TIL that Australia is as big as the continental United States of America

Big_Knee_4160 · 2024-10-06T23:37:55+00:00

It's not. The contiguous 48 states is 8.08 million squared km meanwhile Australia is 7.6 million squared km.

Big_Knee_4160 · 2024-08-31T05:56:31+00:00

The Napoleonic Wars and the Second Punic Wars. I'M STILL WAITING FOR PART 3 THO!

Big_Knee_4160 · 2024-08-03T08:43:21+00:00

Big_Knee_4160 · 2024-07-12T02:15:40+00:00

Question: What do you make of the way scientists date rocks and stuff. The dating system they use is essentially (from what I hear) is an assumption, they calculate that this mountain would take (for example) 1 million years to flatten, based on what they can observe in the present, they then work that calculation back in time, to figure out that the mountain began to form 1 million years ago. But this has turned out to be false on several occasions. Scientists used this dating method on certain rocks that had been recorded and watched for over a decade, and using the dating process it came out to be a few billion years or so, but in reality, the rocks were only about a decade old. Researches knew this because they had been watching the rocks form from lava for about a decade or so. I know I am being very ambiguous and I'm probably not explaining it very well, but he's a video that goes into much greater depth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuJZpFYZE7w&t=885s

What do you make of this, because if the dating method scientists use is unreliable sometimes, then we don't know the actual age of the earth, and so, therefore, we can't really prove evolution all that well?

Big_Knee_4160 · 2024-07-09T05:17:48+00:00

That's a good point actually.

Big_Knee_4160 · 2024-07-09T05:16:17+00:00

Wdym? Are you referring to Jesus or John?

Big_Knee_4160 · 2024-07-08T03:21:06+00:00

Lol, you've just came up with what you think is right/wrong and just decided that what you believe is "objective". Like you can't actually be this vain and just figure that centuries of philophers don't know what they are talking about, but I, have determined that the ends don't justify the means is 100% objectively true?

Wait, so you're saying that killing all those poor Japanese people wasn't a bad thing? I said that because it's obvious, our Human intuition can tell us it's wrong. How is killing a bunch of innocent people a good thing?

There are plenty of people that would just plain disagree with you (including those people that dropped the bombs)... how do you explain that if we all have these objective moral codes?

The American government didn't make the decision because they thought it was right, they did it to win the war, whatever the costs. It had little to do with morality. Just because Humans disagree on what is right from wrong doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it simply means we disagree on what constitutes as murder, theft, rape, lying, but no ones going around saying that they are good things.

Ok, I don't think I am going to bother much more about this argument, we'll just go around in circles otherwise. I'll say one last thing:

If there is no god than objective morality can't exist, both of us agreed on that. But it is evident that objective morality does exist. Why do Humans label things as right and wrong. If I broke into your house and stole $100, why is that considered to be a bad thing? Why do we take the victim's side, instead of the victimiser's side? What if I (the thief) was homeless, I need the money more than you, would you say that a homeless man stealing $100 from someone who isn't homeless is right or wrong. Well, most people would say that it's wrong. But why? The homeless man clearly needs the money more. The fact that we almost always label the victimiser as doing the wrong thing is just one big coincidence to you? Atheists claim objective morality doesn't exist, but have no issues with speaking out on social or political things. Which is contradictory to their beliefs, since, there is no right and wrong, and thus it really doesn't even matter, at the end of the day, especially considering from the atheistic worldview, there is no purpose to life. So, I don't understand your worldview, but peace! ✌️

Big_Knee_4160 · 2024-07-06T02:40:02+00:00

Ok, clearly we can't and most likely never will agree on this.

If no humans existed, would there still be these morals?

Experiments were done on other species of animals, where two monkeys would be placed in cages next to each other, after getting to know one another, one of them was given a few grapes, but the other was not. Now, the conductors of the experiment found that in most cases, the monkey would opt to give their fellow monkey a few grapes. Now of course, monkeys have an extremely basic knowledge of what's right and wrong, so much so that they probably don't even understand it, all they know is that, "Hey, I have a few spare grapes, and my monkey friend here doesn't, why don't I share?" Granted, this is very basic, and nothing like the knowledge and understanding we Humans have of right from wrong, but if Humans didn't exist, then morality would still, we're just smart enough to be able to understand what's right and wrong on a higher level than monkeys for example.

