NationStates

4years wrote:

Lost heros wrote:1. You certainly implied it
2. You're being very pessimistic in your views of religion, considering it was one of the factors that lead to various first civilizations.

1. I said you can do somthing worthwhile if you shuck the religion, I did not imply that you are not worthwhile, but that some of your actions are not worthwhile. I certainly hope that there is more to you than beleif in a specific diety.

2. You are being overly optimistic in your view and we are not in the first civilizations. Besides, religion was a negative in the first civilizations. Heard of human sacrifice?

Because we believe human sacrifice is bad now, does not believe it was bad back then.

Agymnum wrote:

Mavorpen wrote:That's not atheism.

What's the rejection of a higher deity until flat-out proven, then?

Cuz that's my category.

Agnostic atheism. The two words have different meanings, but when put together, well, you know what I meant.

Lost heros wrote:2. You're being very pessimistic in your views of religion, considering it was one of the factors that lead to various first civilizations.

What does this have to do with the validity of religion?

Lost heros wrote:

4years wrote:
1. I said you can do somthing worthwhile if you shuck the religion, I did not imply that you are not worthwhile, but that some of your actions are not worthwhile. I certainly hope that there is more to you than beleif in a specific diety.

2. You are being overly optimistic in your view and we are not in the first civilizations. Besides, religion was a negative in the first civilizations. Heard of human sacrifice?

Because we believe human sacrifice is bad now, does not believe it was bad back then.

So slavery wasn't bad back before they abolished it?

No, obviously the slaves ENJOYED being whipped and beaten. Obviously they CRAVED it. I mean, why else would we endorse slavery back then other than because IT WASN'T BAD BACK THEN.

The amount of face-palm in this post is just... Just...

Mavorpen wrote:

Lost heros wrote:
I can't deny it hasn't done anything, but I can say that without religion the early people who didn't understand science, wouldn't have settled and produce an understanding of science, therefore religion causes science.

Wrong, the natural desire for knowledge and understanding of our surroundings, which is selected for by evolution causes science.

And you can find that exact epigenomic sequence and point it out to me? And then prove it occurred via a random luck of genetic mutations?

Agymnum wrote:

Lost heros wrote:Because we believe human sacrifice is bad now, does not believe it was bad back then.

So slavery wasn't bad back in the 1800s, before they abolished it?

No, obviously the slaves ENJOYED being whipped and beaten. Obviously they CRAVED it. I mean, why else would we endorse slavery back then other than because IT WASN'T BAD BACK THEN.

The amount of face-palm in this post is just... Just...

I'm sorry. You know all, obviously! It is impossible that early humans could have thought it as an honor to be given to their gods.

Mavorpen wrote:

Lost heros wrote:2. You're being very pessimistic in your views of religion, considering it was one of the factors that lead to various first civilizations.

What does this have to do with the validity of religion?

We got off topic.

Lost heros wrote:

Agymnum wrote:
So slavery wasn't bad back in the 1800s, before they abolished it?

No, obviously the slaves ENJOYED being whipped and beaten. Obviously they CRAVED it. I mean, why else would we endorse slavery back then other than because IT WASN'T BAD BACK THEN.

The amount of face-palm in this post is just... Just...

(Image)

I'm sorry. You know all, obviously! It is impossible that early humans could have thought it as an honor to be given to their gods.

Right, because the Aztecs OBVIOUSLY practiced voluntary human sacrifice.

It's not like they sacrificed captured enemies, who were probably horrified out of their damn minds.

The...

I just can't...

Lost heros wrote:

Agymnum wrote:
So slavery wasn't bad back in the 1800s, before they abolished it?

No, obviously the slaves ENJOYED being whipped and beaten. Obviously they CRAVED it. I mean, why else would we endorse slavery back then other than because IT WASN'T BAD BACK THEN.

The amount of face-palm in this post is just... Just...

