagine its welfare cut off and no white people around anymore to help. After murdering and raping each other to reduce the size of their population, they might be hunting rabbits and stray dogs with crude spears after a couple of generations if left only to their own devices.
2)well i agree with you in that point.but you need to remeber that most of the genetical diseases are connected to some good traits (the most prominent example is ty sachs,this is a disease that until recent time appeard only in ashkeazi jews.recent reserches found that the same gene that caused the intellegence of the ashkenazi people had caused them also the ty sachs).
Intelligence is too complex to be carried on one gene alone. I think the Jewish population would benefit if every Ashkenazi Jewish person got genetic testing so that if they carried the gene they did not marry someone else who carried the defective gene (it takes both parents having it to pass it on). Tay-Sachs might eventually be eliminated.
-
1) i already posted that.i consider race superiority by average iq.our ablitiy to be smart and creative is the key to our future.i don't hate any race but we don't need to interfere with blacks beacuse if we will mix with them it will lower our children average iq.and without iq we don't have any future,we can just as well slit our troats in a mass suicide.
I don't think the races should marry each other and I think that different races should remain as distinct as possible. I agree that if whites intermarry with blacks then their children will usually be of lower IQ than if they married a fellow white.
However I think you misunderstand something. There would still be a future, but it would be a future perhaps worse than dying off. Look at how the average black lives in Detroit or New Orleans. Now imagine its welfare cut off and no white people around anymore to help. After murdering and raping each other to reduce the size of their population, they might be hunting rabbits and stray dogs with crude spears after a couple of generations if left only to their own devices.
2)well i agree with you in that point.but you need to remeber that most of the genetical diseases are connected to some good traits (the most prominent example is ty sachs,this is a disease that until recent time appeard only in ashkeazi jews.recent reserches found that the same gene that caused the intellegence of the ashkenazi people had caused them also the ty sachs).
Intelligence is too complex to be carried on one gene alone. I think the Jewish population would benefit if every Ashkenazi Jewish person got genetic testing so that if they carried the gene they did not marry someone else who carried the defective gene (it takes both parents having it to pass it on). Tay-Sachs might eventually be eliminated.
1) i couldn't agree more.
2) tay sachs has already been eliminated in israel.
-
How could Tay-Sachs be eliminated in Israel? New people are going there frequently (that's not a bad thing, but it's possible many people who make aliyah are carriers).
-
How could Tay-Sachs be eliminated in Israel? New people are going there frequently (that's not a bad thing, but it's possible many people who make aliyah are carriers).
i meant that tay sachs was eliminated among native israeli newborns.
-
How could Tay-Sachs be eliminated in Israel? New people are going there frequently (that's not a bad thing, but it's possible many people who make aliyah are carriers).
i meant that tay sachs was eliminated among native israeli newborns.
Oh that's good! :)
-
How could Tay-Sachs be eliminated in Israel? New people are going there frequently (that's not a bad thing, but it's possible many people who make aliyah are carriers).
i meant that tay sachs was eliminated among native israeli newborns.
Oh that's good! :)
yep,our big problems now are aids,h1n1 and islam.
-
when i am talking about inferiority of the race i meant two thing
1) the average iq of the race's members.this is the key to the advancment of humankind in all areas.
...
have you been to detroit lately? to the middle east (not israel)? to africa?
Though that question was not quite for me...
I think that taking only the average iq of the race’s members is misleading, because there are more factors that affect the iq of people, of which, of very high importance is the education in the region (which also depends on many factors). I think a more proper result would be if you compare, in a developped country, people who had the same education, blacks & whites.
And by the way, if a white man converts to Islam, I don’t think that makes white men as inferior as Islam and muslims. Then why would people indoctrinated into Islam in the middle-east be genetically inferior to those from developed countries that were not indoctrinated in Islam?
i prefer to rely on equation than to rely on some 2000 years old books beacuse equations never lie.
Besides the fact that the key point is not “science vs ‘2000 years old books’”, even the science you learnt and believe in is not all “equations” (that is, as clear as that). There a lot of theories, which by definition are the reasoning of men and therefore may be false.
You may know that in history there were a lot of theories, and the “science” of those days (reasoning, their capability and possibility to find information, the “evidences” they found) was many times, in many places, faulty.
So how do you know that all the things you learn will stand the test of time and will not be disproved in the future (when knowledge and technology will greatly improve, and with them, our possibility to better understand the world - get evidences, make tests, etc.)? Did you ever think that all you learnt may not be 100% correct?
-
when i am talking about inferiority of the race i meant two thing
1) the average iq of the race's members.this is the key to the advancment of humankind in all areas.
...
have you been to detroit lately? to the middle east (not israel)? to africa?
Though that question was not quite for me...
I think that taking only the average iq of the race’s members is misleading, because there are more factors that affect the iq of people, of which, of very high importance is the education in the region (which also depends on many factors). I think a more proper result would be if you compare, in a developped country, people who had the same education, blacks & whites.
And by the way, if a white man converts to Islam, I don’t think that makes white men as inferior as Islam and muslims. Then why would people indoctrinated into Islam in the middle-east be genetically inferior to those from developed countries that were not indoctrinated in Islam?
i prefer to rely on equation than to rely on some 2000 years old books beacuse equations never lie.
Besides the fact that the key point is not “science vs ‘2000 years old books’”, even the science you learnt and believe in is not all “equations” (that is, as clear as that). There a lot of theories, which by definition are the reasoning of men and therefore may be false.
You may know that in history there were a lot of theories, and the “science” of those days (reasoning, their capability and possibility to find information, the “evidences” they found) was many times, in many places, faulty.
So how do you know that all the things you learn will stand the test of time and will not be disproved in the future (when knowledge and technology will greatly improve, and with them, our possibility to better understand the world - get evidences, make tests, etc.)? Did you ever think that all you learnt may not be 100% correct?
1) i based my argument on a reaserch on the united states pouplations.
