Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

When something is so official it is called REALITY, you're just mentioning a party line.

No, it has nothing at all to do with a party line, and instead is to do with evidence.
I put it in caps to emphasise that that is what you are opposing.
You aren't merely opposing a party line, you are opposing reality; what all the available evidence shows.

light and sound have a limit to range.

No, they don't.
What happens is it spreads out.
There is no magical limit where it magically dies out.

Radio is only successful bevause thete are towers everywhere.

Plenty of which wouldn't be needed if Earth was flat.

Cheap tricks is how you roll. For instance...

Quite the opposite.
You even provide an example of that with your bait and switch.

Yes, and what you failed to notice was the whole time, it was supplied with power.

Because that is irrelavent.
Again, you are trying a pathetic bait and switch.
I'm not saying the light will magically stay put. It will continue to propagate.
It doesn't need additional power to traverse the vacuum, and until it is absorbed or reflected it will continue on its path.

When you turn on a flashlight, the particles of air are lit up. When you turn it off, you don't see energy "going somewhere", you see light immediately shut off.

Great job yet again intentionally failing to understand.
Yes, when the flashlight is on, you see energy transfer.
The energy goes from the battery to the light source, getting converted into light.
This light then travels, scattering of dust in the air, with some of that energy then going to your eyes, where it triggers a photo-chemical reaction in your eye which in turn stimulates a nerve.
This means the light has transferred energy from the battery to your eye.
Light is that energy in transit.

When you turn the flashlight off, you stop outputting that energy, so the light stops coming out.
It also isn't immediate, just practically immediate.

This tells me that if you say light is energy, that you're really wrong.

Yet you cannot show why, and all the evidence points to it being energy.

the wavelength is so short as to be instantaneous.

Wrong again. The appearance of light is so short after the flashlight is switched off due to the VELOCITY.
Light is travelling at roughly 300 000 000 m/s.
That means if you want it to persist for 1 s, you would need to have it travel 300 000 000 m. That is 300 000 km.
That is roughly the distance to the moon.
So if you had a flashlight powerful and/or focused enough, to be able to brighten the moon from Earth, you would be able to turn it off and see the light fade in over 2 seconds (the round trip).

Conversely, sound is much slower, at roughly 350 m/s.
That means if you have an echo of an object 350 m away, you will hear it again in 2 seconds.

So no, it has nothing at all to do with the wavelength, and instead is all to do with the velocity.

If light did actually magically break down instantly, you would expect it to go nowhere.
Turning off the flashlight wouldn't be required. Instead, putting a bit of a vacuum between it would be all that is needed.

If you flicked on a radio hooked up to a huge microphone, and it screamed "Hello!" and broadcasted across a canyon, the echo would continue even though you shut off the radio, microphone, and sound system immediately. If you flick off a flashlight, however,  the light immediately breaks down its effect on the environment. The energized air particles return to their original state. This is because the wavelength (literally the length of the wave) is longer for sound than light.

If all this BS of yours is true, then why does light traverse a vacuum just fine, but sound can't?
Why is there no evidence at all of light magically breaking down in a vacuum, rather than travelling through it?
Yet there is no evidence for sound traversing a vacuum and plenty to show it cant?

Yes, light works in a vacuum, but only if it has energy to do so. Without energy, breakdown is instant.

You have not shown any breakdown at all.
You have shown the light leaving the flashlight and reaching its destination, with no additional light to replace it.
That is not breakdown.

If you would like an analogy, say you have a large tank of water, and a long slide with a reservoir at the bottom.
You open the tap on the tank and see the water flowing down the slide. You then close the tap and claim the water broke down instantly because it is no longer on the slide.
That is pure BS, as the water didn't break down at all. Instead it kept going down the slide, and finished at the bottom.
Once the water is going down the slide, it doesn't need more to keep going.
Just like once light is traversing the vacuum, it doesn't need more energy to keep going. Instead you just need to use more energy to replace the light.

Now as to range of light, I was able to brighten my palm by placing it ahead of the Kindle. When I put it above the Kindle, it got dark again immediately.

And this has nothing to do with range, and instead is you blocking the light.

I was also able to move my hand far enough away from the Kindle to not appear illuminated.

And did you actually check to see with the kindle on and off, but without you directly seeing it?

But more importantly for the discussion, were you able to place your hand somewhere where you can see it illuminated, but you can't the light directly from the kindle screen, without anything blocking the screen? No. Because the direct light from the kindle is brighter than the indirect light via your hand.

Yes, light has a range limit, especially the weakass light of a Kindle on low light settings.

That is not a range limit. That is just the light spreading out and blending into the background.
If it was actually a magical limit like you pretend, then it shouldn't matter how bright the light is, it should die out.

If there is no god, there is no good nor evil.  Just survival.

A god does nothing for morality.
Using your god as a source of morality is no better than using Hitler.
So if you truly believe that, then there is no good nor evil, just survival.

The only rational objection is wish to appeal to "might makes right" morality, where an omnipotent god gets to decide what is allowed, not because it is moral, but because it would punish you if you disobey.
Which is also consistent with a "might makes right" morality of obeying Hitler being the "right" thing to do in Nazi Germany.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on September 04, 2023, 02:55:28 PM

If there is no god, there is no good nor evil.  Just survival.

A god does nothing for morality.
Using your god as a source of morality is no better than using Hitler.
So if you truly believe that, then there is no good nor evil, just survival.

The only rational objection is wish to appeal to "might makes right" morality, where an omnipotent god gets to decide what is allowed, not because it is moral, but because it would punish you if you disobey.
Which is also consistent with a "might makes right" morality of obeying Hitler being the "right" thing to do in Nazi Germany.

Ok.  Then there is only nature.  No God.  And behavior is only natural.

I had to finish off chipmunks my cats toyed with and then left alive. Chipmunks with their stomachs ripped open and intestines trailing behind them.

I finished off a deer with a broken leg the neighborhood dogs wouldn’t stop toying with.  The deers hindquarters bloodied and ripped from repeated “playful nipping”.

But a person treats a cat like the cat treated the chipmunk.  In many states a witnessed behavior of nature is “evil”, and punishable by law?

There is no god.  Man made laws still fail.  Maybe human law can’t change instinct.

Maybe the true curse of humanity is we have just enough mental capacity to truly enjoy and are amused by our godless acts of instinct.  😁

Ok.  Then there is only nature.  No God.  And behavior is only natural.

I had to finish off chipmunks my cats toyed with and then left alive. Chipmunks with their stomachs ripped open and intestines trailing behind them.

I finished off a deer with a broken leg the neighborhood dogs wouldn’t stop toying with.  The deers hindquarters bloodied and ripped from repeated “playful nipping”.

But a person treats a cat like the cat treated the chipmunk.  In many states a witnessed behavior of nature is “evil”, and punishable by law?

There is no god.  Man made laws still fail.  Maybe human law can’t change instinct.

This nature you seem to be so appalled at was allegedly made by your god. Yet you are fine with it.
Do you think what happened to the chipmunk and deer were good? Because that is meant to be what your god made.

But none of this supports the idea that a god is needed for morality or helps with morality.
The best you get is that there is no morality.

Maybe the true curse of humanity is we have just enough mental capacity to truly enjoy and are amused by our godless acts of instinct.  😁

Or maybe the true "curse" (Biblically a blessing from the serpent getting us to defy God) is that we have enough mental capacity to see past our "god given" instincts, and instead to act with kindness and morality that your god apparently didn't care to give us or other animals.
That we know the difference between good and evil, and so we can choose to do good, rather than just run off our "god given" instincts?

https://mises.org/wire/render-unto-caesar-most-misunderstood-new-testament-passage
Since people never read links, here:

Quote

I. INTRODUCTION

Christians have traditionally interpreted the famous passage "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God, the things that are God’s," to mean that Jesus endorsed paying taxes. This view was first expounded by St. Justin Martyr in Chapter XVII of his First Apology , who wrote,

And everywhere we, more readily than all men, endeavor to pay to those appointed by you the taxes both ordinary and extraordinary, as we have been taught by Him; for at that time some came to Him and asked Him, if one ought to pay tribute to Caesar; and He answered, Tell Me, whose image does the coin bear?' And they said, Caesar's.'