(Image)

I'm sorry. You know all, obviously! It is impossible that early humans could have thought it as an honor to be given to their gods.

You said: "when an outcome isn't favorable what so ever, he pushes you away from it"

Tough luck, black people.

Lost heros wrote:

Mavorpen wrote:
Wrong, the natural desire for knowledge and understanding of our surroundings, which is selected for by evolution causes science.

And you can find that exact epigenomic sequence and point it out to me? And then prove it occurred via a random luck of genetic mutations?

We probably could, given enough time. Prove it in a scientific sense or in the vernacular sense? In the vernacular sense, yes, quite easily. A desire to understand your surroundings is evolutionary beneficial. Imagine two Homo erecti are walking along a path. They hear rustling in the bushes, and see stripes. One of them concludes that a tiger lies in the bushes, and he came to this conclusion using a bare-bone form of the scientific method. The other refuses to understand his surroundings, and continues forward. He dies, while the other one escapes successfully.

Lost heros wrote:I'm sorry. You know all, obviously! It is impossible that early humans could have thought it as an honor to be given to their gods.

Ignoring the likelihood of consensual sacrifices, how is something that would convince people to kill themselves possibly a good thing?

Threlizdun wrote:

Lost heros wrote:I'm sorry. You know all, obviously! It is impossible that early humans could have thought it as an honor to be given to their gods.

Ignoring the likelihood of consensual sacrifices, how is something that would convince people to kill themselves possibly a good thing?

Overpopulation is a growing concern....

The Emerald Dawn wrote:

Threlizdun wrote:Ignoring the likelihood of consensual sacrifices, how is something that would convince people to kill themselves possibly a good thing?

Overpopulation is a growing concern....

I'd rather stick with the VHEM's plan and just not reproduce.

The Emerald Dawn wrote:

Threlizdun wrote:Ignoring the likelihood of consensual sacrifices, how is something that would convince people to kill themselves possibly a good thing?

Overpopulation is a growing concern....

We meant back then, when according to Lost heros, people actually might have done consensual sacrifice.

Makes about as much sense as consensual slavery.

Agymnum wrote:

Lost heros wrote:I'm sorry. You know all, obviously! It is impossible that early humans could have thought it as an honor to be given to their gods.

Right, because the Aztecs OBVIOUSLY practiced voluntary human sacrifice.

It's not like they sacrificed captured enemies, who were probably horrified out of their damn minds.

The...

I just can't...

Were you there 4,000 years ago?

Mavorpen wrote:

Lost heros";p="<a href="tel:11421238">11421238</a> wrote:
And you can find that exact epigenomic sequence and point it out to me? And then prove it occurred via a random luck of genetic mutations?

We probably could, given enough time. Prove it in a scientific sense or in the vernacular sense? In the vernacular sense, yes, quite easily. A desire to understand your surroundings is evolutionary beneficial. Imagine two Homo erecti are walking along a path. They hear rustling in the bushes, and see stripes. One of them concludes that a tiger lies in the bushes, and he came to this conclusion using a bare-bone form of the scientific method. The other refuses to understand his surroundings, and continues forward. He dies, while the other one escapes successfully.

Imagine two Homo Erecti walking down a path. They see the stripes and don't know what it is.
God tells one of them, "Hey dude don't walk that way. You'll die." That one doesn't walk, and since god didn't tell the other one not to walk he goes off and dies, while the other doesn't.

Agymnum wrote:

The Emerald Dawn wrote:Overpopulation is a growing concern....

We meant back then, when according to Lost heros, people actually might have done consensual sacrifice.

Makes about as much sense as consensual slavery.

Because you were definetly there 4,000 years ago when it could have been practiced.

Lyncanestria wrote:

Immoren wrote:
There isn't room for all denominations on poll.
Also Mormons aren't Christians.

I know they aren't, yet they call themselves Christians. Another denomination other than the LDS Church that fall into that category are the Jehovah's Witness among others.

