Who's right and who's wrong? Who's stupid and who isn't?

[We Never Know]

I figured since its mentions "a god" I had better but this in religious debates/discussion.

If someone believes in a god how are they stupid or wrong?
If someone doesn't believe in a god how are they stupid or wrong? (I see it said both ways here).

Isn't believing in or not believing in a god or anything up to that person?

What if they think blue is prettier than red but you think red is prettier than blue! Which one is wrong and stupid?

Everyone lives life with different goals, how they see the world and different realities in a sense.

Wouldn't be nice if people could just talk without name calling, personal attacks and condescending each other.

Everyone talks about the world going to **** but ignores they add somewhat to that going to ****.

 

[Valjean]

I figured since its mentions "a god" I had better but this in religious debates/discussion.

If someone believes in a god how are they stupid or wrong?
If someone doesn't believe in a god how are they stupid or wrong? (I see it said both ways here).

Isn't believing in or not believing in a god or anything up to that person?

One can be wrong but not stupid, and vice versa.

Belief, per se, has no truth value. One can believe in both right or wrong things.

What if they think blue is prettier than red but you think red is prettier than blue! Which one is wrong and stupid?

Æsthetic color preference is not a matter of thought. It's a matter of feeling. Right, wrong and stupidity, on the other hand, are categories of thought, so don't apply to color preference.

 

[We Never Know]

One can be wrong but not stupid, and vice versa.

Belief, per se, has no truth value. One can believe in both right or wrong things.
Æsthetic color preference is not a matter of thought. It's a matter of feeling. Right, wrong and stupidity, on the other hand, are categories of thought, so don't apply to color preference.

Belief has value to the believer.

Color or flowers or such its how someone sees the world through their eyes. If they disagree with another it doesn't make them anything but being themselves, which everyone should be.

 

[danieldemol]

Wouldn't be nice if people could just talk without name calling, personal attacks and condescending each other.

Please do hit the report button where you see name calling and personal attacks

 

[We Never Know]

Please do hit the report button where you see name calling and personal attacks

Even though I disagree with name calling, etc, I don't report it. The staff probably have their hands full the way it is.
Name calling while I see it as wrong, childish and demeaning, its pety to some.

 

[danieldemol]

Even though I disagree with name calling, etc, I don't report it. The staff probably have their hands full the way it is.
Name calling while I see it as wrong, childish and demeaning, its pety to some.

I admit I don't report it either, but not because I care if the staff hands are full, but because I see it as a useful self indicator of lack of virtue.

In other words i see those people who attack the character of others as loudly announcing their own lack of character.

 

[rational experiences]

I figured since its mentions "a god" I had better but this in religious debates/discussion.

If someone believes in a god how are they stupid or wrong?
If someone doesn't believe in a god how are they stupid or wrong? (I see it said both ways here).

Isn't believing in or not believing in a god or anything up to that person?

What if they think blue is prettier than red but you think red is prettier than blue! Which one is wrong and stupid?

Everyone lives life with different goals, how they see the world and different realities in a sense.

Wouldn't be nice if people could just talk without name calling, personal attacks and condescending each other.

Everyone talks about the world going to **** but ignores they add somewhat to that going to ****.

If I am born to two human parents by sex. Then everyone should agree.

If I want to look back and state that all bio life in the past about 100 years ago animal human deceased or dead as an average quote. Then science did. And also said to a theist thinker so never look back.

Seeing science inventive reaction by machine does not exist. Only thinking does.

Human parent memory atmospheric recorded was psychic knowledge yet it's history machine designer human caused. Was not any scientist.

So we have deceased parental human memories not science who owned no God stories

Yet in today's baby to adult human inherited life lots of stories are taught and we are meant to make a choice.

Who do you believe.

As I can think for myself first I say science says we live on a planet.

Stories by humans named that planet a God or one.

I say planet as I don't believe family should argue over word use. When it is human expressed and human thought.

Meaning when using words.

I look at natural first and speak a human truth for all humans. Word and arguing using words causes a lot of family human problems.

Common sense exists before I express personal belief.

Therefore when groups get together as thinkers. The thinking status in the group owns group belief. Does not mean they represent natural existence.