But by His enigmatic response, did Jesus really mean for His followers to provide financial support (willingly or unwillingly) to Tiberius Caesar — a man, who, in his personal life, was a pedophile, a sexual deviant , and a murderer and who, as emperor, claimed to be a god and oppressed and enslaved millions of people, including Jesus' own? The answer, of course, is: the traditional, pro-tax interpretation of the Tribute Episode is simply wrong. Jesus never meant for His answer to be interpreted as an endorsement of Caesar's tribute or any taxes.

This essay examines four dimensions of the Tribute Episode: the historical setting of the Episode; the rhetorical structure of the Episode itself; the context of the scene within the Gospels; and finally, how the Catholic Church, Herself, has understood the Tribute Episode. These dimensions point to one conclusion: the Tribute Episode does not stand for the proposition that it is morally obligatory to pay taxes.

The objective of this piece is not to provide a complete exegesis on the Tribute Episode. Rather, it is simply to show that the traditional, pro-tax interpretation of the Tribute Episode is utterly untenable. The passage unequivocally does not stand for the proposition that Jesus thought it was morally obligatory to pay taxes.

II. THE HISTORICAL SETTING: THE UNDERCURRENT OF TAX REVOLT

In 6 A.D., Roman occupiers of Palestine imposed a census tax on the Jewish people. (Cut for length) Thus, payment of the tribute conveniently encapsulated the deeper philosophical, political, and theological issue: Either God and His divine laws were supreme, or the Roman emperor and his pagan laws were supreme.

This undercurrent of tax-revolt flowed throughout Judaea during Jesus' ministry. All three synoptic Gospels place the episode immediately after Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem in which throngs of people proclaimed Him king, as St. Matthew states, "And when he entered Jerusalem the whole city was shaken and asked, 'Who is this?' And the crowds replied, 'This is Jesus the prophet, from Nazareth in Galilee.'" All three agree that this scene takes place near the celebration of the Passover, one of the holiest of Jewish feast days. (Cut for length)

Jewish law forbade both the creation of graven images and their introduction into holy city of Jerusalem. Pilate averted a bloodbath only by removing the images.

In short, Jerusalem would have been a hot-bed of political and religious fervor, and it is against this background that the Tribute Episode unfolded.

III. THE RHETORICAL STRUCTURE OF THE TRIBUTE EPISODE

The Gospel of Matthew states:

[15] Then the Pharisees going, consulted among themselves how to insnare him in his speech. [16] And they sent to him their disciples with the Herodians, saying: Master, we know that thou art a true speaker and teachest the way of God in truth. Neither carest thou for any man: for thou dost not regard the person of men. [17] Tell us therefore what dost thou think? Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? [18] But Jesus knowing their wickedness, said: Why do you tempt me, ye hypocrites? [19] Show me the coin of the tribute. And they offered him a penny. [20] And Jesus saith to them: Whose image and inscription is this? [21] They say to him: Caesar’s. Then he saith to them: Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God, the things that are God’s. [22] And hearing this, they wondered and, leaving him, went their ways. Matt 22:15–22 (Douay-Rheims translation).

A. THE QUESTION

All three synoptic Gospels open the scene with a plot to trap Jesus. The questioners begin with, what is in their minds, false flattery — "Master [or Teacher or Rabbi] we know that you are a true speaker and teach the way of God in truth." As David Owen-Ball forcefully argues in his 1993 article, "Rabbinic Rhetoric and the Tribute Passage," this opening statement is also a challenge to Jesus' rabbinic authority; it is a halakhic question — a question on a point of religious law. The Pharisees believed that they, alone, were the authoritative interpreters of Jewish law. By appealing to Jesus' authority to interpret God's law, the questioners accomplish two goals: (1) they force Jesus to answer the question; if Jesus refuses, He will lose credibility as a Rabbi with the very people who just proclaimed Him a King; and (2) they force Jesus to base this answer in Scripture. Thus, they are testing His scriptural knowledge and hoping to discredit Him if He cannot escape a prima facie intractable interrogatory. As Owen-Ball states, "The gospel writers thus describe a scene in which Jesus' questioners have boxed him in. He is tempted to assume, illegitimately, the authority of a Rabbi, while at the same time he is constrained to answer according to the dictates of the Torah."

The questioners then pose their malevolently brilliant question: "Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?" That is, is it licit under the Torah to pay taxes to the Romans? At some point, Jesus must have led His questioners to believe that He opposed the tribute; otherwise His questioners would not have posed the question in the first instance. As John Howard Yoder argues in his book, The Politics of Jesus: vicit Agnus noster, "It is hard to see how the denarius question could have been thought by those who put it to be a serious trap, unless Jesus' repudiation of the Roman occupation were taken for granted, so that he could be expected to give an answer which would enable them to denounce him."

If Jesus says that it is lawful to pay the tribute, He would have been seen as a collaborator with the Roman occupiers and would alienate the people who had just proclaimed Him a king. If Jesus says that the tribute is illegitimate, He risked being branded a political criminal and incurring the wrath of Rome. With either answer, someone would have been likely to kill Him.

Jesus immediately recognizes the trap. He exposes the hostility and the hypocrisy of His interrogators and recognizes that His questioners are daring Him to enter the temporal fray of Judeo-Roman politics.

B. THE COIN

Instead of jumping into the political discussion, though, Jesus curiously requests to see the coin of the tribute. It is not necessary that Jesus possess the coin to answer their question. He could certainly respond without seeing the coin. That He requests to see the coin suggests that there is something meaningful about the coin itself.

In the Tribute Episode, the questioners produce a denarius. The denarius was approximately 1/10 of a troy ounce (at that time about 3.9 grams) of silver and roughly worth a day's wages for a common laborer. The denarius was a remarkably stable currency; Roman emperors did not begin debasing it with any vigor until Nero. The denarius in question would have been issued by the Emperor Tiberius, whose reign coincided with Jesus' ministry. Where Augustus issued hundreds of denarii, Ethelbert Stauffer, in his masterful, Christ and the Caesars, reports that Tiberius issued only three, and of those three, two are relatively rare, and the third is quite common. Tiberius preferred this third and issued it from his personal mint for twenty years. The denarius was truly the emperor's property: he used it to pay his soldiers, officials, and suppliers; it bore the imperial seal; it differed from the copper coins issued by the Roman Senate, and it was also the coin with which subjected peoples, in theory, were required to pay the tribute. Tiberius even made it a capital crime to carry any coin stamped with his image into a bathroom or a brothel. In short, the denarius was a tangible representation of the emperor's power, wealth, deification, and subjugation.

Tiberius' denarii were minted at Lugdunum, modern-day Lyons, in Gaul. Thus, J. Spencer Kennard, in a well-crafted, but out-of-print book entitled Render to God , argues that the denarius' circulation in Judaea was likely scarce. The only people to transact routinely with the denarius in Judaea would have been soldiers, Roman officials, and Jewish leaders in collaboration with Rome. Thus, it is noteworthy that Jesus, Himself, does not possess the coin. The questioners' quickness to produce the coin at Jesus' request implies that they routinely used it, taking advantage of Roman financial largess, whereas Jesus did not. Moreover, the Tribute Episode takes place in the Temple, and by producing the coin, the questioners reveal their religious hypocrisy – they bring a potentially profane item, the coin of a pagan, into the sacred space of the Temple.

Finally, both Stauffer and Kennard make the magnificent point that coins of the ancient world were the major instrument of imperial propaganda, promoting agendas and promulgating the deeds of their issuers, in particular the apotheosis of the emperor. As Kennard puts it, "For indoctrinating the peoples of the empire with the deity of the emperor, coins excelled all other media. They went everywhere and were handled by everyone. Their subtle symbolism pervaded every home." While Tiberius' propaganda engine was not as prolific as Augustus' machine, all of Tiberius' denarii pronounced his divinity or his debt to the deified Augustus.

C. THE COUNTER-QUESTION AND ITS ANSWER

After seeing the coin, Jesus then poses a counter-question, "Whose image and inscription is this?" It is again noteworthy that this counter-question and its answer are not necessary to answer the original question of whether it is licit to pay tribute to Caesar. That Jesus asks the counter-question suggests that it and its answer are significant.

