Saturday, November 19, 2011

Update 2011 Summer-Autumn

"I believe that no two individuals are exactly alike chemically any more than structurally."
-Archibald Garrod
English Physician
Read the article without personal assumptions, inferences, or opinions.
The argument should seem moral and socially ethical.
Now, pretend he is Liberal [non-Socialist, non-Communist].
You may have reversed the perspective that you have formed around the article if you are a right-wing Conservative.
Now, pretend he is Conservative [non-Facsist, non-Totalitarian].
Would the article influence your Conservative perspectives? Would you view him as a Moderate or Independant if you are a Liberal?
A wise female once said, "Check youself, before you wreck yourself."

I believe there is something suspicious about the people of the 99% movement. They have some good ideas, but so far, I agree that student loans are an unnecessary form of debt. Does a caveat exist? I have read one's testimony concerning a 100K debt in student loans, but three degrees, and yet that person claims to be struggling.
I believe there is something suspicious about a Protestant church providing shelter for people to which opposing views may exist. I have been told the possibility of the Occupy movement to be a "Socialist" movement. I am veritably hesitant on the action of supporting the Occupy movement. They have ideas to which I can agree, but there will be opposing ideas to which I will challenge.
Read the article, please.
(Trading morals for money)

I plead that if one who lives in America, employed and healthily living, should not complain of hunger; A citizen in North Korea may be deprived of a sustainable diet. One who lives in America, employed and healthily living, should, at the least, have more respect for the military; Our soldiers do not directly rob us of our food. One who lives in America should, at the least, appreciate where we live; You will not be shot by your own government for crossing the Canadian or Mexican border, sent to a military prison camp, or tortured until you are a vegetable. One who lives in America, faithful to a deity, should be thankful; You will not be convicted or punished.

North Korea is one of the most isolated countries with rampant repression. The next time you complain about hunger, think of those people who are or will be deprived of their next meal.

"Concerning how society and it's individual humans react in accordance with the actions of others, I believe the golden rule is a universal ethic."

I cannot seem to figure out if this is a legal sentence, concerning the rules and supposed mechanics of grammar.

"I believe the golden rule is a universal ethic concerning the matter of how society and it's individual humans react in accordance with the actions of others."

I have reviewed this sentence, and it seems that I have confused the philosophy of pure vs practical. I'll have to review.

I have only read a small amount of Immanuel Kant, but I have managed to digest a small amount of knowledge concerning pure and practical morals and philosophies. At this time, I do not remember whether or not "pure" morals gave definition to universal morals that seem to be somewhat of a default within different societies (communities, groups, cultures, ect.)

The golden rule had existed before Jesus had taught this ethic to his followers, but this matter does NOT necessarily mean that the golden rule was a mere "practical" ethic that a supposed few philosophers had thought of at different convenient times. Concerning how society and it's individual humans react in accordance with the actions of others, I believe the golden rule is a universal ethic. Since Jesus had established His covenant as taught in the New Testament, He has teachings focusing on treatment of your fellow man [and woman], not being one with prejudice, and human compassion and charity. Whether or not one views Him as God or human philosopher, The New Testament makes obvious the different universal social ethics that are pure [and metaphysical] and may be the most beneficial for societies [communities, groups, cultures, populations, ect.] to follow.

If I were to volunteer at a homeless shelter or orphanage, and an Evangelical (for sake of example) calls my actions "Christian" duty or "Christian "work", I would perceive their words as an offense to my God, and myself as well. If that person believes God created everything, then that person would agree that God created and produced pure morals and ethics, whether genetic or metaphysical (or even spiritual). By describing my actions as "Christian" (with an intent to limit to the latter term and description), that person is either limiting morals to one faith, or denying that God produced pure morals and ethics, which in-turn would deny God's complexity in the creation of genetics (if pure morals are to be genetic), or God's creation of that which is spiritual, which also limits the actions of the Holy Spirit.

My First Christian Debate with an Atheist

by SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori on Saturday, September 3, 2011 at 10:42am
Note: It's more of a sharing of ideas than a debate.

  • SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori
    Hello Michael, how much of the New Testament have you read? Can you define you perspective of "world-view"? Can you reason why rational Christians have to deny science and logic in order to believe in God, much less any deity? The morals, ...ethics, and virtues defined in the Old Testament replace law and rules, with the exception of our belief in the Holy Spirit embedded through our faith in contrast to another who may only rely on practical ethics or classical philosophy. I could post an argument of emotional euphoria, or even circular logic to support my faith, but that would only insult my God. Even if Sam Harris, a great philosophical and educated atheist, would claim your article to be bland. My advice would be to study Immanuel Kant's definition of pure vs practical morals and ethics, and to at least study the Bible before posting poorly-supported assumptions.See More
    Yesterday at 6:32pm · LikeUnlike

  • SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori I know, I mentioned Sam Harris. I don't agree with all of his writings, but he is a fascinating author
    Yesterday at 6:35pm · LikeUnlike

  • SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori Ah, Ben, I have to know; do you believe God can make 2+2=5, or keep it at 2+2=4?
    Yesterday at 6:37pm · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading...

  • SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori ‎*..morals, ethics, and virtues defined in the *New Testament* (major typo)
    23 hours ago · LikeUnlike

  • Michael R Fairburn Steffan, I can't understand why otherwise intelligent people would suspend their normal judgement and rationality in an area for which there is absolutely no evidence?
    23 hours ago · LikeUnlike

  • SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori
    You are correct, I have NO rational or logical argument for a faith-based perspective. Faith in a deity is nearly taboo, and would never be proven. Since we are the only planet proven to have intelligent life i.e the plant and animal kingdo...m, included with the intelligent and cognitive human race, supported with other scientific evidences and theories, I find it spiritually fulfilling to believe in something more because of that which is unproven that we find veritably curious.

    The moral structure in the New Testament to which I was referring combines a social compassion with order, rather than chaos. I find the corruption of Christian churches to be unfortunate. The latter is possible with the Buddhist. You could observe the Buddhist who lives morally with philosophical mind and compassionate towards others, and you could observe the Buddhist that is strictly religious, metaphorically locked in a tower.See More23 hours ago · LikeUnlike

  • Michael R Fairburn I have great respect for the Buddhist worldview, except where it transitions into a deistic belief. Buddhism was never meant to be a deistic belief system and the Buddha has been deified by mankind, just like every other god.
    23 hours ago · LikeUnlike

  • SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori
    If one is intelligent and rational, I would claim one does not think in a black-white mentality like a child. A black-white example would be a Christian directly blaming God for the positive or the negative. "God gave us a truck driver!" or... "God sent down this food for this feast!" or "God sent us supplies!". There are Christians who can tell the direct from the indirect. "Because of God's predestination, and development of human will and potential, a truck driver has accepted our request for aid!" or, "These ethical humans had the heart to send us food, thank God for his will and creation!"See More
    23 hours ago · LikeUnlike

  • Michael R Fairburn But Steffan, in my experience, Christians take a literal interpretation of the Bible except where it doesn't suit them. Take, for example, New Earth Creationists - despite overwhelming scientific evidence about the age of the earth, these people continue to believe that their god created the Earth with 'inbuilt age' - now if that isn't a suspension of rsationality I don't know whsat is!
    23 hours ago · LikeUnlike

  • SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori
    I cannot answer to why an intelligent person would choose a faith and deity, but I am sure that person could argue with another from hell and back with why they have chosen their beliefs. Research the smartest .000001 percent of people who ...have ever lived, and tell me which ones chose to be faithful to a deity, and which ones did not. Galileo and Newton were Christians, but they contradicted their church. That can say many things.See More
    23 hours ago · LikeUnlike

  • Michael R Fairburn Galileo and Newton were Christians as a product of their times. The vast majority of modern day scientists are atheistic or agnostic.
    23 hours ago · LikeUnlike

  • SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori
    Concerning Creationists, they have (to my current knowledge) little evidence concerning what God had done BEFORE and during Genesis. Also, the idea of intelligent design is an idea that in itself, is hard to fathom, and nearly unbelievable,... since we know the existence of genes, adaptation, environmental variables, evolution, ect. I would slap the next Christian who claims God will spontaneously heal a random amputee, though possible, would change my perception and perspective on the spotSee More
    23 hours ago · LikeUnlike

  • SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori I would assume from different studies that Galileo and Newton were not merely conforming to a social norm, but rather expanding a perspective of Christianity and Biblical interpretation beyond a church that denied science, denying or insulting their own God in the process.
    23 hours ago · LikeUnlike

  • SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori Grammar error: the church denied science, insulting God in the process
    23 hours ago · LikeUnlike

  • Michael R Fairburn But that's half the problem Steffan. Christians believe that their god can do anything, and their Bible backs up this claim. Unfortunately, they count the positives and ignore the negatives, especially regarding prayer, despite negatives outweighing the positives by so much. I can get similar results praying to an empty milk bottle as a Christian can get praying to their god.
    22 hours ago · LikeUnlike

  • Michael R Fairburn No Steffan, you've missed the point. Galileo and Newton were products of their time. They (and just about everyone else) were members of the church because not to be was full of social stigma. You just have to look at the contortions that Galileo had to go through when he published his theorum to understand why he, adn almost everyone else, was requried to believe in god.
    22 hours ago · LikeUnlike

  • Mike Collins
    Ah, yes! I can't possibly skip the opportunity to debate with intelligent people... it's against my nature.

    "Merely" cosmic dust?
    I never thought I'd hear the word "merely" used to describe something as fascinating as millions of stars ex...ploding to create our existence.
    In a universe so huge comprehension of it is virtually impossible, millions and billions of these stars are exploding every second. The fact that we're actually made of these particles is a beautiful and awe inspiring fact.
    Much more beautiful and awe inspiring than a burning bush.
    Since you're familiar with Christopher Hitchens, you've probably heard this argument. At any rate, I'm interested to hear what your response is.
    Of all the species who have lived on this earth, 98% of them are extinct.
    Is this part of the plan? Is god so wasteful as to destroy billions of stars and almost all intelligent life on our own planet just so our species can be born in sin and be saved through a sadistic sacrifice of this god's own son?
    But then again, aren't you a "young Earth" christian?
    Also, I have to add... the new testament's brought the idea of "everlasting life" which is is quite totalitarian in nature, and, as such, only a slave would desire it to be true.See More22 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading...

  • SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori
    ‎"Is this part of the plan? Is god so wasteful as to destroy billions of stars and almost all intelligent life on our own planet just so our species can be born in sin and be saved through a sadistic sacrifice of this god's own son?"

    An op...inionated question is hard for me to answer perhaps directly, but I could try to respond. God did not necessarily destroy these forms of life, these forms of life destroyed itself; God is the indirect variable of their destruction. In my perception, although intelligent life dies at an exponential rate, I develop a perspective upon the survival of the fittest, which will continue to adapt, progress, and populate, and the definition in itself will change for each generation. I could state a possibility that overpopulation is just the fittest breeding weak links, which is either a sexual species breeding weak or needless offspring, or an asexual species cloning in the same environment, eventually dying from new dangers.
    if the Son of God had not been crucified, I am sure America would be more totalitarian than it is now, as with other countries with a Christian majority. Simply said, Jesus established a morals through faith and spirit structure for Christianity rather than the strict Jewish law. I know, many Christians from that time and up to recent are manipulating the Bible and people, but there still remains those people with integrity.
    "Also, I have to add... the new testament's brought the idea of "everlasting life" which is is quite totalitarian in nature, and, as such, only a slave would desire it to be true."
    For those who believe in Hell, this is paradise.See More21 hours ago · LikeUnlike

  • Mike Collins
    Your first paragraph makes you sound like a diest, whereas your second paragraph implies you believe in the bible.