They worship Christ. They are Christians.

Lost heros wrote:Imagine two Homo Erecti walking down a path. They see the stripes and don't know what it is.
God tells one of them, "Hey dude don't walk that way. You'll die." That one doesn't walk, and since god didn't tell the other one not to walk he goes off and dies, while the other doesn't.

Good, now provide evidence for God so your hypothesis can actually be taken seriously.

Lost heros wrote:

Agymnum wrote:
Right, because the Aztecs OBVIOUSLY practiced voluntary human sacrifice.

It's not like they sacrificed captured enemies, who were probably horrified out of their damn minds.

The...

I just can't...

Were you there 4,000 years ago?

No, but I'm fairly sure based on archaeology that human sacrifice was seen as dirty work to appease the gods. I'm sure no Aztec dad was proud if his son was to be sacrificed, because I'm so no parent, at ANY TIME IN HISTORY, ever wanted to see their child die before they did.

Threlizdun wrote:

Lost heros wrote:I'm sorry. You know all, obviously! It is impossible that early humans could have thought it as an honor to be given to their gods.

Ignoring the likelihood of consensual sacrifices, how is something that would convince people to kill themselves possibly a good thing?

They would be honoring their gods and be doing a 'good thing'

Lost heros wrote:

Agymnum wrote:
Right, because the Aztecs OBVIOUSLY practiced voluntary human sacrifice.

It's not like they sacrificed captured enemies, who were probably horrified out of their damn minds.

The...

I just can't...

Were you there 4,000 years ago?

Mavorpen wrote:We probably could, given enough time. Prove it in a scientific sense or in the vernacular sense? In the vernacular sense, yes, quite easily. A desire to understand your surroundings is evolutionary beneficial. Imagine two Homo erecti are walking along a path. They hear rustling in the bushes, and see stripes. One of them concludes that a tiger lies in the bushes, and he came to this conclusion using a bare-bone form of the scientific method. The other refuses to understand his surroundings, and continues forward. He dies, while the other one escapes successfully.

Imagine two Homo Erecti walking down a path. They see the stripes and don't know what it is.
God tells one of them, "Hey dude don't walk that way. You'll die." That one doesn't walk, and since god didn't tell the other one not to walk he goes off and dies, while the other doesn't.

Just...stop.

Lost heros wrote:

Threlizdun wrote:Ignoring the likelihood of consensual sacrifices, how is something that would convince people to kill themselves possibly a good thing?

They would be honoring their gods and be doing a 'good thing'

I wish Christians practiced ritual sacrifice so I could throw all the stupid people in a pit of spikes or something and have a free pass out of jail.

Big Jim P wrote:

Lyncanestria wrote:I know they aren't, yet they call themselves Christians. Another denomination other than the LDS Church that fall into that category are the Jehovah's Witness among others.

They worship Christ. They are Christians.

I couldn't agree more.It always bugs me when people say they aren't.Christians worship Jeebus,so Mormons are Christians.

Lost heros wrote:

Threlizdun wrote:Ignoring the likelihood of consensual sacrifices, how is something that would convince people to kill themselves possibly a good thing?

They would be honoring their gods and be doing a 'good thing'

Why is honoring a god a good thing? With all respects to Chaos, I do not wish to spill my blood my blood simply to appease the Blood God's hunger.

Agymnum wrote:

Lost heros wrote:Were you there 4,000 years ago?

No, but I'm fairly sure based on archaeology that human sacrifice was seen as dirty work to appease the gods. I'm sure no Aztec dad was proud if his son was to be sacrificed, because I'm so no parent, at ANY TIME IN HISTORY, ever wanted to see their child die before they did.

Because you were there 4,000 years ago. Point is you have no clue what civilization was like before you, unless you have a time machine.
You can repeatedly say, "Archaelogist analyzed this building and hypothesize this is what happened," but you won't be able to prove it until you see it for yourself, because some hypothesis are wrong,