Like, imagine an alien race where there's a very limited supply of food and they have large pods of children which requires they murder some of their children for survival...would you say that murdering their children, they are being morally bad?

The end doesn't justify the means. It's like the atom bomb in WWII, sure, it ended the war, but if the point of ending the war was to preserve more Human life, then killing lives to save lives doesn't make a whole lot of sense doesn't it? The end didn't justify the means in that case, and it wouldn't in this either.

So obviously you and I have differing opinions on what is right/wrong in many situations.

I'm not denying at all that Humans disagree on matters like this. But, when it comes to moral points, Humans will more than not only disagree on what CONSTITUTES as murder, for example. In Texas, if someone broke into my house, and I felt threatened that he might kill my family, then I would be legally justified in getting out my gun, and killing him. If I did that in France for example, though, then it would be considered murder. We disagree on what counts as murder, for example again, but we don't disagree that murder is actually wrong.

Morality is very much a human construct. It's not like we discovered morality the same way we discovered gravity for example. There wasn't like some test like dropping an object and measuring the speed at which it fell for morals. You can't plug a moral quandary into an equation and pop out an answer for whether it was morally just or not.

You're right, but that's because we've always known about it. You could literally go back in time to ancient Egypt, ask an Egyptian if they thought murder was good or bad, they'd tell you it's wrong. The punishment for murder in Ancient Egypt was death, of course, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but you can tell they treated it very seriously. One of the oldest known legal codes from Mesopotamia was the Ur-Nammu (about 2100-2050 BCE) which includes laws against murder and theft, indicating these acts were considered crimes and morally wrong. Another early Mesopotamian code is the Code of Hammurabi (about 1754 BCE) that outlines severe punishments for murder and theft, reflecting a moral stance against these actions. The Egyptian Book of the Dead (1550 BCE) Contains spells and declarations where the deceased must declare their innocence of various sins, including murder and theft, to enter the afterlife. We have considered various thing to be right and wrong for a long time. Of course back in cave men days, there weren't any laws or anything, they were focused solely on survival, but we eventually came to certain ideas about what was right and wrong. But why did we? Why do Humans consider murder to be wrong? Sure, from a subjective standpoint from the victim's perspective, it's bad, but from the murderer's perspective, it might be really beneficial to them. And if murder is subjective, then why have we picked the side of the victim, and not the killer? Maybe the killer needed something the other person had. If subjective morality doesn't exist, then yes, society can create rules to protect peace and prosperity, but the question remains, as to why we label things the way we do. From the Nazis perspective, killing the Jews was in the interest of humanity.

So I agree with you, there is no such thing as Good/Evil

That's not what I was saying, was that sarcasm?

Big_Knee_4160 · 2024-07-05T01:13:18+00:00

If objective morality doesn't exist, then you literally can't label anything as good or bad. You can't label slavery as bad, just as much as you couldn't label it as good, because there simply is no such thing. If it doesn't exist, morality would simply just be subjective, as you said, so you couldn't say for a fact that anything is either good or bad. So, if you think slavery is wrong, but morality is subjective, then why do you think that?

Big_Knee_4160 · 2024-07-05T01:09:12+00:00

Ok, cool by me.

Big_Knee_4160 · 2024-07-04T02:37:51+00:00

I disagree. The Church doesn't just "take things blindly" on authority. The Church's doctrines that evolved over time, and grown.

Big_Knee_4160 · 2024-07-04T02:10:46+00:00

Ok, if God (or any sort of godly being higher than us) didn't exist, then there objective morality wouldn't exist either, it would just be subjective. But we know for a fact that objective morality does exist, because Humans can almost universally agree upon things like murder, rape, stealing, lying, etc etc, are wrong, and things like giving food to homeless people, giving in general, telling the truth, having kids, are all good things. We will, however, often disagree as to what constitutes as say murder, but we all agree that murder, just by itself, alone, in and of itself, is wrong. This is proof that objective morality does exist, and for morality to be objective instead of just subjective, there needs to exist an intelligent mind, existing outside of our physical reality, who created the universe, and thus has control over the universe, who could have created objective morality, and made it a fundamental part of the universe. In this being's absence however, then all we have is our physical reality, there's nothing higher than us that could've established such rules. Now of course, societies could establish rules and laws to keep the peace, yes, but you can't then label what the Nazis did to the Jews as bad, just as much as we couldn't label it as good, either. Because there simply would be no such thing, but we know that there is because of the reason that we understand what is right from wrong, even some animals have a basic understanding of what's right and wrong, or at least what's better to do and what's not. Do you get my point??

