Night FM

Based on my understanding of source texts (such as the Bible) and theology (e.x. Institutes of the Christian religion), most Christians are not true Christians. Many have simply never read, comprehended, or properly interpreted the Bible. Typically, they have only read bits and parts and misinterpreted it. Some may even lack the literacy or mental comprehension to do so. (I don't understand how, for example, a person with a 70 IQ could properly read and interpret the Bible or a theology book which was written and interpreted by well-educated scholars). Most sects are also, to my knowledge, based off of corruptions of the Bible (such as the Catholic Church's official stance against divorce being based only on a small part of St. Paul's writings while ignoring other parts and other books of the Bible). This may have happened due to human error or intentional corruption with an agenda. It seems common to market false salvation to the masses who can't be expected to appreciate the true concept if one reads the Bible in full or reads more advanced theology. Typically, simply being a member of a church / sect / ministry is either said or insinuated to bring salvation (e.x. some falsely conflate concepts of the "heathen" or "world" to refer to those they deem as outside their sect, and this may be common with cults, when in reality these things were in reference to human behaviors and vices which are common to all). Likewise, some sects believe salvation is attained simply by reciting a prayer regardless of one's sincerity or comprehension thereof (though many Christians I've spoken to have said that this would not "fool god" if one's actions don't line up with one's words). I'd argue that this is heretical and a bastardization of salvation if reads the Bible in full or reads more advanced theology. Likely, this "fast food" model of salvation and church attendance was invented simply because it became profitable to "cast pearls at swine" and sell false salvation to those who aren't truly saved, so it's really very much akin to the Medieval Church practice of offering forgiveness of sins in exchange for money. This is why, as of recently, I am drawn to John Calvin's concept of the Elect, and am resigned to the fact that most people seem to not have truly understood the message of Christ, and I am honestly not sure that it is possible for everyone to do so to begin with simply due to the limits of human behavior and the fact that developing a "true" understanding would require a lifetime of devotion to doing so. The fact is that some people have wasted entire lives either not understanding or completely misunderstanding such things, such as due to the fact that cultural elements which have no bearing on the Bible or other relevant texts as well as human corruption have influence what people believe and how people live (e.x. such as the historical use of cherry-picked parts of the Bible to support slavery and racism. while naturally ignoring other parts which contradict this). I'm also not convinced that attempting to "minister" to anyone who isn't willing to devote a significant portion of their life to studying the Bible and other theological texts, and integrating these practices into their daily life is worth it (similarly to how it wouldn't be worth it to offer a sports scholarship to someone who isn't capable of playing the sport or only willing to play on rare occasions), and I believe this is why Jesus only picked 12 disciples out of his many followers. I'm tempted to believe that I am Elect because I have the capacity of understanding these things, while many others due not (just as there are potentially false Elect, such as the Westboro Baptist Church who have bastardized the teachings of John Calvin and the Gospel). And while I'm not convinced that those who simply lack an understanding of things which may be beyond their capability would receive the same damnation as those who are intentionally unrepentant, this is nevertheless what makes sense to me, and I don't claim to be able to "prove it" to anyone. While much of the above may only seem applicable to people who say they believe in Christianity to begin with, I hope that some of the topics covered can relate to people who have made similar observations about religion and so-called "religious people" in general.

Yes. If you take several things, you could arbitrarily classify them an infinite number of ways based on whatever traits you want. Such as how if you took several apples, you could classify them based on color, shape, size, and so on. Even if you groups 2 apples together based on both being the color "red", it wouldn't in anyway negate whatever other traits they don't share in common, such as one apple being larger than the other. I'd be tempted to argue that humankind should be put into a completely separate kingdom than the animals, classified perhaps not on the basis of physical traits shared in common with animals but on other traits, such as needs as per Maslow's hierarchy which differ them from animals (who I presume to be more relegated to lower, materialistic levels of need).

To the best of my knowledge, these claims have been repeated and possibly misinterpreted by atheists themselves who have a specific agenda (such as those hwo wish to argue in favor of aggressive competition), so even if these claims originated with creationists, they've been repeated and affirmed by masses.