2)i agree with you that what i learnt is not 100% correct.but unless someone will come with a better theory and better equations,this is the only thing we have.and about this issue,i admitt that you successeded in converting me back into belevieng in god.thank you everybody.
-
when i am talking about inferiority of the race i meant two thing
1) the average iq of the race's members.this is the key to the advancment of humankind in all areas.
...
have you been to detroit lately? to the middle east (not israel)? to africa?
Though that question was not quite for me...
I think that taking only the average iq of the race’s members is misleading, because there are more factors that affect the iq of people, of which, of very high importance is the education in the region (which also depends on many factors). I think a more proper result would be if you compare, in a developped country, people who had the same education, blacks & whites.
And by the way, if a white man converts to Islam, I don’t think that makes white men as inferior as Islam and muslims. Then why would people indoctrinated into Islam in the middle-east be genetically inferior to those from developed countries that were not indoctrinated in Islam?
i prefer to rely on equation than to rely on some 2000 years old books beacuse equations never lie.
Besides the fact that the key point is not “science vs ‘2000 years old books’”, even the science you learnt and believe in is not all “equations” (that is, as clear as that). There a lot of theories, which by definition are the reasoning of men and therefore may be false.
You may know that in history there were a lot of theories, and the “science” of those days (reasoning, their capability and possibility to find information, the “evidences” they found) was many times, in many places, faulty.
So how do you know that all the things you learn will stand the test of time and will not be disproved in the future (when knowledge and technology will greatly improve, and with them, our possibility to better understand the world - get evidences, make tests, etc.)? Did you ever think that all you learnt may not be 100% correct?
1) i based my argument on a reaserch on the united states pouplations.
2)i agree with you that what i learnt is not 100% correct.but unless someone will come with a better theory and better equations,this is the only thing we have.and about this issue,i admitt that you successeded in converting me back into belevieng in G-d.thank you everybody.
i have to agree, Even with affirmative action blacks have lower IQ'S in the USA and the UK. There is not one sucessful black country, not one, not one trace of history that shows they even had a glimmer of a golden period.
now as i believe in god, like you should normal atheist, you would find that through their evil culture originally, it has lead to blacks having less iq over the years. But originally i reckon they had equal iq to the whites and asians.
But even very poor russians etc have higher iq than USA blacks, which the politocally correct brigade cannot answer.
I agree with alot of your points atheist, aprt from your atheism. I hope you become a religous jew, and this is from a christian.
-
when i am talking about inferiority of the race i meant two thing
1) the average iq of the race's members.this is the key to the advancment of humankind in all areas.
...
have you been to detroit lately? to the middle east (not israel)? to africa?
Though that question was not quite for me...
I think that taking only the average iq of the race’s members is misleading, because there are more factors that affect the iq of people, of which, of very high importance is the education in the region (which also depends on many factors). I think a more proper result would be if you compare, in a developped country, people who had the same education, blacks & whites.
And by the way, if a white man converts to Islam, I don’t think that makes white men as inferior as Islam and muslims. Then why would people indoctrinated into Islam in the middle-east be genetically inferior to those from developed countries that were not indoctrinated in Islam?
i prefer to rely on equation than to rely on some 2000 years old books beacuse equations never lie.
Besides the fact that the key point is not “science vs ‘2000 years old books’”, even the science you learnt and believe in is not all “equations” (that is, as clear as that). There a lot of theories, which by definition are the reasoning of men and therefore may be false.
You may know that in history there were a lot of theories, and the “science” of those days (reasoning, their capability and possibility to find information, the “evidences” they found) was many times, in many places, faulty.
So how do you know that all the things you learn will stand the test of time and will not be disproved in the future (when knowledge and technology will greatly improve, and with them, our possibility to better understand the world - get evidences, make tests, etc.)? Did you ever think that all you learnt may not be 100% correct?
1) i based my argument on a reaserch on the united states pouplations.
2)i agree with you that what i learnt is not 100% correct.but unless someone will come with a better theory and better equations,this is the only thing we have.and about this issue,i admitt that you successeded in converting me back into belevieng in G-d.thank you everybody.
i have to agree, Even with affirmative action blacks have lower IQ'S in the USA and the UK. There is not one sucessful black country, not one, not one trace of history that shows they even had a glimmer of a golden period.
now as i believe in G-d, like you should normal atheist, you would find that through their evil culture originally, it has lead to blacks having less iq over the years. But originally i reckon they had equal iq to the whites and asians.
But even very poor russians etc have higher iq than USA blacks, which the politocally correct brigade cannot answer.
I agree with alot of your points atheist, aprt from your atheism. I hope you become a religous jew, and this is from a christian.
You make generalizations... There are many very intelligent Blacks in the USA which would make poor Russians blush... The problem with Blacks in America has been that they have for almost 100 years been given substandard education. While this may be a cultural problem with Africans it is something which can change over time.
There is nothing gained by being rigidly racist. As I said before, I work with people from all over the world and generally there is not much difference between peoples.
-
when i am talking about inferiority of the race i meant two thing
1) the average iq of the race's members.this is the key to the advancment of humankind in all areas.
...
have you been to detroit lately? to the middle east (not israel)? to africa?
Though that question was not quite for me...
I think that taking only the average iq of the race’s members is misleading, because there are more factors that affect the iq of people, of which, of very high importance is the education in the region (which also depends on many factors). I think a more proper result would be if you compare, in a developped country, people who had the same education, blacks & whites.
And by the way, if a white man converts to Islam, I don’t think that makes white men as inferior as Islam and muslims. Then why would people indoctrinated into Islam in the middle-east be genetically inferior to those from developed countries that were not indoctrinated in Islam?
i prefer to rely on equation than to rely on some 2000 years old books beacuse equations never lie.
Besides the fact that the key point is not “science vs ‘2000 years old books’”, even the science you learnt and believe in is not all “equations” (that is, as clear as that). There a lot of theories, which by definition are the reasoning of men and therefore may be false.
