Except that it's not ancient wisdom, it's built-in human sensibility. (Yes, I did see your wink, lol. ) Did you know that the behavior babies and children are most prone to if they are not coerced into anything else is altruistic behavior? The four I accept as valid are utterly obvious, and shouldn't even need to be written down for most people to get. And those who need it written down, well... they have bigger problems.
Sorry, but I had to do this. So your basically saying no one can follow god? Sorry to say this but no one has a pure heart and soul.
Is that the same free will I would have if a mafia member comes to my store and says "You pay us, nothing will happen to your store... or your knees." You know what that is called? Extortion. I don't care if it's on your life, your knees or your store. It certainly does not provoke images of free will. Nobody is willfully submitting themselves to being turned into salt or paying the mafia. It's kind of the same with the Christian theology. God appears like a mafia boss, saying "Hey kid, believe in me, regardless of the utter lack of evidence, and you'll be fine. Start questioning or doubting, however, and I'll throw you into these eternal pits of hell." Sure sounds like you have a choice there, huh? No wonder people who think this stuff seems fair and try to defend it are called apologetics. Yes, I'm not making that up. I like how god not only punishes Adam and Eve, even though he explicitly gave them no sense of right or wrong to judge their actions by. I especially like how this then supposed sin is transferred through the generations to every newborn child. Why can't I be given the same opportunity as Adam, eh? Why do I have to inherit his stupid mistake right from the get-go? Is it really strange that us non-believers see this whole theology as a little messed up? First, god intentionally gives humans a problem, i.e. inherited sin, and instead of simply forgiving us for giving us a problem he created, he decides "Oh, I know, I'll have my son die, and then insist that people believe that his death somehow relieves them of their sins. That makes total sense!" Like... what in the world is this? Sounds like the mad ramblings of a mentally ill person. Was that really necessary? lol.
Really? I could have sworn you said that awful people who believe in god don't get punished by god, but that they will be punished here on earth. I think it's a pretty fair conclusion to draw from that.
Edit: Just re-read this and it may sound a bit off topic. I dunno, just hope it gets my point across. I can't word myself properly when frustrated. Jacob I'm just quoting you because this post pretty much says what I have felt since yesterday. I didn't want to post here and this will probably be the last time. I posted in the Religious thread yesterday. I stuck my toe in the water and thought that MAYBE I could actually take part in something that I have in common with other people. But because I'm a believer taking up for a friend who is an Atheist, my posts got twisted and mangled and it came across that I was being called an Atheist JUST for taking up for Alex. It hurt and so now you see why "Christians" offend me more than those who are not. I felt like I got made fun of and "poked at" as many of you put it in that thread and I was hurt. It bugged me all night. I wondered "Why does it always seem that if we're not "Cookie-Cutter" then we're not considered to believe?" because that's how it's coming across. I tried to say that the thread didn't specify strictly Christian, there was no issue earlier on in the thread when music and stuff from other beliefs were posted yet the moment an Athiest shares a song, doesn't bash on anyone all crap hits the fan, I try to explain to keep things calm and I'm shoved aside and made to feel unwelcome.
Just stop. I'm sick of you. Stop twisting my words to your own gain. I'm sick of you doing that. It gets so annoying and frustrating. So just STOP ALREADY
It depends how one defines altruism. The Price Equation clearly states that actual altruism doesn't exist. I have seen no one twisting your words; they are just pointing out holes in your logic.
Nobody's forcing you to participate, and even when you choose to do so, you're free to leave the discussion at any time. When you take part in a public debate/discussion/argument, people will argue with you. If you don't want that, then simply don't participate. Telling me not to participate because my viewpoints and my behavior happen to annoy you won't get you anywhere. Instead of just telling me I'm twisting your words, which I disagree that I am doing, how about you point out what exactly I'm twisting? Because I'm not seeing it, and others aren't seeing it either:
I say - There are truths that are ancient that still apply today You say - No there are not I say - What about the Ten Comandments You say - Yeah well that doesn't count. That about sum it up?
The game developers who did use the technology to their advantage made the best looking console games out there. The cell processor is also better when used to potential. When it was used, the games looked much better than when an Xbox game was made to its max potential. Sure, it was harder for developers to port and harder for them to make the games on it, but that doesnt make it inferior. It makes the developers inferior at using the PS3 to make incredible games. Simple isnt always better. For example, look at video cards. Nvidia video cards are better then AMD cards due to the ability for developers to create things using Nvidia's exclusive features (which IMO outweigh AMD's). Like currently, FXAA and Physixs (think thats how they spell it). Those features are hard to implement though, so few developers use them (not FXAA yet). But those who do create phenomenal games. Harder use? Yes. But does that make it inferior? Absolutely not. Overall, Sony had the better system, but its the developers who made it seem inferior.