These are some of my observations: 1. Most atheists only believe in the theory of evolution (whichever version of the theory they're coming from) because they were taught and indoctrinated to believe it, such as in schools. (Meaning if they had been born in the Middle Ages, they would be believing whatever the Church had taught them about the origins of humanity). Most aren't evolutionary biologists, and certainly never would have discovered the theory themselves from scratch - they're simply "fans" of the theory because they think it "means" something to them, or because they're attached to whatever they've been taught. Or perhaps they erroneously believe that it supports their atheistic stance (when, in reality, it doesn't, since evolution isn't mutually exclusive to creation, such as how supercomputers created by man "evolved" from simple calculators. Though some may use evolution to counter Biblical literalism). 2. Evolutionary thought is not new and did not originate with Charles Darwin. It dates as far back as the earliest of ancient Greek philosophers, just as materialist philosophy is also ancient (e.x. Epicurus was an early materialist). The belief that mankind simply originated "from nature" with no further explanation needed has been a common belief that has been held over the ages, and is arguably a simple observation which anyone could make even without pre-existing theories of evolution, given that the physical similarities between people and other animals are easily observable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought 3. Many of the beliefs people have about evolution and the origin of the universe are based on a misunderstanding of words. For example, some claim that the universe originated from "chaos", when in reality this is nonsensical (and has more in common with the Greek myth of "Chaos" being the deity from which the universe originated). In science, chaos, to my knowledge, only has meaning within Chaos theory, which, also to my knowledge, has nothing to do with evolution or the origins of the universe. Another example is when people say that life evolved through "random chance". They erroneously use this to imply there is "no intent" (whatever that means) behind life's origin, when in reality "randomness" simply refers to things outside of the evolutionary process playing a role in the development of life (such as how Chomsky attributes the development of language to a "miraculous mutation"), which, of course, does not require a lack of intent (and if anything could very well imply one). Some also use evolution to advocate for "aggressive competition", when I'd argue that biology is primarily cooperative, and more or less debunks this notion. (Such as how organs within the human body are not only viewable as "individual organs", but are collectives comprised of living cells, and for the body to function, the life of individual cells is far less important than the life of the whole organ). So I'd argue that biology and evolution more or less debunk individualism and render it either a pseudoscientific concept, beyond the fact that the organs need their autonomy for the entire body to function. (The existence of aggressive competition could therefore be seen as a defect, similarly to if an organ became cancerous and posed a threat to the wellbeing of the entire body). 4. Atheists often refer to people as "animals, apes", etc in a way which is intentionally or unintentionally reductive and devaluates the human condition to the level of animalistic behaviors associated with those less complex animals. (Such as the pursuit of materalistic needs which are low on Maslow's hierarchy compared to higher human needs). In zoology, terms like "animal, ape" and so on are merely arbitrary zoological classifications that group things based on similar traits, but are in no way exclusive to differences. (Much as how you could classify both a calculator and a supercomputer as a "calculating machine" based on a shared function, but the differences between those two devices would be striking, regardless of how they're mutually classified).

Right, it's an arbitrary and non-mutually exclusive classification based on a select number of physical traits shared in common with something (while excluding those physical traits that aren't shared in common).

Pornography wouldn't meet the definition of art. By definition, it would lack the serious artistic value to be redeemable. (Which would distinguish pornography from tasteful depictions of nudity and sex).

I don't think that pure CGI films will garner the public interest that live-action films do, due to the fandom that follows celebrity actors. Sure, animated characters (e.x. video game characters) do develop fan followings, but, to me, it isn't the same as the culture which develops around celebrities and their personal lives.

I think that most can reasonably agree that heavy consumption of porn isn't a good thing. As far as the fine line at which content is deemed exploitative, Bertrand Russell stated that societies demonstrate both modesty and jealousy, so simply being "offended" isn't enough to get a good definition. I think that even using common sense alone distinguish tasteful from distasteful content, but good luck trying to come up with an "exact science" for doing so (e.x. such as how another individual in this thread mentioned that the Taliban might consider a woman in a skirt on a billboard to be "pornographic"). I think the whole concept of "tasteful" versus "tasteless" also goes beyond things which would specifically be considered "pornography" (e.x. at some point, portrayals of violence in media lack any redeeming educational or artistic value and become tasteless). It's similar to how most people would agree that "bad music" exists, but since there's no agreed-upon, formalized process for defining "good and bad music", doing so is more difficult than, say, deciding that a sports team played badly based on the outcome of a sports game. (And even some musicians who are well-regarded by the industry like Prince had critics who thought that they produced bad music).

I'm aware that this is an old thread, but I'll attempt to summarize my opinions on it. No, child pornography should not be legalized. And the arguments for keeping it illegal are not solely based on the idea that consumption of it increases the amount of molestation or that children are harmed in the production of it. Regarding the former of the two points, there is no reason that "pedophile" should be substantiated as an affirmative identity beyond the behavior which a person electively chooses to engage in (e.x. consuming child porn). It doesn't matter whether or not a person claims to have a "sexual attraction to children" or claims that their attraction "can't be changed". They are still responsible for their behavior and can elect not to consume child porn. This is simply a gateway to normalizing pedophilia and is similar to how pro-pedophile groups like NAMBLA want pedophilia to be portrayed (e.x. as a "sexual identity" rather than a paraphilia or as paraphilic behavior). One could attempt to do this with any aberrant behavior. (For example, according to Wikipedia, "Biastophilia" refers to sexual attraction to the act of rape, however we wouldn't want to insinuate that rapists are not personally and criminally responsible for their behavior, or encourage people to refer to themselves as "biastophiles" and treat it as "sexual identity" akin to homosexuality). Child porn should remain illegal simply on the basis of it being something that any reasonable person would deem to be obscene, and to encourage people not to consume it for their own sake. Even if a person isn't harmed during the production or consumption of it (e.x. such as in the case of "loli" or cartoon child porn). If we need something to reference, we can reference John Stuart Mill's philosophy that it is better to be "Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied").