You may know that in history there were a lot of theories, and the “science” of those days (reasoning, their capability and possibility to find information, the “evidences” they found) was many times, in many places, faulty.
So how do you know that all the things you learn will stand the test of time and will not be disproved in the future (when knowledge and technology will greatly improve, and with them, our possibility to better understand the world - get evidences, make tests, etc.)? Did you ever think that all you learnt may not be 100% correct?
1) i based my argument on a reaserch on the united states pouplations.
2)i agree with you that what i learnt is not 100% correct.but unless someone will come with a better theory and better equations,this is the only thing we have.and about this issue,i admitt that you successeded in converting me back into belevieng in G-d.thank you everybody.
i have to agree, Even with affirmative action blacks have lower IQ'S in the USA and the UK. There is not one sucessful black country, not one, not one trace of history that shows they even had a glimmer of a golden period.
now as i believe in G-d, like you should normal atheist, you would find that through their evil culture originally, it has lead to blacks having less iq over the years. But originally i reckon they had equal iq to the whites and asians.
But even very poor russians etc have higher iq than USA blacks, which the politocally correct brigade cannot answer.
I agree with alot of your points atheist, aprt from your atheism. I hope you become a religous jew, and this is from a christian.
You make generalizations... There are many very intelligent Blacks in the USA which would make poor Russians blush... The problem with Blacks in America has been that they have for almost 100 years been given substandard education. While this may be a cultural problem with Africans it is something which can change over time.
There is nothing gained by being rigidly racist. As I said before, I work with people from all over the world and generally there is not much difference between peoples.
i fisagree, blacks have been persecuted far less than the irish, gypsies, and the jews. All have higher iq, all more sucessful
Take the uk, we had signs for rented houses saying "no dogs, no blacks and no irish". yet look how successful they are.
Of course they are exceptions, they are good looking black women/men ocassionally, but on the whole they are pretty woeful.lets be honest here.
Are their good blacks, of course, pastor manning is one for example. But Purely on the evidence all over the world, though thoudands of years, there has never been a sucessful black country, not one.
Look at the chinese,indians and japanese, they produce some brillant peple, and have had/are having golden periods. In particularly with the japenise/chinese, they are equal if not debatably more intelligent than whites.
Im afraid muman, theres no way you can sugar coat it, thet white man cant be blamed for everyrthing, as i highlighted they have been white ethnic groups that have been just as/far wprse persecution than blacks in modern history. They rose above it.
I challenge you to show me in the world a desirable black city, whether it be in uk/us or in africa/jamacia.
Take the uk/US, since the 60's they have had literally trillions spent on them. No other race has near that, the chinese havent, yet even then the chinese destroy them in iq tests.
i think you are doing a very rightous moral thing mormon, and i wish i could agree with you but i cant.
However, what i will say, is that god created everyone equal. God is not racist, and blacks had the same iq as whites and other races, that i am sure of. But for whatever reason(my theory is micro evolution due to evi, culture set in) blacks have over the years lowered their iq.
-
My point is simply that genetics are not the cause of what is being observed. The Japanese have shown through history that they can be brutal and inhumane to others {witness the war crimes commited against China during WWII}... There are many millions of Indians still living in squalor and poverty all across India. I have many good Indian friends here at my work and believe me, there are whole segments of Indian continent which are living in conditions which are unimaginable here in America {even by poor blacks}.
Just because a nation may possess intelligence does not necessarily mean that it is righteous. Witness what happened to Germany during the last century. Germany was considered the seat of all society and one of the most advanced as far as technology... Yet it spawned the Nazi party which may be considered one of the most EVIL regimes in human history.
It is difficult to weigh the merits versus the negative qualities of a society.
I have enough experience to know that no one race is superior to another race. When I was in my 20s {about 20+ years ago} I actually lived with a Black family that was involved in selling Cocaine. These people were despicable and they treated their child terribly. I also had my nose broken on Venice Beach in the 80s by the Black gang the Crips... I have good reason to feel anger toward the black community. I took a stand in the 90s against gangster rap and this got me labeled as a racist.
But I also experienced the undesirable aspects of non-Black societies. I have known undesirable people of virtually every nationality. I have seen white people steal and engage in immoral sexual practices... I have seen white people lie and cheat... I know that evil is a temptation for all of mankind....
All I can recommend is that everyone live life and experience it to the fullest. Once you have experience in the world then you can make your observations and come to conclusions...
I agree that for the most part Black culture in America is awful. But it is not a simple thing to say that all blacks are inferior... I don't think I can confirm that belief...
-
when i am talking about inferiority of the race i meant two thing
1) the average iq of the race's members.this is the key to the advancment of humankind in all areas.
...
have you been to detroit lately? to the middle east (not israel)? to africa?
Though that question was not quite for me...
I think that taking only the average iq of the race’s members is misleading, because there are more factors that affect the iq of people, of which, of very high importance is the education in the region (which also depends on many factors). I think a more proper result would be if you compare, in a developped country, people who had the same education, blacks & whites.
And by the way, if a white man converts to Islam, I don’t think that makes white men as inferior as Islam and muslims. Then why would people indoctrinated into Islam in the middle-east be genetically inferior to those from developed countries that were not indoctrinated in Islam?
i prefer to rely on equation than to rely on some 2000 years old books beacuse equations never lie.
Besides the fact that the key point is not “science vs ‘2000 years old books’”, even the science you learnt and believe in is not all “equations” (that is, as clear as that). There a lot of theories, which by definition are the reasoning of men and therefore may be false.
You may know that in history there were a lot of theories, and the “science” of those days (reasoning, their capability and possibility to find information, the “evidences” they found) was many times, in many places, faulty.
So how do you know that all the things you learn will stand the test of time and will not be disproved in the future (when knowledge and technology will greatly improve, and with them, our possibility to better understand the world - get evidences, make tests, etc.)? Did you ever think that all you learnt may not be 100% correct?