(1) Why Is The Counter-Question Important?

The counter-question is significant for two reasons.

First, Owen-Ball argues that the counter-question follows a pattern of formal rhetoric common in first century rabbinic literature in which (1) an outsider poses a hostile question to a rabbi; (2) the rabbi responds with a counter-question; (3) by answering the counter-question, the outsider's position becomes vulnerable to attack; and (4) the rabbi then uses the answer to the counter-question to refute the hostile question. Jesus' use of this rhetorical form is one way to establish His authority as a rabbi, not unlike a modern lawyer who uses a formal, legal rhetoric in the courtroom. Moreover, the point of the rhetorical exchange is ultimately to refute the hostile question.

Second, because the hostile question was a direct challenge to Jesus' authority as a rabbi on a point of law, His interrogators would have expected a counter-question grounded in scripture, in particular, based upon the Torah. Two words, "image" and "inscription," in the counter-question harkens to two central provisions in the Torah, the First (Second) Commandment and the Shema. These provide the scriptural basis for this question of law.

God Prohibits False Images. The First (Second) Commandment prohibits worship of anyone or anything but God, and it also forbids crafting any image of a false god for adoration, "I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness [image] of any thing…." God demands the exclusive allegiance of His people. Jesus' use of the word, "image," in the counter-question reminds His questioners of the First (Second) Commandment's requirement to venerate God first and its concomitant prohibition against creating images of false gods.

The Shema Demands The Worship Of God Alone. Jesus' use of the word "inscription" alludes to the Shema. The Shema is a Jewish prayer based upon Deuteronomy 6:4–9 , 11:13–21 and Numbers 15:37–41 and is the most important prayer a pious Jew can say. It commences with the words, "Shema Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Echad," which can be translated, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God — the Lord alone." This opening line stresses Israel's worship of God to the exclusion of all other gods. The Shema then commands a person to love God with his whole heart, whole soul, and whole strength. The Shema further requires worshipers to keep the words of the Shema in their hearts, to instruct their children in them, to bind them on their hands and foreheads, and to inscribe them conspicuously on their doorposts and on the gates to their cities. Observant Jews take literally the command to bind the words upon their arms and foreheads and wear tefillin, little leather cases which contain parchment on which are inscribed certain passages from the Torah. Words of the Shema were to be metaphorically inscribed in the hearts, minds, and souls of pious Jews and physically inscribed on parchment in tefillin, on doorposts, and on city gates. St. Matthew and St. Mark both recount Jesus quoting the Shema in the same chapter just a few verses after the Tribute Episode. This proximity further reinforces the reference to the Shema in the Tribute Episode. Finally, it is noteworthy that when Satan tempts Jesus by offering Him all the kingdoms of the [Roman] world in exchange for His worship, Jesus rebukes Satan by quoting the Shema. In short, Jesus means to call attention to the Shema by using the word "inscription" in the counter-question as His appeal to scriptural authority for His response.

(2) Why Is The Answer To The Counter-Question Important?

The answer to the counter-question is significant for two reasons.

First, while the verbal answer to the counter-question of whose image and inscription the coin bears is a feeble, "Caesar's," the actual image and inscription is much more revealing. The front of the denarius shows a profiled bust of Tiberius crowned with the laurels of victory and divinity. Even a modern viewer would immediately recognize that the person depicted on the coin is a Roman emperor. Circumscribed around Tiberius is an abbreviation, "TI CAESAR DIVI AUG F AUGUSTUS," which stands for "Tiberius Caesar Divi August Fili Augustus," which, in turn, translates, "Tiberius Caesar, Worshipful Son of the God, Augustus."

On the obverse sits the Roman goddess of peace, Pax, and circumscribed around her is the abbreviation, "Pontif Maxim," which stands for "Pontifex Maximus," which, in turn, means, "High Priest."

The coin of the Tribute Episode is a fine specimen of Roman propaganda. It imposes the cult of emperor worship and asserts Caesar's sovereignty upon all who transact with it.

In the most richly ironic passage in the entire Bible, all three synoptic Gospels depict the Son of God and the High Priest of Peace, newly-proclaimed by His people to be a King, holding the tiny silver coin of a king who claims to be the son of a god and the high priest of Roman peace.

(Cut for length)

D. REFUTING BY RENDERING UNTO GOD

In the Tribute Episode, it is only after Jesus' counter-question is asked and answered does He respond to the original question. Jesus tells His interrogators, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God, the things that are God's." This response begs the question of what is licitly God's and what is licitly Caesar's.

In the Hebrew tradition, everything rightfully belonged to God. By using the words, "image and inscription," Jesus has already reminded His interrogators that God was owed exclusive allegiance and total love and worship. Similarly, everything economically belonged to God as well. For example, the physical land of Israel was God's, as He instructed in Leviticus 25:23, "The land [of Israel] shall not be sold in perpetuity; for the land is mine, and you [the Israelites] are but aliens who have become my tenants." In addition, the Jewish people were to dedicate the firstfruits, that first portion of any harvest and the first-born of any animal, to God. By giving God the firstfruits, the Jewish people acknowledged that all good things came from God and that all things, in turn, belonged to God . God even declares, "Mine is the silver and mine the gold."

The emperor, on the other hand, also claimed that all people and things in the empire rightfully belonged to Rome. The denarius notified everyone who transacted with it that the emperor demanded exclusive allegiance and, at least, the pretense of worship — Tiberius claimed to be the worshipful son of a god. (Cut for length) The propaganda on the coin even attributed peace and tranquility to the emperor.

With one straightforward counter-question, Jesus skillfully points out that the claims of God and Caesar are mutually exclusive. If one's faith is in God, then God is owed everything; Caesar's claims are necessarily illegitimate, and he is therefore owed nothing. If, on the other hand, one's faith is in Caesar, God's claims are illegitimate, and Caesar is owed, at the very least, the coin which bears his image.

Jesus' counter-question simply invites His listeners to choose allegiances. Remarkably, He has escaped the trap through a clever rhetorical gambit; He has authoritatively refuted His opponents' hostile question by basing His answer in scripture, and yet, He never overtly answers the question originally posed to Him. No wonder that St. Matthew ends the Tribute Episode this way: "When they heard this they were amazed, and leaving him they went away." (Cut for length)

If you'll notice from this quote, the priests have the coin. Jesus did not. He didn't pay taxes, largely because his allegiance was to God, while they were in the state's pocket.

Who will you allegiance be to? God or to Caesar? This is what Jesus said.

Holycrapballs that was the long winded nothing

The author is thpse same yahoos who turn a 5sec youtube clip on repeat into a 5min nonsense long explanation video.




1.
Having roman currency means they operate under roman society.

2.
If you operate in a society you pay your tax to the maintainers of the infrastructure for said society.

3.
Tihting is a literal tax.




Good ol google listening in...

Found on my YT this morning.
It is of course useful so can i really be mad?

https://youtube.com/shorts/q0OjvN8tgK4?si=MZ9hgWZ_wM6WSR_1

This nature you seem to be so appalled at was allegedly made by your god.

God gave us freewill.  Nature gives instinct and survival. 

Either way. It’s up to each individual to prove who they want to be.  Either way life is a test.

You can bitch all you want.  But you still have to survive, and how you survive to what extent proves who you are. 

Quote from: JackBlack on September 04, 2023, 03:04:16 PM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on September 04, 2023, 02:55:28 PM

If there is no god, there is no good nor evil.  Just survival.

A god does nothing for morality.
Using your god as a source of morality is no better than using Hitler.
So if you truly believe that, then there is no good nor evil, just survival.

The only rational objection is wish to appeal to "might makes right" morality, where an omnipotent god gets to decide what is allowed, not because it is moral, but because it would punish you if you disobey.
Which is also consistent with a "might makes right" morality of obeying Hitler being the "right" thing to do in Nazi Germany.

Ok.  Then there is only nature.  No God.  And behavior is only natural.

I had to finish off chipmunks my cats toyed with and then left alive. Chipmunks with their stomachs ripped open and intestines trailing behind them.