    So which is it? Do you believe in a god that not only created everything, but also watches us as we sleep and constantly a list of black marks against us?
    Or do you simply believe god who "got it all started."
    In other words, he triggered the big bang then disappeared?
    If you do believe in the god of the bible, how can you possibly believe in your "black and white" perspective? The bible makes it very clear that god meddles in all things. God can commit you of thoughtcrime, and, if he deems fit, send you to an eternity of suffering and pain.
    Wait... are you saying countries with a Christian majority are usually more totalitarian? Well, you'd probably be right, since that's how the religion is set up.
    Jesus's "morals" were nothing new... the Golden Rule was around long before Jesus came.
    All humans have morality ingrained in them from evolution, anyways... Just look at how other species act. Do other species rape and murder members of their own kind?
    If anything, human morality is lower than animal morality, since we have the ability to override these natural morals.
    Why would someone who believes in hell think everlasting life is paradise? Lol
    Neither is paradise. I don't know about you, but the idea of "forced happiness" FOREVER makes me sick to my stomach.See More8 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 1 personMichael R Fairburn likes this.

  • SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori
    The 'black/white perspective' is not my own, but rather one I would contradict. Jesus established a new covenant contrary to the old jewish law that kept the blacklist in which you were referring. With the new covenant, God is mostly concer...ned with one's faith and developed ethics, rather than the number of sins one commits. From my perception, I see that many Christians refuse to understand this, clinging to the sins they commit, forcing themselves to be more religious than God had intended. i'm not saying countries with a Christian majority are more totalitarian than they should be, but rather, if Christ had not established the new covenant taught in the NT, then countries would conform to old jewish law, denying any kind of progression. Even if morals were existant before Jesus, religious or not, those morals/ethics are still described as 'pure', as taught by Immanuel Kant. I can agree to morals and order being embedded in the genesis/genetics of generations, but human will, different philosophies, See More
    7 hours ago · LikeUnlike

  • SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori Perceptions, and social environment will be variables affecting what those morals will be, and how they will work. Whether there is order or chaos in a society, pure or practical morals will be the determining factor, as well as the possible symbiosis of the two. I have never heard of a moral animal, concerning instinct and survival.
    7 hours ago · LikeUnlike

  • Mike Collins
    Sorry – didn't mean you had the black and white perspective. I meant you DIDN'T have that perspective, which makes you sound like a diest.

    The New Testament disagrees with you on your second point. Here's what Jesus has to say about though...tcrime (Matt. 15 18-20):
    "But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man."
    God is still very concerned with the blacklist in the New Testament, as made apparent by the mentions of hell and "eternal hellfire."
    Ah... and here we come to the true evil of religion: blocking of progress.
    You may say old Jewish law blocked all progression (you may be right), but don't pretend the Christian religion is innocent of this.
    All religions block progress. All religions claim to answer the unanswerable questions by receiving divine guidance from a celestial being in the sky.
    If we already have all the answers (which religions claim to have), what's the point of progress in the first place?
    You've never heard of a moral animal? Surely you've heard of the species Homo Sapiens? ;)
    I've always thought morals to be more fluid, anyway. Of course you have the basic human instinct to not harm a fellow human (if we didn't have this instinct, we certainly wouldn't've made it this far!), but other aspects of morals seem to be subject to change based on current world views and our continually evolving mentalities.See More7 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading...

  • SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori
    I'm glad that all of us are making interesting points (though, Ben, you seem good with your faith, but you're arguments... not so much. don't take it personal.)

    Personally, I have to again, start a deeper study within the NT. I am fortunat...e to have greek translations so I have less chance of taking the Bible out of context.
    I need to learn how Jesus defined the 'heart'. Hopefully, His view of the heart may differ from the rational mind.
    Sam Harris wrote in "Letters to a Christian Nation" that MLK Jr. used non-violence influenced by Jadenism. Whether that is true or not, his work brought change. Still, it is very sad that Protestant Christianity (I think) was used to justify racism and prejudice against color. Bob Jones University states on their website that they were once racist because of social norms and ethos (they wouldn't admit blacks and recently lifted the ban on interracial dating).
    I have not studied many religions of the world, and neither have I studied Anthropology. But regardless of religion, there are those who have will to stand up and say, "I am going to research this anyway, and I will make a difference", metaphorically speaking.See More20 minutes ago · LikeUnlike

  • SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori Concerning the origin or start of the universe, would you possibly know S. Hawking's theory on the origin in which the universe began?