1) i based my argument on a reaserch on the united states pouplations.
2)i agree with you that what i learnt is not 100% correct.but unless someone will come with a better theory and better equations,this is the only thing we have.and about this issue,i admitt that you successeded in converting me back into belevieng in G-d.thank you everybody.
i have to agree, Even with affirmative action blacks have lower IQ'S in the USA and the UK. There is not one sucessful black country, not one, not one trace of history that shows they even had a glimmer of a golden period.
now as i believe in G-d, like you should normal atheist, you would find that through their evil culture originally, it has lead to blacks having less iq over the years. But originally i reckon they had equal iq to the whites and asians.
But even very poor russians etc have higher iq than USA blacks, which the politocally correct brigade cannot answer.
I agree with alot of your points atheist, aprt from your atheism. I hope you become a religous jew, and this is from a christian.
You make generalizations... There are many very intelligent Blacks in the USA which would make poor Russians blush... The problem with Blacks in America has been that they have for almost 100 years been given substandard education. While this may be a cultural problem with Africans it is something which can change over time.
There is nothing gained by being rigidly racist. As I said before, I work with people from all over the world and generally there is not much difference between peoples.
so what? i see negroes and arabs on a daily basis and just from talking to them i know how stupid they are.
-
when i am talking about inferiority of the race i meant two thing
1) the average iq of the race's members.this is the key to the advancment of humankind in all areas.
...
have you been to detroit lately? to the middle east (not israel)? to africa?
Though that question was not quite for me...
I think that taking only the average iq of the race’s members is misleading, because there are more factors that affect the iq of people, of which, of very high importance is the education in the region (which also depends on many factors). I think a more proper result would be if you compare, in a developped country, people who had the same education, blacks & whites.
And by the way, if a white man converts to Islam, I don’t think that makes white men as inferior as Islam and muslims. Then why would people indoctrinated into Islam in the middle-east be genetically inferior to those from developed countries that were not indoctrinated in Islam?
i prefer to rely on equation than to rely on some 2000 years old books beacuse equations never lie.
Besides the fact that the key point is not “science vs ‘2000 years old books’”, even the science you learnt and believe in is not all “equations” (that is, as clear as that). There a lot of theories, which by definition are the reasoning of men and therefore may be false.
You may know that in history there were a lot of theories, and the “science” of those days (reasoning, their capability and possibility to find information, the “evidences” they found) was many times, in many places, faulty.
So how do you know that all the things you learn will stand the test of time and will not be disproved in the future (when knowledge and technology will greatly improve, and with them, our possibility to better understand the world - get evidences, make tests, etc.)? Did you ever think that all you learnt may not be 100% correct?
1) i based my argument on a reaserch on the united states pouplations.
2)i agree with you that what i learnt is not 100% correct.but unless someone will come with a better theory and better equations,this is the only thing we have.and about this issue,i admitt that you successeded in converting me back into belevieng in G-d.thank you everybody.
i have to agree, Even with affirmative action blacks have lower IQ'S in the USA and the UK. There is not one sucessful black country, not one, not one trace of history that shows they even had a glimmer of a golden period.
now as i believe in G-d, like you should normal atheist, you would find that through their evil culture originally, it has lead to blacks having less iq over the years. But originally i reckon they had equal iq to the whites and asians.
But even very poor russians etc have higher iq than USA blacks, which the politocally correct brigade cannot answer.
I agree with alot of your points atheist, aprt from your atheism. I hope you become a religous jew, and this is from a christian.
You make generalizations... There are many very intelligent Blacks in the USA which would make poor Russians blush... The problem with Blacks in America has been that they have for almost 100 years been given substandard education. While this may be a cultural problem with Africans it is something which can change over time.
There is nothing gained by being rigidly racist. As I said before, I work with people from all over the world and generally there is not much difference between peoples.
i fisagree, blacks have been persecuted far less than the irish, gypsies, and the jews. All have higher iq, all more sucessful
Take the uk, we had signs for rented houses saying "no dogs, no blacks and no irish". yet look how successful they are.
Of course they are exceptions, they are good looking black women/men ocassionally, but on the whole they are pretty woeful.lets be honest here.
Are their good blacks, of course, pastor manning is one for example. But Purely on the evidence all over the world, though thoudands of years, there has never been a sucessful black country, not one.
Look at the chinese,indians and japanese, they produce some brillant peple, and have had/are having golden periods. In particularly with the japenise/chinese, they are equal if not debatably more intelligent than whites.
Im afraid muman, theres no way you can sugar coat it, thet white man cant be blamed for everyrthing, as i highlighted they have been white ethnic groups that have been just as/far wprse persecution than blacks in modern history. They rose above it.
I challenge you to show me in the world a desirable black city, whether it be in uk/us or in africa/jamacia.
Take the uk/US, since the 60's they have had literally trillions spent on them. No other race has near that, the chinese havent, yet even then the chinese destroy them in iq tests.
i think you are doing a very rightous moral thing mormon, and i wish i could agree with you but i cant.
However, what i will say, is that G-d created everyone equal. G-d is not racist, and blacks had the same iq as whites and other races, that i am sure of. But for whatever reason(my theory is micro evolution due to evi, culture set in) blacks have over the years lowered their iq.
well i can give you great zimbabwe as an example but this is only one primitive city.
-
Chinese are smart people, blacks are not. That's why Chinese destroy blacks in IQ tests. Now if they would just stop putting lead in kid's toys and poison in dog food.
-
Chinese are smart people, blacks are not. That's why Chinese destroy blacks in IQ tests. Now if they would just stop putting lead in kid's toys and poison in dog food.
And as I posted yesterday some of them go on killing sprees and kill innocent children... Smart but evil...
-
Chinese are smart people, blacks are not. That's why Chinese destroy blacks in IQ tests. Now if they would just stop putting lead in kid's toys and poison in dog food.