I'm curious what others' opinions are on the production/distribution and consumption of such content. As for defining it, this requires some degree of subjectivity (as would be the case with defining a piece of content as "sexist/sexploitative"). If we use a legal definition, the inclusion of nudity or sex in a piece of content doesn't automatically make it pornographic or obscene if it is "redeemed" by the overall merit of the work in question, such as educational, literary, or artistic merit. (This is my understanding, anyway).

What are your thoughts on it? I believe that, theoretically, veganism is more ethical than eating meat, but realistically, I don't expect everyone to become a vegan, given that farming and hunting animals for meat has been a practice in all cultures that I'm aware of, even ones which lived closer to nature. While the book of Genesis in the Bible says that Adam and Eve were vegans prior to the Fall of Man, I'm not sure where this actually fits into cultural history.

The "brick" isn't evil. The act of stubbing your toe is a small experience of evil.

Evil as experienced by man does not require intent. Intent would relate to evil committed by people.

"Evil" refers to adversity in general, such as natural disasters. Not just destructive acts committed by humans. Well, where do ideas about "better come from, other than pure subjective judgment of what is "better" and "worse"?

To me, it shows that people believe in preserving nature as an end in and of itself. So this implies some reverence of nature, in spite of the evil which natural phenomena can cause people to experience. That leaves out the question of what makes something "cruel" to begin with beyond people's subjective judgments.

Dominion doesn't imply a lack of responsibility. If anything, it requires it.

"Evil" does not only refer to destructive actions committed by humans, but to adversity in general (e.x. including natural disasters). God is also described as the author of good and evil in some contexts. I don't see this as conflicting with omnibenevolence, if we argue that for good to exist, evil has to exist.

Yes. And I'm not sure what the appropriate forum for this topic is.

I've played quite a few video games, and I've tried to come up with an analysis of games themselves which go beyond specific popular genres (e.x. first person shooter games). These are some of the qualities that I've seen that most games have (some of these qualities may be applicable to other types of games, such as board games or sports): *Aesthetic qualities - These refer to features such as the graphics, music, characters, and storyline. What makes these things "good" or "bad" is somewhat subjective. *Control - This refers to how the player performs movements or actions in a game. A 2D platformer game where players only move in 4 directions has more precise controls than a 3D racing sim. *Focus - This refers to what the player has to focus on (generally, their character and their environment). Some games require the player to shift focus more than others (e.x. a real-time strategy game requires more constant focus shifting than a racing game) *Pace - This refers to the pace at which the player has to perform actions in the game. An arcade SHMP game is a much faster-paced game than a turn-based strategy game (where the player has infinite time to plan their move). *Progression - Typically, the game gets more challenging as you progress through it (though some games such as RPG games offset this by having your character get stronger or acquire better gear as the game progresses). *Variables - These refer to things which affect how the game plays out. Some games have more variables to consider (e.x. the character's stats in an RPG game are variables that effect the outcome of a battle, while a game such as a 2D platformer game where the character's stats don't change through the game has fewer variables to consider).

Whoever invented the laws obviously thought there was a good reason for having them, even if that's entirely debatable.

Not at all. There's no reason why natural science is any more of a "science" than anything else, unless that claim is simply reaffirmed through circular reasoning. Arguably, the only "pure" science is mathematics, if one wants to go there. But I wouldn't automatically argue that physics isn't a "real science" simply because it's "not mathematics". To me, this just seems like a case of people picking their "favorite" science and arguing that whichever ones aren't their favorite aren't "real ones".

it's a moot point, because that's true about any belief. And that doesn't address how the individuals teaching these beliefs learned or devised the beliefs themselves. Many of the beliefs are grounded on rational arguments, not simply repeating another's argument. My argument is that, even without any prior instruction into a belief or a specific religion, people would still arrive at the belief in a God on their own.

Nope. The belief would have pre-existed any attempt to indoctrinate masses into it. Plus, most people are "indoctrinated" to believe scientific theories (e.x. most people don't believe in the theory of gravity because they discovered it themself, they believe it because they've been taught it through rote instruction, and often with little understanding of it beyond that "it's true" because they were "told so").

I'm using the widespreadness of beliefs in a God as an argument that it's not an "extraordinary" belief, but a commonsensical one which anyone from any culture could have deduced on their own. And I wouldn't claim that the statement "people are social animals" isn't true simply because of the hypothetical existence of some hermit who lives in a cave.