I finished off a deer with a broken leg the neighborhood dogs wouldn’t stop toying with.  The deers hindquarters bloodied and ripped from repeated “playful nipping”.

But a person treats a cat like the cat treated the chipmunk.  In many states a witnessed behavior of nature is “evil”, and punishable by law?

There is no god.  Man made laws still fail.  Maybe human law can’t change instinct.

We are able to have morality because of God. Aside from the creation itself, it's one of the ways we can know there is a God.  And you brought up my point exactly. If there is no God, logic should dictate that we humans act closest to the law of nature. But we don't gnaw on animals like that. We have laws, moral codes, religions, and all sorts of things that pets and farm animals simply do not have. As though someone out there created us to be separate from those animals and not behave by "might makes right" or "survival of the fittest." In actual fact, society works together to make sure weak old grandmas stay alive for years. Were this a wolf pack, once the grandma wolf starts to limp, the pack closes in on her and eats her up. "What big teeth you have," she says to the other wolves.

That the way of morality is so at odds with what other animals do is a pretty big hint that we aren't like other animals. Nevertheless, I should talk about how some animals do have a sense of religion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_behavior_in_animals

There is no instinctual reason for crows attending vigil for dead crows, elephants burying dead critters (even other animals like humans or rhinos) in the mud, dolphins preventing creatures from coming near dead bodies, etc.
All of these things was time that could be used hunting for food. In other words, instinct tells an elephant it needs to feed itself, yet it ignores that, hauling a big rhino into a muddy spot.

1. Having roman currency means they operate under roman society.

2. If you operate in a society you pay your tax to the maintainers of the infrastructure for said society.

3. Tithing is a literal tax.

Let's start in reverse.

3. Tithing, at least in countries that are not in unholy alliance between church and state, is voluntary. That is, I, as an attendant of a church service, am fully within my rights to give $10,000,000 or $500 or $0.10 or even nothing. That's right, I help (or not) because of goodness that is in my heart. Voluntaryism is a system of government where people are encouraged to give (carrot) versus beating them over the head with a fucking stick. Not everyone will give, but by offering perks for giving, some people will decide this is a good idea and support the system.
https://fee.org/articles/why-politicians-use-force-rather-than-markets/

To solve this puzzle, we need to clarify the difference between two different types of interaction: positive sum and zero sum.

An example of the first is typical market interaction. Imagine you go to the store to buy a new phone. When you trade your $500 for a phone, it must be the case that you valued the phone more than $500, at least in that moment. If this were not the case, you wouldn’t have purchased the phone voluntarily.

So you’re better off. Does this mean that the store is worse off? Certainly not. The owner of the store that sold you the phone must also be better off for the transaction—else they would not have sold it.

In other words, when you voluntarily purchase or sell something, both members of the transaction are made better off. Economists call this a “positive sum” game because both members of the transaction receive a positive benefit.

Voluntaryism represents a positive sum game. If we replace market with the government, government has offered us something we want (this is why I support sales tax, we are already buying what we want, so it's no big deal if government takes a cut), so everyone is happy. 

Real data confirm this. The Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom of the World Index highlights that countries that allow more free voluntary exchange are richer and healthier.

But of course, there's also a zero sum game. In a positive sum game, net value has actually exceeded the transaction. But in a zero sum game, you lose and I win, or vice versa. If the thief also robs $500 (the same amount as the phone), is it somehow better for the robber? No, $500 is $500. But in a real zero sum game, the thief ultimately risks being caught and killed.

In reality, you could argue this sort of interaction is even negative sum. Likely thieves must spend time and resources to successfully steal money. So not only do you lose $500, but the thief only gains $500 minus the cost of stealing the money.

In short, extractive interactions like theft are bad for the wealth of society whereas productive, win-win interactions like commerce grow the wealth in society.

Zero sum game is not what Jesus taught.

2. But they weren't benevolent overseers for Israel. They were an occupying force that robbed them blind. The way Roman taxes were set up had nothing to do with our thinking today about how taxes pay for roads and bridges (that's crap btw, but maybe later), they were more like a tribute to an occupying army. Furthermore, on the way to the official tax office, wandering tax people (call him Taxer B) could collect the money. And taxes to Taxer A would still be owed! I am not joking about this.

1. Israel already had a religious government. It was performing blood sacrifices for the atonement of sins. People had to go to the Temple Square to exchange their money for temple money, then temple money for animals. Add on top of this and unwanted tax to Rome, and you have a problem. Two governments, two sets of laws. Then they were asking Jesus "Is it right for there to be a temple tax?" And you, a good little serf of the state, read it as "pay your taxes because you should serve Rome." Sorry, but this is Israel.

Since The Chosen has offered their own series for free, I will show you an episode that demonstrates what the strain of Roman taxes are actually like.
https://www.angel.com/watch/the-chosen/episode/dc0d3fab-7477-4348-a490-91c3743b94cf/season-1/episode-4/the-rock-on-which-it-is-built

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 04, 2023, 06:42:17 AM

When something is so official it is called REALITY, you're just mentioning a party line.

No, it has nothing at all to do with a party line, and instead is to do with evidence.
I put it in caps to emphasise that that is what you are opposing.
You aren't merely opposing a party line, you are opposing reality; what all the available evidence shows.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 04, 2023, 05:37:27 AM

light and sound have a limit to range.

No, they don't.
What happens is it spreads out.
There is no magical limit where it magically dies out.

No magic to this at all. As light spreads, it disperses. As it disperses, it diminishes. Like this.[/color]



The light itself extends not a foot from the candle, yet the candle on the other hand can be seen for at least a few hundred feet on a nearby mountain, provided no obstacles.  But why stop there? Let us suppose a birthday candle is lit on a patio in Newark, NJ (because NJ is peak interest for extraterrestrials) is being viewed through direct line of sight by the Rhodopteryx people of Mars. From their perch in Mars, can they see my single birthday candle?

No they cannot. Its light dispersed into the air, and besides there are clouds. But the Rhodopteryx people have a special phase burst cloud remover.  They blast and no more clouds in the way. Surely now they can see it?

Well, no. You remember how I talked about matter not being created or destroyed? Well, this means that matter (under normal circumstances) is not in a perpetual energy system. As the candle burns, it uses wax. More importantly, as a candle spreads, the amount of light it gives off divides, or at least subtracts. So no, the math just isn't there. On paper, units of light appear to extend forever. In actual practice, if light were to be bright at 3 ft, normal at 20 ft, and dim at 50 ft, at light years away such a thing my technically register 0.00000000000000000000000000000000135 units of light that went directly rather than scattering. But we round that to zero, because it sorta kinda can't be seen?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 04, 2023, 05:37:27 AM

Radio is only successful bevause thete are towers everywhere.

Plenty of which wouldn't be needed if Earth was flat.

For the same reason as I mentioned above, both radio and sound have range limits. Sorry. In order to keep something going, you have to introduce energy into the equation. But the farther it gets from its source, the less impact that energy has.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 04, 2023, 05:37:27 AM

When you turn on a flashlight, the particles of air are lit up. When you turn it off, you don't see energy "going somewhere", you see light immediately shut off.

Great job yet again intentionally failing to understand.
Yes, when the flashlight is on, you see energy transfer.
The energy goes from the battery to the light source, getting converted into light.

Actually, what you're seeing is an illusion. An illusion is something that occurs in the brain rather than actually affecting reality. If light actually bombarded air particles, like heat energy, it should change the molecules. Flames + air = hot air, wind + lack of temperature + air = cold air. These things fundamentally alter the air molecules. Dust + air = dusty air.  Yes, such things eventually wind down. Heat rises and falls, depending on summer or winter, or various environmental factors.

But light doesn't seem to permanently affect air at all. The EM "radiation" also breaks down readily.

This light then travels, scattering of dust in the air, with some of that energy then going to your eyes, where it triggers a photo-chemical reaction in your eye which in turn stimulates a nerve.
This means the light has transferred energy from the battery to your eye.
Light is that energy in transit.

When you turn the flashlight off, you stop outputting that energy, so the light stops coming out.
It also isn't immediate, just practically immediate.