And as I posted yesterday some of them go on killing sprees and kill innocent children... Smart but evil...
good and evil is not the question.the question is what we need to do in order to ensure our survival.we need a new world order and blacks and muslims are not part of it.
-
Normal atheist if you support the New World Order agenda you might as well be saying to me that you're a Satanist. If you mean something else you shouldn't use that terminology. Do you want the whole world to be one people, one religion, one country?
-
Normal atheist if you support the New World Order agenda you might as well be saying to me that you're a Satanist. If you mean something else you shouldn't use that terminology. Do you want the whole world to be one people, one religion, one country?
no,no,no! i want a single pan western country with autonomy to every culture within it.and islam has no place in this country.
-
I found something, maybe it's helpful...
Debate assumptions and methodology
In a review of the field, Hunt and Carlson[13] while arguing that "research on group differences in intelligence is scientifically valid and socially important" identify four contemporary positions on the topic of racial differences in intelligence:
1. "There are differences in intelligence between races that are due in substantial part to genetically determined differences in brain structure and/or function (Rushton, 1995; Rushton &Jensen, 2005a)."
2. "Differences in cognitive competencies between races exist and are of social origin (Ogbu, 2002; Sowell, 2005)."
3. "Differences in test scores that are used to argue for differences in intelligence between races represent the inappropriate use of tests in different groups (Ogbu, 2002; Sternberg, Grigorenko, & Kidd, 2005)."
4. "There is no such thing as race; it is a term motivated by social concerns and not a scientific concept (Fish, 2004; Smedley & Smedley, 2005)."
Some scientists argue that the history of eugenics makes this field of research difficult to reconcile with current ethical standards for science.[37][38] Other scientists insist that, independent of ethical concerns, research into race and intelligence makes little sense because intelligence is poorly measured and because race is a social construction.[39] According to this view, intelligence is ill-defined and multi-dimensional, or has definitions that vary between cultures. This would make contrasting the intelligence of groups of people, especially groups that came from different cultures, dependent mainly on which culture’s definition of intelligence is being used. Moreover, this view asserts that even if intelligence were as simple to measure as height, racial differences in intelligence would still be meaningless since race exists only as a social construct, with no basis in biology.
Unsurprisingly, almost all scientists actively engaged in research in race and intelligence disagree with these criticisms.[40] For example, psychologist Richard Nisbett writes that:
Some laypeople I know — and some scientists as well — believe that it is a priori impossible for a genetic difference in intelligence to exist between the races. But such a conviction is entirely unfounded. There are a hundred ways that a genetic difference in intelligence could have arisen — either in favor of whites or in favor of blacks. The question is an empirical one, not answerable by a priori convictions about the essential equality of groups.[41]
(http://www.answers.com/topic/race-and-intelligence#Test_scores)
"i fisagree, blacks have been persecuted far less than the irish, gypsies, and the jews. All have higher iq, all more sucessful
as far as I know, gypsies are black coloured too (if, by evolution, black coloured people are inferior to whites, then, they would enter in the "black" category). I don't know about irish persecution, anyway, if you ask about gypsies, I think they are still persecuted (people see them as inferior, and talk bad about them like "hoo, he's a gypsy!" and not all like their company)
However, what i will say, is that G-d created everyone equal. G-d is not racist, and blacks had the same iq as whites and other races, that i am sure of. But for whatever reason(my theory is micro evolution due to evi, culture set in) blacks have over the years lowered their iq.
that would mean that the blacks do not have a smaller iq due to genetics. Maybe there is the black culture/cultures, that would be inferior to many white cultures. But if it's so, that culture may need a lot of time to change, or better, black people should be part of a better culture.
And there are also white men very stupid and other black men smart. So, would that mean that a smart black man should be desconsidered (i.e. by considering him inferior) and put aside because of the colour of his skin is black, while many stupid white people should "live happy"?
In particularly with the japenise/chinese, they are equal if not debatably more intelligent than whites.
A commonly-cited review by Richard Lynn lists IQ scores for East Asians (105), Europeans (99), Inuit (91), Southeast Asians and Amerindians (87 each), Pacific Islanders (85), South Asians/North Africans (84), Non-Bushmen sub-Saharan Africans (67), Australian Aborigines (62) and Bushmen (54).
(the same link).
maybe they are not debatably smarter than us.
good and evil is not the question.the question is what we need to do in order to ensure our survival.we need a new world order and blacks and muslims are not part of it.
But what do you say about a new society formed of only chinese and japanase, while us to be exterminated? (or at least put aside and looked upon with disgrace)
Wouldn't that sound nice? if not, why?
and by the way, for a country, to be developped and rich, it is not required that much intelligence as it is needed altruism. That's because if you have smart leaders, but corrupted, they would happily steal a lot, while the country suffers. And why should they care about their countrymen if all they wanted now have? (and they are smart enough not to let themselves being caught or punished)
-
I found something, maybe it's helpful...
Debate assumptions and methodology
In a review of the field, Hunt and Carlson[13] while arguing that "research on group differences in intelligence is scientifically valid and socially important" identify four contemporary positions on the topic of racial differences in intelligence:
1. "There are differences in intelligence between races that are due in substantial part to genetically determined differences in brain structure and/or function (Rushton, 1995; Rushton &Jensen, 2005a)."
2. "Differences in cognitive competencies between races exist and are of social origin (Ogbu, 2002; Sowell, 2005)."
3. "Differences in test scores that are used to argue for differences in intelligence between races represent the inappropriate use of tests in different groups (Ogbu, 2002; Sternberg, Grigorenko, & Kidd, 2005)."
4. "There is no such thing as race; it is a term motivated by social concerns and not a scientific concept (Fish, 2004; Smedley & Smedley, 2005)."