Which is where and how group organised bullying began. Against any other one self.

Which is a disagreeable human choice.

If science said I will give O one planet body upon which we live importance. Then I would teach it by a deitised theme of importance.

Which is what adults did. Told children our planet's natural form is a deity. Revere it's nature and never change it.

Which is just basic human common sense.

 

[rational experiences]

I figured since its mentions "a god" I had better but this in religious debates/discussion.

If someone believes in a god how are they stupid or wrong?
If someone doesn't believe in a god how are they stupid or wrong? (I see it said both ways here).

Isn't believing in or not believing in a god or anything up to that person?

What if they think blue is prettier than red but you think red is prettier than blue! Which one is wrong and stupid?

Everyone lives life with different goals, how they see the world and different realities in a sense.

Wouldn't be nice if people could just talk without name calling, personal attacks and condescending each other.

Everyone talks about the world going to **** but ignores they add somewhat to that going to ****.

If I am born to two human parents by sex. Then everyone should agree.

If I want to look back and state that all bio life in the past about 100 years ago animal human deceased or dead as an average quote. Then science did. And also said to a theist thinker so never look back.

Seeing science inventive reaction by machine does not exist. Only thinking does.

Human parent memory atmospheric recorded was psychic knowledge yet it's history machine designer human caused. Was not any scientist.

So we have deceased parental human memories not science who owned no God stories

Yet in today's baby to adult human inherited life lots of stories are taught and we are meant to make a choice.

Who do you believe.

As I can think for myself first I say science says we live on a planet.

Stories by humans named that planet a God or one.

I say planet as I don't believe family should argue over word use. When it is human expressed and human thought.

Meaning when using words.

I look at natural first and speak a human truth for all humans. Word and arguing using words causes a lot of family human problems.

Common sense exists before I express personal belief.

Therefore when groups get together as thinkers. The thinking status in the group owns group belief. Does not mean they represent natural existence.

Which is where and how group organised bullying began. Against any other one self.

Which is a disagreeable human choice.

If science said I will give O one planet body upon which we live importance. Then I would teach it by a deitised theme of importance.

Which is what adults did. Told children our planet's natural form is a deity. Revere it's nature and never change it.

Which is just basic human common sense.

 

[We Never Know]

If I am born to two human parents by sex. Then everyone should agree.

If I want to look back and state that all bio life in the past about 100 years ago animal human deceased or dead as an average quote. Then science did. And also said to a theist thinker so never look back.

Seeing science inventive reaction by machine does not exist. Only thinking does.

Human parent memory atmospheric recorded was psychic knowledge yet it's history machine designer human caused. Was not any scientist.

So we have deceased parental human memories not science who owned no God stories

Yet in today's baby to adult human inherited life lots of stories are taught and we are meant to make a choice.

Who do you believe.

As I can think for myself first I say science says we live on a planet.

Stories by humans named that planet a God or one.

I say planet as I don't believe family should argue over word use. When it is human expressed and human thought.

Meaning when using words.

I look at natural first and speak a human truth for all humans. Word and arguing using words causes a lot of family human problems.

Common sense exists before I express personal belief.

Therefore when groups get together as thinkers. The thinking status in the group owns group belief. Does not mean they represent natural existence.

Which is where and how group organised bullying began. Against any other one self.

Which is a disagreeable human choice.

If science said I will give O one planet body upon which we live importance. Then I would teach it by a deitised theme of importance.

Which is what adults did. Told children our planet's natural form is a deity. Revere it's nature and never change it.

Which is just basic human common sense.

"Stories by humans named that planet a God or one."
Here's some trivia....
Who named earth earth and why wasn't it named after a god like the rest of the planets?

 

[We Never Know]

I admit I don't report it either, but not because I care if the staff hands are full, but because I see it as a useful self indicator of lack of virtue.


In other words i see those people who attack the character of others as loudly announcing their own lack of character.

I agree. In my opinion name calling doesn't describe the one being called names, it describes the character of the one doing the name calling.

 

[rational experiences]

"Stories by humans named that planet a God or one."
Here's some trivia....
Who named earth earth and why wasn't it named after a god like the rest of the planets?