As you yourself said. An illusion. But the greater illusion was that you used science words to pretend to explain something you understand nothing about. Nice try. Photochemical reaction.

That would imply that our brains have a mechanism specifically for processing flashlights. While yes, we have solar light, moonlight, starlight, and the light from bugs, this would be like saying that manmade sugar (sucralose or HFCS) is as healthy as real sugar. Actually, most of these are not registered by the body. People who eat sucralose find that they are hungry despite intake of a substance their body tries to treat as sugar (the body has not digestion mechanism for sucralose, and thus must improvise). Indeed, one of the problems with one manmade light (blue light from Kindles and smartphones) is that it disrupts sleep patterns. Far from a natural reaction, we are looking at actual energy actually interfering with body functions. Photochemical reaction, my ass.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 04, 2023, 05:37:27 AM

This tells me that if you say light is energy, that you're really wrong.

Yet you cannot show why, and all the evidence points to it being energy.

You seem to have trouble with two words. Evidence and energy.

Evidence refers to something that actually helps prove something. But I have not seen any submission proving that light is energy. Because light isn't energy. It uses energy. Energy is a unit of work. If I turn on a lamp or flashlight, potential energy from the plug or battery turns electrical kinetic energy. This in turn energizes the lamp or flashlight by adding voltage to tungsten or gas or whatever, which in turn zaps out light. Light however is not energy itself, it is a wave of EM particles in motion (kinetic energy).

When the switch of a flashlight is pushed into the ON position, it makes contact between two contact strips, which begin a flow of electricity, powered from the battery. The batteries are connected in such a way that electricity (flow of electrons) runs between the positive and negative electrodes of the battery. The batteries rest atop a small spring that is connected to a contact strip. The contact strip runs down the length of the battery case and makes contact with one side of the switch. There is another flat contact strip on the other side of the switch, which runs to the lamp (light bulb), providing an electrical connection. There is another part connected to the lamp that makes contact with the positive electrode of the top battery, thus completing the circuit to the lamp and completing the generation of electricity.

When activated by electricity, the tungsten filament or LED in the lamp begins to glow, producing light that is visible. This light reflects off of the reflector that is positioned around the lamp. The reflector redirects the light rays from the lamp, creating a steady beam of light, which is the light you see emitting from the flashlight. A clear lens covers the lamp on your flashlight so that the glass on the lamp does not get broken.

When the flashlight switch is then pushed into the OFF position, the two contact strips are physically moved apart and the path for the electrical current is broken, thus ending the production of light, and turning your flashlight off.

All of the above parts must be connected and in place in order for the portable flashlight to work. Otherwise, you have an open circuit and the electricity will not flow.

Light is not energy. It is the result of energy. To say that light is energy is to say it is a cause. But it does not permanently change anything. That makes it an effect.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 04, 2023, 05:37:27 AM

Yes, light has a range limit, especially the weakass light of a Kindle on low light settings.

That is not a range limit. That is just the light spreading out and blending into the background.
If it was actually a magical limit like you pretend, then it shouldn't matter how bright the light is, it should die out.

Exactly. The only light in the world is the Light of the world. All other lights die out, because they are source-based. They require energy to be put in, in order to shine light out. The sun itself, despite being perpetual, is actually heating and lighting from a source.

[
No magic to this at all. As light spreads, it disperses.

Ok.  This isn’t the religion forum.

Then answer the questions.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 30, 2023, 09:09:14 PM

In addition to the clouds should be obliterated by the heat of the sun.  What was cloud cover altitude at that time?  10,000 feet.  That makes the sun only two miles above the earth in your delusion.


Flat earth is stupid.

How does a sun only two miles above a flat earth wrapped in clouds light up multiple times zones.  Always appear to travel straight west day to day.  No indication of a north turn required by flat earth for a sunset off California.  And travel the sky at a constant speed and size.  Where on a flat earth, the sun while “setting” would go away from the viewer getting smaller.  And it’s descent towards the horizon would get slower and slower.  And never appear to go below the horizon. 


Spherical earth with a title orbiting a sun answers how the sun shines and is visible across so many time zones during the summer solstice.  A FE sun at two miles altitude wrapped in clouds doesn’t.

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2023/6/21/what-is-the-summer-solstice-and-why-is-june-21-the-longest-day

God gave us freewill.  Nature gives instinct and survival.

Biblically God made us. They gave us everything. Nature is not some magical thing separate from God. That means God gave us instinct and survival.

Do you know the one key thing God didn't give us? The knowledge of good and evil.
That was taken by man when we listened to the serpent reveal God's lies.

So Biblically, God gave us instinct, and the Serpent is what allows us to act morally.

Your god is an evil POS, and is not needed for morality at all and does not help with morality at all.

Any god that exists is necessarily either not all powerful, or not all loving.

Either way. It’s up to each individual to prove who they want to be.  Either way life is a test.

And any god that exists has clearly failed that test.

We are able to have morality because of God.

As above, Biblically the exact opposite is true.
We are able to have morality because of the serpent, convincing us to eat the fruit so we would know good from evil, which allows moral choices.

Aside from the creation itself

Which is just a baseless assertion. There is no evidence the universe is a creation, and all that does is push the problem back. If the universe needs a god, then to be logically consistent so does your god.

it's one of the ways we can know there is a God.

No, it isn't. As above, a god does nothing for morality.

If there is no God, logic should dictate that we humans act closest to the law of nature.

No, it shouldn't.
Do you know a big reason why?
Because logical can only help us know what is; and based upon premises what we should do.
This is the is-ought problem.
We can know what is true, but we can't simply take facts about reality to tell us what we ought to do.

You need some subjective choice of what to value to determine what to do.
This is also what leads to questions like "do the ends justify the means?" and the trolley problem(s).

We have laws, moral codes, religions

Comparable to other social/herd animals, just at a greater level.

3. Tithing, at least in countries that are not in unholy alliance between church and state, is voluntary.

You mean not in countries where the church rules, with no other "state"?

Voluntaryism represents a positive sum game.

You are delusional if you think that.
Where is the extra money coming from?
It is always a zero sum game.

In your example, you have paid more than the phone is worth.
And this is not truly voluntary.
Modern society operates with so many things as effectively a necessity. If you don't have them, your opportunities will be severely limited.

So what you need to ask is why did you buy the phone? Was it because you just wanted a shiny toy, or was it because you needed a phone?

Quote

Real data confirm this. The Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom of the World Index highlights that countries that allow more free voluntary exchange are richer and healthier.

Great job showing a complete lack of understanding of correlation vs causation.
The world's richest and healthiest countries all have taxes which must be paid.
And typically these are progressive systems where the rich pay more.

This is because the rich are obligated to support those they use to get rich, so the poor do not need to pay as much for them.
This allows society as a whole to be healthier and richer, allowing a greater exchange of goods.

2. But they weren't benevolent overseers for Israel.

Which isn't the point being made.
Taxes pay for things which benefit the community. Things like roads, education, protection and healthcare (at least in civilised countries).

1. Israel already had a religious government. It was performing blood sacrifices for the atonement of sins. People had to go to the Temple Square to exchange their money for temple money, then temple money for animals. Add on top of this and unwanted tax to Rome, and you have a problem. Two governments, two sets of laws.

Yes, much better to discard the ridiculous religious laws.

No magic to this at all. As light spreads, it disperses. As it disperses, it diminishes. Like this.

Which doesn't support your prior claims.
It disperses. This means it spreads out. It covers a larger area. It doesn't magically die.

e.g. if you have an omnidirectional light source, and have some flux from it at a certain distance; if you double that distance, the flux will be cut by a factor of 4, as it has spread out over a sphere with 4 times the surface area.

And as it goes further, this keeps happening, with the light spreading out.
It doesn't magically die like you want to pretend.

The light itself extends not a foot from the candle, yet the candle on the other hand can be seen for at least a few hundred feet on a nearby mountain, provided no obstacles.

Wrong again.
You are conflating the light from the candle with the secondary light, or the region it illuminates.

The light from the candle does extend well beyond a foot. The fact you can see it from at least a few hundred feet away means it is extending at least a few hundred feet.
But this is the direct light from the candle.