I think we're talking a little past each other. Obviously there are ancient truths that still apply today. Things like "the sun rises in the east and sets in the west" or "wood is less dense than water, so it floats." However, most ancient ideas that I can think of, such as the idea of a geocentric solar system or creationism, have since been debunked pretty hard. As for the ten commandments, yes, they do not count because the relevant ones are built-in to our brains from birth and don't need to be commanded, and the other ones, well, not even the Judeo-Christians follow most of those anymore.
If you make a product for a mass market, and that product is too difficult to use properly, who is at fault? The market for failing to adapt, or the manufacturers for failing to provide a product suitable for that market? I'm not going to say the PS3 is a bad system, or even "inferior" to the Xbox. As with anything else, they have their ups & downs. But it is my opinion that PS3's cell-processor architecture was ill conceived for the market they were aiming at, and obviously Sony feels the same way since their PS4 is abandoning that particular aspect.
I could a couple ways with this one. I could say that based on your assumption that the ten commandments (or at least the ones you give credence to) are ingrained in the human psyche, then what better evidence of a God creator who made us this way, and programmed us with this moral code. I could ask you to prove your statement, which would be challenging given the overwhelming amount of people (some in prisons) who do not seem to behave as if this ancient wisdom was indeed built into their brains. I could say that the reason it seems so ingrained is because it has been with us for several thousand years, and is therefore centrally placed in our cultural memory, and that most ancient wisdom really is common sense, but that doesn't mean it doesn't need to be said. Or I could say you are just saying that so that you don't have to admit you lost an argument.
Sorry Alex, I agree with pretty much everything you've said so far but I'mma have to concede this one to Curundu. Particularly given #2 above - several other "ancient" cultures practiced human sacrifice, and the Roman blood-sport of the Coliseum speaks for itself. "Thou shall not murder (/kill)" indeed. Not that I'm claiming a newborn child is ingrained with the idea to appease fictitious entities with blood, just that what appears to be cut & dried common sense to us these days wasn't as common or sensible a few millenia ago.
Im saying that it was actually better, because it was from a technical standpoint. It was hard at first for developers to use it, but then it got easier. Its kind of like Linux vs Windows. Linux is better, but since Windows is so much easier to work with, Linux has been given the cold shoulder - until recently. Now that developers are finally getting more experience (and because Linux popularity is growing), they are creating better and better things for it.
It's the other way around, though. We are that way because it's beneficial to our survival as a species that we don't do those things to each other. In fact, you'll find it almost everywhere in nature when it comes to social animals: A species generally does not attack other members of the same species, except for in special cases, such as one sex fighting over mating rights or pack animals fighting over their position in the hierarchy. We're not automatons, we can override our instincts and needs. We have a biological drive to eat, yet with enough determination, you can purposefully starve yourself to death. Criminals know what they are doing is wrong. There are two main reasons for why that doesn't stop them. The most "honorable" is when you commit crime in order to fulfill a need you couldn't otherwise fulfill legally. For instance, if your family is starving, and you can't find any legal means of feeding them, you steal food or money in order to do so. The other one is when you've decided that something else (money, "street cred," gang standing, etc.) matters more to you than morality does. That's when you ignore that little voice in your head telling you that what you're doing is wrong. (This assumes you're a psychologically normal human being. Sociopaths, psychopaths and the mentally ill do not necessarily have these mental barriers to misbehavior.) You could, but it would go against psychology studies that have shown that these moral sensibilities are built into us, and come into effect rather early on in our development, IIRC, as early as at 15 months old. I'd gladly admit when I've lost an argument. I don't believe I have, however. An argument is lost when your opponent cannot come up with a valid argument against yours. You haven't yet presented an argument for the ten commandments being necessary that I haven't responded to. You can declare victory all you'd like, if that makes you feel better, but I don't concede.
That reminds me: The ten commandments originally only applied between the Israelites themselves, not towards gentiles. The Israelites—god's chosen people—sure did their own share of horrible deeds throughout their history. These horrible deeds are even documented in the bible itself. Thou shall not kill... as long as the person is an Israelite.
If you commit a murder, you may CLAIM you know god, but you probably don't. Christians get sent to hell too. The trick is, your supposed to be a good Christian. But based on that, I would suppose about 98 percent of the world is going to hell.
