You have not presented any objective basis for any of your opinions. You have stated a belief that society is somehow failing (I’m paraphrasing from memory) but you haven’t stated or otherwise identified any sort of objective foundation for that belief.
I have presented an opposing opinion, supported with my subjective foundations, to whit: the advancement of LGBTQ acceptance and reproductive rights. You’ve pointed to some nebulous concepts, and (falsely) declared them objective truths. (Again, paraphrasing).
You keep claiming the ability to maintain objectivity, but you have not even demonstrated comprehension of the concept.
If you want specifics that is fine, you just have to ask. The main problem that I think is happening is that people dont have any real purpose outside of religion. What they tend to have is beliefs in things that are manufactured problems, or there is no real solution to, or are not problems as all. For example, antifa will burn down cities to fights against racism or something, when of all the problems that we have, racism is pretty small. Or on the other hand the bigger problem is that maybe the majority dont have any purpose at all and will just seek out pleasure, which is society killer.
The main problem that I think is happening is that people dont have any real purpose outside of religion
That is a subjective opinion. That is your subjective opinion. That is not you separating yourself from your own beliefs. That is not you presenting an objective fact to support your opinion, or taking a broader look at culture. That is you presenting your opinion.
There’s nothing wrong with developing a subjective opinion, until you claim it is something other than a subjective opinion.
Do not elevate opinions beyond the mind that created them.
Of course that is your opinion, you have been trained by the modern atheist types that religion is bad and that when its gone the world will be a better place. That idea is so obviously wrong with just a momentary glace at history.
There is a distinct possibility that God exists. There’s another distinct possibility…
Scientists conduct experiments. Trials. They want to see if a drug is effective, so they arrange two groups of people, give one the drug, and the other a placebo. A “blinded” study. They hide as much of the study as the can from the participants, to rule out confirmation bias and other experimental errors.
When these scientists discover that their subjects have become aware of experimental conditions, the data is contaminated from that point forward.
Scientists don’t just conduct experiments on people. They also conduct experiments on lab rats. They have a grand purpose for each and every rat in their study, but that purpose is to further development of a drug that will be used to save humans. They are completely unconcerned with the lives of their rats. The wants, needs, and noble purposes the rats might have for their own rat society.
The interesting part is when the scientists realize that the rats have discovered the scientists, the experiment. When they comprehend the objective of the scientists. What happens when the rats become unblinded to the experiment?
To answer your question, the likelihood that the Christian god exists is about as high as the likelihood of God being the principal investigator in some cosmic study, and our reward for discovering him is annihilation.
You have not presented any objective basis for any of your opinions. You have stated a belief that society is somehow failing (I’m paraphrasing from memory) but you haven’t stated or otherwise identified any sort of objective foundation for that belief.
I have presented an opposing opinion, supported with my subjective foundations, to whit: the advancement of LGBTQ acceptance and reproductive rights. You’ve pointed to some nebulous concepts, and (falsely) declared them objective truths. (Again, paraphrasing).
You keep claiming the ability to maintain objectivity, but you have not even demonstrated comprehension of the concept.
If you want specifics that is fine, you just have to ask. The main problem that I think is happening is that people dont have any real purpose outside of religion. What they tend to have is beliefs in things that are manufactured problems, or there is no real solution to, or are not problems as all. For example, antifa will burn down cities to fights against racism or something, when of all the problems that we have, racism is pretty small. Or on the other hand the bigger problem is that maybe the majority dont have any purpose at all and will just seek out pleasure, which is society killer.
That is a subjective opinion. That is your subjective opinion. That is not you separating yourself from your own beliefs. That is not you presenting an objective fact to support your opinion, or taking a broader look at culture. That is you presenting your opinion.
There’s nothing wrong with developing a subjective opinion, until you claim it is something other than a subjective opinion.
Do not elevate opinions beyond the mind that created them.
Sure its subjective, but the results of known, so we can make a judgment on their value as purposes.
Yes, we certainly can.
My judgment is that this opinion is a crock. The value I place on it is “worthless drivel”.
My judgment and value is, of course, a subjective opinion itself, with no inherent value greater (or lesser) than your own.
Of course that is your opinion, you have been trained by the modern atheist types that religion is bad and that when its gone the world will be a better place. That idea is so obviously wrong with just a momentary glace at history.
You’ve been brainwashed by the clergy into that mindset. That idea is so obviously wrong with just a momentary glance at rationality.
What if you were brain washed into what you believe? What are the chances there is a God in your guestimation?
Ah, we’re going to explore Pascal’s wager?
There is a distinct possibility that God exists. There’s another distinct possibility…
Scientists conduct experiments. Trials. They want to see if a drug is effective, so they arrange two groups of people, give one the drug, and the other a placebo. A “blinded” study. They hide as much of the study as the can from the participants, to rule out confirmation bias and other experimental errors.
When these scientists discover that their subjects have become aware of experimental conditions, the data is contaminated from that point forward.
Scientists don’t just conduct experiments on people. They also conduct experiments on lab rats. They have a grand purpose for each and every rat in their study, but that purpose is to further development of a drug that will be used to save humans. They are completely unconcerned with the lives of their rats. The wants, needs, and noble purposes the rats might have for their own rat society.
The interesting part is when the scientists realize that the rats have discovered the scientists, the experiment. When they comprehend the objective of the scientists. What happens when the rats become unblinded to the experiment?
To answer your question, the likelihood that the Christian god exists is about as high as the likelihood of God being the principal investigator in some cosmic study, and our reward for discovering him is annihilation.