What you can't see is the indirect light, that is light that has gone from the candle, to something else, and scattered off that to then go to your eyes.
This light is much weaker.
It is necessarily much weaker than the direct light.
This is because only a small portion of the light has hit the object to illuminate it, and now it spreads out from there.
If you have a light shining on a distant object, to scatter off it and go back to your eyes and you double the distance, the intensity of the light coming back to your eyes cuts down by a factor of 16, not the 4 like if it was a mirror.

This is the problem that has been repeatedly raised regarding your nonsense which you continually deflect from.
Shortly before sunrise, and shortly after sunset, we can easily see this indirect light, but we cannot see the direct light from the sun.

This shows it has nothing at all to do with the intensity of the light.
If the sun was not intense enough for us to see directly, we would have no chance at all of seeing the light scattered off clouds.

But why stop there? Let us suppose a birthday candle is lit on a patio in Newark, NJ (because NJ is peak interest for extraterrestrials) is being viewed through direct line of sight by the Rhodopteryx people of Mars. From their perch in Mars, can they see my single birthday candle?

That depends on several factors.
Firstly, are there other lights around it which would wash it out? If so, they wont be able to make it out.
The other issue is how bright does the light need to be to detect it.

As the candle burns, it uses wax.

Which is irrelevant to the discussion.
It burns wax, releasing energy in the form of light as it does.
When the wax runs out, it stops emitting energy. That energy (or lack thereof) does nothing to the light already emitted. It just means it wont emit more.

More importantly, as a candle spreads, the amount of light it gives off divides, or at least subtracts. So no, the math just isn't there. On paper, units of light appear to extend forever. In actual practice, if light were to be bright at 3 ft, normal at 20 ft, and dim at 50 ft, at light years away such a thing my technically register 0.00000000000000000000000000000000135 units of light that went directly rather than scattering.

Because it does go forever, and slowly reduce, following an inverse square law.
Yes, a candle will blur into the background light after a short distance. But a much brighter light can be seen for much further. There is no magical limit where the light just dies and can't be seen.

For the same reason as I mentioned above, both radio and sound have range limits.

Wrong again.
As shown above, this "limit" depends upon the energy.
If Earth was flat, you can have high energy radio towers covering the entire Earth.
Just like we have satellites in space which can cover a very large region of Earth.

The range for radio is typically limited by the curvature of Earth.

But the farther it gets from its source, the less impact that energy has.

Again, completely wrong.
The flux at a certain distance follows an inverse square law.
This means as you increase the power, each additional increase will increase the range.

For example, lets say you start with a power of 1, giving you a range of 1 km.
If you quadruple that power, taking it all the way up to 4, then the range will be multiplied by 2, taking it to 2 km.

Actually, what you're seeing is an illusion. An illusion is something that occurs in the brain rather than actually affecting reality.

No, what I'm seeing is reality; reality you need to flee from to pretend your delusional BS is true.

Yes, such things eventually wind down.
...
But light doesn't seem to permanently affect air at all.

So you claim it should wind down (i.e. diminish in effect), and then complain that the effect isn't permanent.
Your dishoensty knows no bounds.

Most things will typically have the effect incredibly short lived. i.e. it will excite the molecule, which almost instantly decays to re-radiate the light.
Other things, like glow in the dark pigments, will instead absorb the light, remaining exited for much longer, and slowly give that energy back over time.
Other things, like plants, will absorb the energy and covert it to chemical potential energy by creating sugars.

Considering you want to compare this to heat, lets do so.
In one case it is like sticking a solid piece of copper into an oven. That picks up the heat energy. You then place it in water and it gives it out, all quite quick.
But then if you do it with something much less conductive, you put it in the oven and it takes longer to heat up, and when you put it in water it takes longer to cool down.

The EM "radiation" also breaks down readily.

Again, you are yet to show any actual breakdown of the radiation.
Instead, you have shown it stops being emitted.

As you yourself said. An illusion.

No, that is NOTHING like what I said.
There is no illusion there.

But the greater illusion was that you used science words to pretend to explain something you understand nothing about. Nice try. Photochemical reaction.

You mean I used words to explain something I understand quite well, while you plead ignorance to pretend it is wrong.
A photochemical reaction is a reaction involving the absorption of light to bring about a chemical change.

That would imply that our brains have a mechanism specifically for processing flashlights.

Why?
The chemicals do not give a damn where the light came from. What matters is the wavelength.

Light with a wavelength of 500 nm is the same regardless of if it came from a flashlight, the sun, lightning, and so on.

So yet again, you assert delusional with no justification.

Indeed, one of the problems with one manmade light (blue light from Kindles and smartphones) is that it disrupts sleep patterns.

And that is due to the colour, and the fact you are having light when you are trying to sleep.

Trying going to the pole during summer, with lots of windows open to let the light in and see how your sleeping patterns go.

You seem to have trouble with two words. Evidence and energy.

Projecting once more.

Evidence refers to something that actually helps prove something.

And so far, all you have provided related to this is a phone, placed into a vacuum, showing that light traverses the vacuum without issue, but sound does not.
You have provided no evidence that supports your insane idea that light magically breaks down.
This also shows that energy can traverse through this vacuum with no matter to support it. So how is this energy being transferred? In the form of light.
This shows that light is energy.

Another great example are solar panels.
These convert the light (a form of energy) into electrical energy and heat (another form of energy).

Light however is not energy itself, it is a wave of EM particles in motion (kinetic energy).

That sure sounds like a fancy way of saying light is energy.

What you seem to be really struggling with is light in the sense of actual light, a photon, or EM wave, which is that energy; vs a region being illuminated.

When activated by electricity, the tungsten filament or LED in the lamp begins to glow, producing light that is visible.

i.e. it is converting the electrical energy into light, another form of energy.

Light is not energy. It is the result of energy. To say that light is energy is to say it is a cause. But it does not permanently change anything. That makes it an effect.

Cause and energy are 2 fundamentally different things.
Something being a cause does not mean it is energy.
As for being a cause, I already provided an example of a photochemical reaction.
And now in this post I have also given the example of a solar panel.
This solar panel can then be connected through an electrical circuit to power devices, like a light, or a motor and so on.

Sure seems like this light is causing it.

And again, this is referring to the actual light, not just an illuminated area.

Exactly. The only light in the world is the Light of the world. All other lights die out, because they are source-based.

Except you are claiming this light dies out as well.

The sun itself, despite being perpetual, is actually heating and lighting from a source.

The sun is not perpetual, just really long lasting.

And any god that exists has clearly failed that test.

And if it’s only man, man has failed man. So is man evil? 

Either way, we are stuck with this reality. 

I can only steward what little I have, and try to be generous with that.  And volunteer as I can.  And only scratch my head at the Trumps and Biden’s of the world labeling themselves as “public servants”. 

And if it’s only man, man has failed man. So is man evil?

No, because man doesn't have control over things like cancer and pathogens and natural disasters (or "Acts of God").
Humanity is quite limited. It is not omnipotent.
And there are lots of people with competing interests. It is certainly possible for some people to have failed while others have passed.

That is why polytheism is much more sane than monotheism.
At least that way the bad things which happen can be blamed on the gods that screw with people, but it does raise the question of why the other gods don't intervene to stop that?
But as there are multiple, they can't all be omnipotent.

Either way, we are stuck with this reality. 

And that is no reason to pretend a god exists, or pretend a god is needed for morality.

And that is no reason to pretend a god exists, or pretend a god is needed for morality.

That’s up to you and your soul.  But whatever you decide.  You’re still in this reality where often the most immoral gain the most control and power.  It’s that evil?  Or just nature and instinct. 

Quote from: JackBlack on September 05, 2023, 04:00:19 PM

And that is no reason to pretend a god exists, or pretend a god is needed for morality.

That’s up to you and your soul.  But whatever you decide.  You’re still in this reality where often the most immoral gain the most control and power.  It’s that evil?  Or just nature and instinct.

Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.
But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.
You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Those who do not accept Christ are not punished in any conventional sense (sorry, fire and brimstone types) but rather are caught in a web of deception. Seeking to deceive others, they are themselves deluded.