Some scientists argue that the history of eugenics makes this field of research difficult to reconcile with current ethical standards for science.[37][38] Other scientists insist that, independent of ethical concerns, research into race and intelligence makes little sense because intelligence is poorly measured and because race is a social construction.[39] According to this view, intelligence is ill-defined and multi-dimensional, or has definitions that vary between cultures. This would make contrasting the intelligence of groups of people, especially groups that came from different cultures, dependent mainly on which culture’s definition of intelligence is being used. Moreover, this view asserts that even if intelligence were as simple to measure as height, racial differences in intelligence would still be meaningless since race exists only as a social construct, with no basis in biology.
Unsurprisingly, almost all scientists actively engaged in research in race and intelligence disagree with these criticisms.[40] For example, psychologist Richard Nisbett writes that:
Some laypeople I know — and some scientists as well — believe that it is a priori impossible for a genetic difference in intelligence to exist between the races. But such a conviction is entirely unfounded. There are a hundred ways that a genetic difference in intelligence could have arisen — either in favor of whites or in favor of blacks. The question is an empirical one, not answerable by a priori convictions about the essential equality of groups.[41]
(http://www.answers.com/topic/race-and-intelligence#Test_scores)
"i fisagree, blacks have been persecuted far less than the irish, gypsies, and the jews. All have higher iq, all more sucessful
as far as I know, gypsies are black coloured too (if, by evolution, black coloured people are inferior to whites, then, they would enter in the "black" category). I don't know about irish persecution, anyway, if you ask about gypsies, I think they are still persecuted (people see them as inferior, and talk bad about them like "hoo, he's a gypsy!" and not all like their company)
However, what i will say, is that G-d created everyone equal. G-d is not racist, and blacks had the same iq as whites and other races, that i am sure of. But for whatever reason(my theory is micro evolution due to evi, culture set in) blacks have over the years lowered their iq.
that would mean that the blacks do not have a smaller iq due to genetics. Maybe there is the black culture/cultures, that would be inferior to many white cultures. But if it's so, that culture may need a lot of time to change, or better, black people should be part of a better culture.
And there are also white men very stupid and other black men smart. So, would that mean that a smart black man should be desconsidered (i.e. by considering him inferior) and put aside because of the colour of his skin is black, while many stupid white people should "live happy"?
In particularly with the japenise/chinese, they are equal if not debatably more intelligent than whites.
A commonly-cited review by Richard Lynn lists IQ scores for East Asians (105), Europeans (99), Inuit (91), Southeast Asians and Amerindians (87 each), Pacific Islanders (85), South Asians/North Africans (84), Non-Bushmen sub-Saharan Africans (67), Australian Aborigines (62) and Bushmen (54).
(the same link).
maybe they are not debatably smarter than us.
good and evil is not the question.the question is what we need to do in order to ensure our survival.we need a new world order and blacks and muslims are not part of it.
But what do you say about a new society formed of only chinese and japanase, while us to be exterminated? (or at least put aside and looked upon with disgrace)
Wouldn't that sound nice? if not, why?
and by the way, for a country, to be developped and rich, it is not required that much intelligence as it is needed altruism. That's because if you have smart leaders, but corrupted, they would happily steal a lot, while the country suffers. And why should they care about their countrymen if all they wanted now have? (and they are smart enough not to let themselves being caught or punished)
i didn't meant that the western super state should domiante the earth.it will just span the antire western civilization.i would happily ally myself with hindus and japanese beacuse they have brains.
-
Normal atheist if you support the New World Order agenda you might as well be saying to me that you're a Satanist. If you mean something else you shouldn't use that terminology. Do you want the whole world to be one people, one religion, one country?
I agree... The New World Order is a product of the fevered minds of the Illuminati and the CFR... There is no place for such an idea with Jewish Nationalists... The NWO would be the 1st to kick Jews out of Israel..
PS: Your selection of Japanese is quite strange. You realize they were some of the most brutal and evil people we ever fought. They raped and pillaged China during WWII. I do not consider them the most civilized of people. Indeed there are some smart Japanese, but they are not more superior than any other asian...
And Hindus? While there are many bright Indians... As I said before, there are far more illiterate Indians than smart Indians... India is a HUGE country which suffers much poverty..
-
Normal atheist if you support the New World Order agenda you might as well be saying to me that you're a Satanist. If you mean something else you shouldn't use that terminology. Do you want the whole world to be one people, one religion, one country?
I agree... The New World Order is a product of the fevered minds of the Illuminati and the CFR... There is no place for such an idea with Jewish Nationalists... The NWO would be the 1st to kick Jews out of Israel..
PS: Your selection of Japanese is quite strange. You realize they were some of the most brutal and evil people we ever fought. They raped and pillaged China during WWII. I do not consider them the most civilized of people. Indeed there are some smart Japanese, but they are not more superior than any other asian...
And Hindus? While there are many bright Indians... As I said before, there are far more illiterate Indians than smart Indians... India is a HUGE country which suffers much poverty..
first.i don't care what they had done to the chinese.it was the chinese fault.second.most of the indians are illitirate but the literate indian produced some of the world greates scientists.
-
Normal atheist if you support the New World Order agenda you might as well be saying to me that you're a Satanist. If you mean something else you shouldn't use that terminology. Do you want the whole world to be one people, one religion, one country?
I agree... The New World Order is a product of the fevered minds of the Illuminati and the CFR... There is no place for such an idea with Jewish Nationalists... The NWO would be the 1st to kick Jews out of Israel..
PS: Your selection of Japanese is quite strange. You realize they were some of the most brutal and evil people we ever fought. They raped and pillaged China during WWII. I do not consider them the most civilized of people. Indeed there are some smart Japanese, but they are not more superior than any other asian...
And Hindus? While there are many bright Indians... As I said before, there are far more illiterate Indians than smart Indians... India is a HUGE country which suffers much poverty..
I think you are missing the point of what me and normal atheist are getting at. Yes they are very stupid and evil indians and japenese people, and white people, and they are a few(and i mean a few) black great minds.
But you take those poor indians you mention, or poor chinese, or poor russians, and they will have higher iq's then the average black.
As i say, you can take chinese, indians, russians and even arabs, you you will find golden periods in there history. You will not find one shred of a golden moment for blacks, whether it be in modern western civilization, or thousands of years ago.