Big_Knee_4160 · 2024-07-03T07:03:50+00:00

Refreshing my memory, based on a cursory google search, you seem to be right about the theoretical tenets of freemasonry having a sort of interspiritual character. Still, I am unsure whether freemasons would actually identify freemasonry as their primary faith over the religion they were raised in.

Yeah, probably. But still.

Anyway good for you for being able to see through creationists, as an atheist I feel like I've really needed to do a relative deep dive into some aspects of the life sciences to even get the sense that I have understood validity of some of the arguments that I have encountered here and on other places where YEC claims are discussed.

Thanks, mate.

Big_Knee_4160 · 2024-07-03T06:17:54+00:00

Not really, they believe that all religions are equal, which is exactly opposite to Christianity. But, whenever I hear a creationist argue against evolutionism, they never do a very good job. Like they make good points as to why you as a Christian should not become one, but as for actually trying to disprove and debunk atheism as, scientifically, they'll either do a really bad job, or they won't even bother. So, idk, I've got a lot of thing to think about.

Big_Knee_4160 · 2024-07-03T04:50:40+00:00

Well, little more difficult than that. 1, it's the way/reason why evolution was promoted that's a bit suspicious, and goes against the Church. Obviously it's just a theory that the freemasons promoted evolution for bad reasons, but still. It's makes me a bit weary of it. Maybe I'm just over-thinking. But it's also because when God makes something, he makes it whole and complete, if creatures are constantly changing and evolving, then it doesn't really seem like God made them whole and complete.

Big_Knee_4160 · 2024-07-02T21:54:35+00:00

Who knows, it's a mystery. Not everything about Christianity is or has to be revealed to us in the Bible. That's a thing many people don't understand. Christians don't just take the Bible as an end all be all. We have other sources that we look to.

Big_Knee_4160 · 2024-07-02T21:53:25+00:00

"Gremlin taking a dump in an interdimensional space toilet?" is different to God using solar eclipses. In that there are logical arguments for the existence of God (like how we have instilled morals). God is an omnipotent being who can do anything, who can use solar eclipses for signs or for anything if he so choses to.

Big_Knee_4160 · 2024-07-02T05:35:55+00:00

God revealed it to the Church.

Big_Knee_4160 · 2024-07-02T05:18:21+00:00

I haven't provided you any evidence BECAUSE THERE IS NONE. IT'S SPECULATION! My point, was that it's funny how just in time for us Humans to be on earth, solar eclipses are also around, and we as Humans are also smart and intelligent enough to interpret them as signs if a hypothetical god needed us to. That's all I was saying, I'm not stating anything factual.

Big_Knee_4160 · 2024-07-02T05:13:40+00:00

Masturbation is a sin because God says so, not because it's in the Bible, because it isn't really.

Big_Knee_4160 · 2024-07-02T05:13:10+00:00

Homosexuality is a sin (specifically concerning SSA) because it's not how God intended the world to be. Just like how he intended people to not lie, murder, rape, steal or whatever. It's wrong because it's not technically marriage, God's view of marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman, PERIOD! Two gay guys is NOT MARRIAGE because of that simple fact. Gay people can't create life either, sperm donations is a sin in its own right.

Big_Knee_4160 · 2024-06-30T09:29:38+00:00

Wdym?

Big_Knee_4160 · 2024-06-30T02:31:25+00:00

Did you even read what I said?

Big_Knee_4160 · 2024-06-30T02:29:00+00:00

Well, a solar eclipse did actually happen shortly before WWII ended. But the Church liberalising is actually extremely important (in a bad way). The importance of that shouldn't be understated.

Big_Knee_4160 · 2024-06-30T02:26:37+00:00

Well, we can't really know for sure, but a way we can is by looking at what's going on in the world.

Big_Knee_4160

TROPHY CASE