Think about it. When looking about, is that what you see of humans? Dumb animals that can't see past their own issues?

Because I see entire societies that thrive from mutual cooperation. When "survival of the fittest" reigns, society cannibalizes itself. The "fittest" strive against everyone else. It is precisely defying such "instincts" (if they even are, for fuck's sake, even wolves have pack cohesion) that culture is able to arise. Art, science, religion, philosophy, even something as basic as writing or agriculture, all of these are a direct result of defying such base "instincts."

But by all means, we get to see what sort of person you really are. A barbarian, looking to rape and steal and kill.

The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.

"Enlightened atheists", ladies and gentlemen. I think I'll stay unenlightened then.

Want to stop derailing this thread?

[
No magic to this at all. As light spreads, it disperses.

Ok.  This isn’t the religion forum.

Then answer the questions.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 30, 2023, 09:09:14 PM

In addition to the clouds should be obliterated by the heat of the sun.  What was cloud cover altitude at that time?  10,000 feet.  That makes the sun only two miles above the earth in your delusion.


Flat earth is stupid.

How does a sun only two miles above a flat earth wrapped in clouds light up multiple times zones.  Always appear to travel straight west day to day.  No indication of a north turn required by flat earth for a sunset off California.  And travel the sky at a constant speed and size.  Where on a flat earth, the sun while “setting” would go away from the viewer getting smaller.  And it’s descent towards the horizon would get slower and slower.  And never appear to go below the horizon. 


Spherical earth with a title orbiting a sun answers how the sun shines and is visible across so many time zones during the summer solstice.  A FE sun at two miles altitude wrapped in clouds doesn’t.

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2023/6/21/what-is-the-summer-solstice-and-why-is-june-21-the-longest-day

That’s up to you and your soul.

I would say more it is up to logic.
You can believe in a magic sky fairy if it makes you feel good. But that isn't really a reason. Reason implies reason, not just emotional BS.

It’s that evil?  Or just nature and instinct.

That depends.
Is it the product of an intelligent like a god creating the world, or is it just nature?
If the former, it is evil, specifically the evil of that being.

Those who do not accept Christ are not punished in any conventional sense (sorry, fire and brimstone types) but rather are caught in a web of deception. Seeking to deceive others, they are themselves deluded.

Other than it all being fiction, pure BS.
Those who don't accept Christ are not necessarily seeking to deceive others, nor are they necessarily deluded.
Those trying to con people into worshipping Christ are the ones seeking to deceive and/or are themselves deluded.

But as for punishment, have you read the Bible?
Matthew 25:41
Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels'
Matthew 25:46
Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.

It sure seems to be describing actual punishment.

Because I see entire societies that thrive from mutual cooperation.

You mean you see tiny communities. Communities which happily cooperate, voluntarily without those trying to exploit them.

But by all means, we get to see what sort of person you really are. A barbarian, looking to rape and steal and kill.

You mean like God's chosen people?

Now again, care to explain how we can see clouds illuminated from below, when we can't see the sun?

But as for punishment, have you read the Bible?
Matthew 25:41
Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels'
Matthew 25:46
Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.

Quick question: Who is Jesus speaking to? It was rhetorical. The Pharisees, a group of people known for being highly judgemental, and having worldview quite similar to this. Read the previous parables. Or don't bother, I'll help you out. A man gives three men basically investment money. One gets like 5 million, another 2 million, and a third 1 million. When he saves the money, the man tells him he should have invested it (in a way that was not lawful to Jews), then proceeds to take the money from the poorest, and give to the richest. Another man casts out women because they were late, even though the reason they were late was other people wouldn't share. This isn't supposed to represent God or Jesus, but has been interpreted this way over and over. This is the "God" of the Pharisees. Jesus is showing them a mirror.

You mean you see tiny communities. Communities which happily cooperate, voluntarily without those trying to exploit them.

Until the woke people began corrupting cities with political correctness and blockbusting, cities were built from numerous tiny pockets. Then we had planned racial warfare. I can tell you that towns in my childhood in the 80s seemed significantly more friendly than say Chicago or Seattle today. Hell, I don't even like to visit Richmond, VA anymore. The difference? It seemed like the majority of people went to church back then, while now it's a minority. Those who kill and steal seem to cover it with talk that Jesus preached government sharing wealth. No, that's theft. Somehow you've read "help the poor" as "pay taxes to Caesar."

I would say more it is up to logic.
You can believe in a magic sky fairy if it makes you feel good.

You’re the one that wants to apply the term evil?  When there is only survival, instinct, and product of environment.

But as for punishment, have you read the Bible?
Matthew 25:41
Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels'
Matthew 25:46
Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.

Verses being mauled by a bear? 

Being drowned in a flood? 

Being burnt alive in a brazen bull?

Life is still a test/trial ending in physical death either way. 

But as for punishment, have you read the Bible?

Vs the USA dropping nuclear bombs on women and children at the end of WW II?  A physical death for being on the wrong side. 

Vs a God you don’t believe exists killing an unrepentant spirit too prideful to ask for forgiveness. 

Quick question: Who is Jesus speaking to?

The typical theist response.
When you find something in the Bible you don't like, flee from it at all costs, finding some excuse to dismiss it.
But something you think supports your view, you just take and do with as you please.

The overall Biblical view is that those who do not kiss Jesus' ass will be sent to torment or otherwise punished.

Until the woke people began corrupting cities

No, it has NOTHING to do with woke people.
Long before these woke people were around, there were kings and criminals.
They were quite happy to take things from others for their own gain.
Before that, you had warring tribes, where a single tribe might be happy being cooperative; with those not cooperating kicked out or killed, and other tribes being pillaged.

Again, your tiny little communities are not a representative of humanity as a whole.
It is an ideal fantasy land which ignores the vast majority of humanity.

The difference? It seemed like the majority of people went to church back then

If you want a highly religious country, try going to Saudi Arabia.
I'm sure you will fit right in and be happy there.

Churches are some of the most abhorrent and hateful places.


Now again, care to explain how we can see the sun lighting up clouds from below, while above clouds, and when we can't see the sun?

You’re the one that wants to apply the term evil?

Yes, to sentient entities, which can be described as evil.
There not being a god doesn't magically mean people can't be evil.
Again, a god does nothing for morality unless you wish to believe in might makes right.

Verses being mauled by a bear?
Being drowned in a flood?
Being burnt alive in a brazen bull?

Yes, your god certainly does seem to like horrible punishments for people.
Why did it send bears to attack children?
Why did it decide to kill almost everyone in a flood.

Vs a God you don’t believe exists killing an unrepentant spirit too prideful to ask for forgiveness.

No, Vs a god that torments people to show off. Vs a god that torments people for not kissing his ass.
The evil POS you worship acts like a spoilt child tyrant.
It is not a good being by any stretch of the imagination.
The only reason someone would worship it is out of stupidity, brainwashing or cowardice.

gods dont kill people, people kill people.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 06, 2023, 06:56:29 AM

Quick question: Who is Jesus speaking to?

The typical theist response.
When you find something in the Bible you don't like, flee from it at all costs, finding some excuse to dismiss it.
But something you think supports your view, you just take and do with as you please.

It was a rhetorical response actually. I asked a question, and answered it. He was speaking to Pharisees.

The overall Biblical view is that those who do not kiss Jesus' ass will be sent to torment or otherwise punished.

No. It's not. Read this. Skip to the Gospels if you want to hear about Jesus. Or skip straight to the end. Read the footnotes.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1149148790239002734/AikenAbridgedBible_Paperback.pdf

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 06, 2023, 06:56:29 AM

Until the woke people began corrupting cities

No, it has NOTHING to do with woke people.
Long before these woke people were around, there were kings and criminals.
They were quite happy to take things from others for their own gain.
Before that, you had warring tribes, where a single tribe might be happy being cooperative; with those not cooperating kicked out or killed, and other tribes being pillaged.

But everything changed once woke people entered cities.


Again, your tiny little communities are not a representative of humanity as a whole.
It is an ideal fantasy land which ignores the vast majority of humanity.