Im generalisng of course, i dont hate all blacks, but the few blakcs i like are hated by the black community and called "uncle toms".
People can sugar coat it as much as they want but for whatever reason due to evil culture, over the years blacks iq has shrank.
Without white influence and even arab influence i honestly believe blacks would still be bathing in their own excrement.
Harsh but im going by the over whelming evidence.
However, did G-d make us all equal, absulutely, no doubt in that...
-
Normal atheist if you support the New World Order agenda you might as well be saying to me that you're a Satanist. If you mean something else you shouldn't use that terminology. Do you want the whole world to be one people, one religion, one country?
I agree... The New World Order is a product of the fevered minds of the Illuminati and the CFR... There is no place for such an idea with Jewish Nationalists... The NWO would be the 1st to kick Jews out of Israel..
PS: Your selection of Japanese is quite strange. You realize they were some of the most brutal and evil people we ever fought. They raped and pillaged China during WWII. I do not consider them the most civilized of people. Indeed there are some smart Japanese, but they are not more superior than any other asian...
And Hindus? While there are many bright Indians... As I said before, there are far more illiterate Indians than smart Indians... India is a HUGE country which suffers much poverty..
I think you are missing the point of what me and normal atheist are getting at. Yes they are very stupid and evil indians and japenese people, and white people, and they are a few(and i mean a few) black great minds.
But you take those poor indians you mention, or poor chinese, or poor russians, and they will have higher iq's then the average black.
As i say, you can take chinese, indians, russians and even arabs, you you will find golden periods in there history. You will not find one shred of a golden moment for blacks, whether it be in modern western civilization, or thousands of years ago.
Im generalisng of course, i dont hate all blacks, but the few blakcs i like are hated by the black community and called "uncle toms".
People can sugar coat it as much as they want but for whatever reason due to evil culture, over the years blacks iq has shrank.
Without white influence and even arab influence i honestly believe blacks would still be bathing in their own excrement.
Harsh but im going by the over whelming evidence.
However, did G-d make us all equal, absulutely, no doubt in that...
Please tell me you revile the entire New world order plan... It is completely against Torah and the Jewish way..
-
Normal atheist if you support the New World Order agenda you might as well be saying to me that you're a Satanist. If you mean something else you shouldn't use that terminology. Do you want the whole world to be one people, one religion, one country?
I agree... The New World Order is a product of the fevered minds of the Illuminati and the CFR... There is no place for such an idea with Jewish Nationalists... The NWO would be the 1st to kick Jews out of Israel..
PS: Your selection of Japanese is quite strange. You realize they were some of the most brutal and evil people we ever fought. They raped and pillaged China during WWII. I do not consider them the most civilized of people. Indeed there are some smart Japanese, but they are not more superior than any other asian...
And Hindus? While there are many bright Indians... As I said before, there are far more illiterate Indians than smart Indians... India is a HUGE country which suffers much poverty..
I think you are missing the point of what me and normal atheist are getting at. Yes they are very stupid and evil indians and japenese people, and white people, and they are a few(and i mean a few) black great minds.
But you take those poor indians you mention, or poor chinese, or poor russians, and they will have higher iq's then the average black.
As i say, you can take chinese, indians, russians and even arabs, you you will find golden periods in there history. You will not find one shred of a golden moment for blacks, whether it be in modern western civilization, or thousands of years ago.
Im generalisng of course, i dont hate all blacks, but the few blakcs i like are hated by the black community and called "uncle toms".
People can sugar coat it as much as they want but for whatever reason due to evil culture, over the years blacks iq has shrank.
Without white influence and even arab influence i honestly believe blacks would still be bathing in their own excrement.
Harsh but im going by the over whelming evidence.
However, did G-d make us all equal, absulutely, no doubt in that...
Please tell me you revile the entire New world order plan... It is completely against Torah and the Jewish way..
how exactly? in the part that will constitute israel there would be a halacha state.
-
Normal atheist if you support the New World Order agenda you might as well be saying to me that you're a Satanist. If you mean something else you shouldn't use that terminology. Do you want the whole world to be one people, one religion, one country?
I agree... The New World Order is a product of the fevered minds of the Illuminati and the CFR... There is no place for such an idea with Jewish Nationalists... The NWO would be the 1st to kick Jews out of Israel..
PS: Your selection of Japanese is quite strange. You realize they were some of the most brutal and evil people we ever fought. They raped and pillaged China during WWII. I do not consider them the most civilized of people. Indeed there are some smart Japanese, but they are not more superior than any other asian...
And Hindus? While there are many bright Indians... As I said before, there are far more illiterate Indians than smart Indians... India is a HUGE country which suffers much poverty..
I think you are missing the point of what me and normal atheist are getting at. Yes they are very stupid and evil indians and japenese people, and white people, and they are a few(and i mean a few) black great minds.
But you take those poor indians you mention, or poor chinese, or poor russians, and they will have higher iq's then the average black.
As i say, you can take chinese, indians, russians and even arabs, you you will find golden periods in there history. You will not find one shred of a golden moment for blacks, whether it be in modern western civilization, or thousands of years ago.
Im generalisng of course, i dont hate all blacks, but the few blakcs i like are hated by the black community and called "uncle toms".
People can sugar coat it as much as they want but for whatever reason due to evil culture, over the years blacks iq has shrank.
Without white influence and even arab influence i honestly believe blacks would still be bathing in their own excrement.
Harsh but im going by the over whelming evidence.
However, did G-d make us all equal, absulutely, no doubt in that...
Please tell me you revile the entire New world order plan... It is completely against Torah and the Jewish way..
how exactly? in the part that will constitute israel there would be a halacha state.
