Why Jefferson and Franklin beat Mohammed and Jesus everytime

Why secular values are so much better than religious ones

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• islam
• faith

[JM27975]

Done a bit of research since we last chatted. The most just and equitable societies in the world (like Sweden) may have a large percentage of athiests, but they have a Christian heritage. Sweden is still majority Christian and has a long history of being heavily influenced by the teachings of the carpenter. Russia might have some good examples of towns where there has been a athiestistic heritage going back a few generations.

[TheModestAgnostic]

Good stuff:-) All that this <i>perhaps</i> suggests, is that christian teaching has a postive effect on culture. I'm certainly not denying that possibility, and it would be false to claim that nothing about christianity is positive.

[TheModestAgnostic]

It still doesn't mean it's true in the metaphysical sense, and a lingering cultural effect like the one you're describing, would actively suggest that the cultural element is far more important than the metaphysical one. Because the cultural effect has lingered long after the metaphysical claims have all been rejected.

[vitami1n]

This is probably the best vlog i've ever seen. Well done. And thanks.

[Berlum]

when i said ''why does nature have such a strong will to power?'' i didnt mean that it actually had a will. this question was meant to lead to the strong probability that there is a will, it was meant to make you conscious of the will. since nature doesnt SEEM to have a will, there's something else that does (we are a product of the influence of its will).

its been a long time since i last logged on, i hope this clears up my comment.

[falsificationism]

My point is that referencing Einstein is unnecessary.

[falsificationism]

In the below paraphrase of Einstein I am, of course, referencing his metaphysical realism and the epistemic function of the God/Dice quote fyi.

[falsificationism]

To improperly paraphrase Einstein: '...we walk into a library and see books. We know the books are there and we assume that someone has written them (our natural human tendency to ascribe intentionality to randomness), but we can say nothing of the author...we can only talk of the books.'

[falsificationism]

Krippers,

"Einstein's God" is of no relevance. The God/Dice quote has nothing to do with causality (it was actually a rebuke of qm). And for the record, "Einstein's God" was actually Spinoza's God. Spinoza was a pantheist and simply believed that God is tantamount to nature i.e. everything is God.

This says nothing specifically about a prime mover.

[Krippers]

by clearly showing that the only way a lottery winner can exist is if all things that the lottery is exists. This is termed the Goldilocks Enigma. However an understanding of Einsteins god is an understanding that all things are the way they are because there is no other way that they can be, and this is not wilful it is actual.

[Krippers]

In every sense it seems to me that Einstein was correctly stating that the universe cannot happen through will, it can only happen through causality. The same is totally true of every single particle of matter everywhere. In this context it can be seen that Belrum is correct in stating that the winner of a lottery is not a winner by chance. However Belums argument for this supports Einsteins god...

[Krippers]

I think that it is fair to put forward an interpretation of Einsteins god at this time that may better focus the idea that there is no 'meaning' there just is. Einstein coined the popular phrase "god does not play dice" and I feel this has relevance to this thread...

[Krippers]

Sorry to wade in after such a long time. I'm confused Belurm bud, you post the question initially "why does nature have such a strong will to power?" yet in your last post you state that it is a lie to state that nature has or had will power. This seems completely in opposition and I can't derive sense from it.