The one with a distorted fantasy land is you. Every small town is like that. People work together, or the town basically falls apart. Your cities insulate you from how the rest of the world lives. I've seen how life is like in much of the country. I've seen towns from China to UK to South Africa. And I've seen the incredible wreckage of cities, where people struggle too hard to survive, and don't work together.

But here. There's a test to see how big a bubble you live in.


https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/do-you-live-in-a-bubble-a-quiz-2

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 06, 2023, 06:56:29 AM

The difference? It seemed like the majority of people went to church back then

If you want a highly religious country, try going to Saudi Arabia.
I'm sure you will fit right in and be happy there.

Churches are some of the most abhorrent and hateful places.

Actually, you should go to Saudi Arabia. And then you'd see there is a sizable difference between people who love God and seek to love their fellow man, and people who fear Allah and hate their fellow man. Now, I apologize if you've been to suck churches. But if I, who should expect people to abuse me for being a genetic male who likes women clothes, have instead had forgiveness and love in not one but three churches, I can safely say you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Christians, if they think you are a sinner, will tell you they think you are a sinner. That's it. If you stop minding being told that, you can probably find churches that will forgive your sins.
Muslims, if they don't like you, will probably stone you. To death. Or behead you.

I think these are slightly different, but you conflate them because you know Christians are a safe target to criticize and Muslims should not. So by all means. Go to Saudi Arabia, and tell them how they are just as bad as Christians. See how they react.

Christianity made America a place where one's religion is free (aside from Christian "nothing in particular" is second, and yes this is distinct from Atheism, as it implies indifference or no strong categorization). It made much of Europe this way too. Islamic countries have a national religion, and strongly so. Israel has a national religion. India has a national religion, and Christians are persecuted both by Muslims and Hindus. Japan has a national religion.


Now again, care to explain how we can see the sun lighting up clouds from below, while above clouds, and when we can't see the sun?

Mebbe later. Especially since I have several times already.



Not my fault if you don't like my answer. The problem is you. 

Bottom line: the sun is vertically above the clouds at all times. But when horizontally too far away, it appears below. We can verify through simple lit room tests that, no, light does not extend forever.
You do not accept this? Not my concern.

gods dont kill people, people kill people.

This. If you're blaming God for the death of people, maybe you need to reexamine your friend list.

There not being a god doesn't magically mean people can't be evil.

By whose standard?

The USA saying it was right to drop nuclear bombs in Japan killing women and children.  Was that evil?  Vs the women and children that suffered from that act?  Wonder what they thought.  Was dropping the nuclear bombs an evil act?  Do the victors get to set the morality, or the bit of the nuclear bomb? 

Nature in the absence of god causes the same amount of suffering, is nature evil?

God gave freewill.  And either way, we are trapped in a physical body in a world where living things have to consume living things.  And people wonder why there is a fascination with vampires.  Anyway.  If you don’t believe in God, then this is it. This physical existence.  For most who believe in something more than a physical existence, there is eternity after death.  For your, there is what?  Survival followed by eternal nonexistent where evil is applied to only instinct?  Chimpanzees resort to infanticide, are they evil?  Do you want to choose what instinct is evil?  Cause that is all you really have. 

With God there isn’t just instinct.  There is freewill and the ability to choose in life that is a trial either way. Where trials seem to be the natural order of things.  From being picked for an high school team to the more serious survival of our ancestors.  Evil now has meaning because we can be more than instinct.  We have freewill of character regardless of environment.  And what we do defines us in an existence after life.  This short life is just a reflection of the after life, with life being the trial to prove us for the after life. 

Is God evil? Or just a trial.  Like nature is a trial of survival. Life is a trial either way.  Just God throws in freewill where how we survive becomes meaningful.  Where we are not only freed from instinct, but the standard is not to be ruled by instinct.  Vs no God where instincts controlling behavior are artificially called evil. 

Take a communist government.  It strives to take God, casts God aside, and perverts existence by replacing God with state.  Is a communist government doing away with religion a righteous act justified by the greater good?  Or an evil act? 

Or how about a communist government forcing overnight changes to agricultural causing starvation for the greater good.  Is that evil?  There is no God in a true communist state, just the greater good. How could anything for the greater good be evil in such s system. 

Again, a god does nothing for morality unless you wish to believe in might makes right.

Vs the USA using nuclear bombs on women and children?

gods dont kill people, people kill people.

Well yes, because gods aren't real so can't do anything.

But if you believe gods exist, then you should believe they certainly do kill a lot of people. Either directly, or indirectly.

If a god did create this world, then it is responsible for every death due to disease and natural disasters.

No. It's not. Read this.

Yes, it is.
Even the standard con of God's love is built upon. That God loved us so much so those who kissed his ass could have eternal life.

But everything changed once woke people entered cities.

No, it didn't.
Woke people emerged in the cities which were already crap.

The one with a distorted fantasy land is you. Every small town is like that.

No, it isn't.
Plenty exist without needing a cult.

But again, that is a SMALL city, where there is a small community where it is easy for you to know most people and get along with them and help them out.
When the population density gets to high, that stops.

Actually, you should go to Saudi Arabia.

I'm not the one praising religious BS, that is you.

I think these are slightly different, but you conflate them

I don't conflate them. I recognise similarities and differences.
Religious people are so of the most abhorrent people that exist. And that applies to Christians and Muslims.
Christianity was used as a justification for the persecution of homosexuals and people like you.
It isn't because of Christianity that these people you speak of are good, it is in spite of it.

Christianity made America a place where one's religion is free

Wrong again.
People fleeing persecution from Christians is what did that.

yes this is distinct from Atheism, as it implies indifference or no strong categorization

Which would include atheism.
Atheism includes everyone that doesn't believe in a god, including those who don't give a damn at all.

Mebbe later. Especially since I have several times already.

No, you never have.
Instead you just provide a bunch of contradictory BS that you just flee from.
It seems you want to again cling to your delusional parabola. Even though that would mean that people would only see the sun when it is above a point within roughly 5-10 km, meaning the vast majority of the world would be in darkness, and there would only be brief glimpses of day.
And it still entirely fails to describe how the clouds are being illuminated from below.

By whose standard?

I don't need an evil tyrant to have a standard for good and evil.
Remember, this was were your little tangent started. With the BS idea that an evil POS is needed to know good from evil.

Nature in the absence of god causes the same amount of suffering, is nature evil?

No, because it lacks the intent and sentience to be able to be evil.
This is a very trivial thing to understand.

If it is just nature, with no intent or intelligence behind it, then it has no capacity to be evil.
But if this was designed by an intelligent being to be this way, to cause so much suffering, then it is evil.

God gave freewill.

And was quite happy to take it away to fuck around with the Egyptians to show off.
And doesn't give a damn when it is taken away by force by others, such as when someone rapes someone else.
Your evil POS cares more about the free will of a rapist than the free will of their victim.
And if you side with that, then you are an evil POS.

With God there isn’t just instinct.  There is freewill and the ability to choose in life that is a trial either way.

No, God does nothing for that.
With or without god, we either have free will and can choose or we don't.

God doesn't just magically allow a rape victim to choose not to be raped.

Is God evil?

If it exists, yes.

And remember, the Biblical god is meant to be omniscient, so it would have no need for any tests. It would already know.

Just God throws in freewill where how we survive becomes meaningful.

Wrong again. With a god and an afterlife, survival is almost entirely pointless.
For an individual it would be vastly better off to just die immediately.
The theists should be praising every child murderer, for sending the child to the afterlife where they wont have to suffer and possible make the wrong choice and fail the BS test of suffering.

It strives to take God, casts God aside, and perverts existence by replacing God with state.

You mean it discards religious BS.
That is not perverting existence.

Or how about a communist government forcing overnight changes to agricultural causing starvation for the greater good.

As opposed to religious states which do as they please in the name of a god?

Once more, your evil POS does nothing for morality.

I don't need an evil tyrant to have a standard for good and evil.

I believe in freedom of religion.

You believe in evil as defined by jack in a world of natural selection.

I believe in creation that gave me freewill and how I should conduct myself, and acknowledge I fall short, is based off a collection of people I commune with where we have a code of ethics, where we acknowledge we fall short, based off texts written over generations.

Which is more or less evil.  In a society with freedom of religion.