I dont think that is what the NWO wants... Maybe that is what you think. But NWO is very much against any state having its own national identity, let alone religious affiliation..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_world_order_(politics) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_world_order_(politics))
In general, the new security structure arising from superpower cooperation seemed to indicate to observers that the new world order would be based on the principles of political liberty, self-determination, and non-intervention. This would mean an end to the sponsoring of military conflicts in third countries, restrictions on global arms sales, and greater engagement in the Middle East (especially regarding Syria, Palestine, and Israel). The U.S. might use this opportunity to more emphatically promote human rights in China and South Africa.[11]
...
On March 6, 1991, President Bush addressed Congress in a speech often cited as the Bush administration’s principal policy statement on the new world order in the Middle East, following the expulsion of Iraqi forces from Kuwait.[18][19] Michael Oren summarizes the speech, saying; “The president proceeded to outline his plan for maintaining a permanent U.S. naval presence in the Gulf, for providing funds for Middle East development, and for instituting safeguards against the spread of unconventional weapons. The centerpiece of his program, however, was the achievement of an Arab-Israeli treaty based on the territory-for-peace principle and the fulfillment of Palestinian rights.” As a first step Bush announced his intention to reconvene the international peace conference in Madrid.[18]
Torah also is against a One World Government. Even during the Messianic age there will exist other nations besides the Jewish nation, but all nations will know that the G-d of Israel is the one true G-d!
http://mobile.askmoses.com/article/247,18737/In-the-Messianic-Era-what-will-become-of-the-world-as-we-know-it.html
-
Normal atheist if you support the New World Order agenda you might as well be saying to me that you're a Satanist. If you mean something else you shouldn't use that terminology. Do you want the whole world to be one people, one religion, one country?
I agree... The New World Order is a product of the fevered minds of the Illuminati and the CFR... There is no place for such an idea with Jewish Nationalists... The NWO would be the 1st to kick Jews out of Israel..
PS: Your selection of Japanese is quite strange. You realize they were some of the most brutal and evil people we ever fought. They raped and pillaged China during WWII. I do not consider them the most civilized of people. Indeed there are some smart Japanese, but they are not more superior than any other asian...
And Hindus? While there are many bright Indians... As I said before, there are far more illiterate Indians than smart Indians... India is a HUGE country which suffers much poverty..
I think you are missing the point of what me and normal atheist are getting at. Yes they are very stupid and evil indians and japenese people, and white people, and they are a few(and i mean a few) black great minds.
But you take those poor indians you mention, or poor chinese, or poor russians, and they will have higher iq's then the average black.
As i say, you can take chinese, indians, russians and even arabs, you you will find golden periods in there history. You will not find one shred of a golden moment for blacks, whether it be in modern western civilization, or thousands of years ago.
Im generalisng of course, i dont hate all blacks, but the few blakcs i like are hated by the black community and called "uncle toms".
People can sugar coat it as much as they want but for whatever reason due to evil culture, over the years blacks iq has shrank.
Without white influence and even arab influence i honestly believe blacks would still be bathing in their own excrement.
Harsh but im going by the over whelming evidence.
However, did G-d make us all equal, absulutely, no doubt in that...
Please tell me you revile the entire New world order plan... It is completely against Torah and the Jewish way..
how exactly? in the part that will constitute israel there would be a halacha state.
I dont think that is what the NWO wants... Maybe that is what you think. But NWO is very much against any state having its own national identity, let alone religious affiliation..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_world_order_(politics) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_world_order_(politics))
In general, the new security structure arising from superpower cooperation seemed to indicate to observers that the new world order would be based on the principles of political liberty, self-determination, and non-intervention. This would mean an end to the sponsoring of military conflicts in third countries, restrictions on global arms sales, and greater engagement in the Middle East (especially regarding Syria, Palestine, and Israel). The U.S. might use this opportunity to more emphatically promote human rights in China and South Africa.[11]
...
On March 6, 1991, President Bush addressed Congress in a speech often cited as the Bush administration’s principal policy statement on the new world order in the Middle East, following the expulsion of Iraqi forces from Kuwait.[18][19] Michael Oren summarizes the speech, saying; “The president proceeded to outline his plan for maintaining a permanent U.S. naval presence in the Gulf, for providing funds for Middle East development, and for instituting safeguards against the spread of unconventional weapons. The centerpiece of his program, however, was the achievement of an Arab-Israeli treaty based on the territory-for-peace principle and the fulfillment of Palestinian rights.” As a first step Bush announced his intention to reconvene the international peace conference in Madrid.[18]
Torah also is against a One World Government. Even during the Messianic age there will exist other nations besides the Jewish nation, but all nations will know that the G-d of Israel is the one true G-d!
http://mobile.askmoses.com/article/247,18737/In-the-Messianic-Era-what-will-become-of-the-world-as-we-know-it.html
look,when i said new world order i din't meant that nwo but i meant we need to change the current world order and to alter it to our own good.
-
Normal atheist if you support the New World Order agenda you might as well be saying to me that you're a Satanist. If you mean something else you shouldn't use that terminology. Do you want the whole world to be one people, one religion, one country?
I agree... The New World Order is a product of the fevered minds of the Illuminati and the CFR... There is no place for such an idea with Jewish Nationalists... The NWO would be the 1st to kick Jews out of Israel..
True Muman. NWO is completely anti-nationalist.
-
Normal atheist if you support the New World Order agenda you might as well be saying to me that you're a Satanist. If you mean something else you shouldn't use that terminology. Do you want the whole world to be one people, one religion, one country?
I agree... The New World Order is a product of the fevered minds of the Illuminati and the CFR... There is no place for such an idea with Jewish Nationalists... The NWO would be the 1st to kick Jews out of Israel..
True Muman. NWO is completely anti-nationalist.
when i said new world order i meant nwo literally.if you will read carefully you will see that i suggested a nationalistic and even ultranationalistic western state.
-
"science without religion is lame,
religion without science is blind"
- Albert Einstein
-
"science without religion is lame,
religion without science is blind"
- Albert Einstein
Great quotation. Unfortunately Ben M probably won't see it since he went off to join Whorefront.