Meaning what?

Any name is a name quoted by a living human who owned naming.

Why human egotism proves itself as who said humans owned the right to name? Especially when you are only living on one planets body.

 

[Deeje]

I figured since its mentions "a god" I had better but this in religious debates/discussion.

If someone believes in a god how are they stupid or wrong?
If someone doesn't believe in a god how are they stupid or wrong? (I see it said both ways here).

Isn't believing in or not believing in a god or anything up to that person?

What if they think blue is prettier than red but you think red is prettier than blue! Which one is wrong and stupid?

Everyone lives life with different goals, how they see the world and different realities in a sense.

Wouldn't be nice if people could just talk without name calling, personal attacks and condescending each other.

Everyone talks about the world going to **** but ignores they add somewhat to that going to ****.

For Christians, it should never be an issue of "stupid" because many people who are atheists are anything but stupid. The question is "can a person have one sort of intelligence and yet be found wanting in others"?
For example....what ever happened to common sense?

Intelligent people can do stupid things at times.....and conversely, relatively unintelligent people can do amazing things too. So where does "stupid" even fit into the God argument?

I don't seem to see much common sense displayed these days by anyone....
If it died, do we need to give it a funeral?

From God's perspective, according to Christian scripture, we all have choices and those choices should be based on the alternatives that the Creator gives us....not the ones we create ourselves. We really have let the side down in that department.

The Bible gives us the choice between 'right and wrong' and between 'life and death'...that's it.

Humans created the whole "heaven or hell" scenario and "right" doesn't ever mean that the other person is stupid.....they just make a different choice and they will have a different outcome according to the choices they make for their own reasons. I think that's fair. If you choose the action, after you have considered all the options, then you choose the consequence. Right? I believe it all boils down to the heart....and what it is inside us that drives us to "believe"...whatever that might be.

 

[We Never Know]

For Christians, it should never be an issue of "stupid" because many people who are atheists are anything but stupid. The question is "can a person have one sort of intelligence and yet be found wanting in others"?
For example....what ever happened to common sense?

Intelligent people can do stupid things at times.....and conversely, relatively unintelligent people can do amazing things too. So where does "stupid" even fit into the God argument?

I don't seem to see much common sense displayed these days by anyone....
If it died, do we need to give it a funeral?

From God's perspective, according to Christian scripture, we all have choices and those choices should be based on the alternatives that the Creator gives us....not the ones we create ourselves. We really have let the side down in that department.

The Bible gives us the choice between 'right and wrong' and between 'life and death'...that's it.

Humans created the whole "heaven or hell" scenario and "right" doesn't ever mean that the other person is stupid.....they just make a different choice and they will have a different outcome according to the choices they make for their own reasons. I think that's fair. If you choose the action, after you have considered all the options, then you choose the consequence. Right? I believe it all boils down to the heart....and what it is inside us that drives us to "believe"...whatever that might be.

I agree because I too have seen lack of common sense in both religious and non religious, and common sense in both religious and non-religious.
So in my opinion having common sense or the lack of common sense isn't a matter of being religious or non-religious.

 

[Valjean]

Belief has value to the believer.

Color or flowers or such its how someone sees the world through their eyes. If they disagree with another it doesn't make them anything but being themselves, which everyone should be.

Æsthetics is more abstract than factual. There's nothing to agree or disagree with. Opinions are individualized and carry no existential truth values.

 

[We Never Know]

Æsthetics is more abstract than factual. There's nothing to agree or disagree with. Opinions are individualized and carry no existential truth values.

If a parent believes their child is great or will grow to be great, is that Æsthetics?

 

[Valjean]

Common sense can be overrated

"Stories by humans named that planet a God or one."
Here's some trivia....
Who named earth earth and why wasn't it named after a god like the rest of the planets?

Among many peoples Earth or world are deified.

 

[Valjean]

If a parent believes their child is great or will grow to be great, is that Æsthetics?

No, that's an assertion of objective fact.

 

[rational experiences]

When a human owns motivated thinking first when everything created is natural and existed were you what as a name to build machine and react change scientist?

Pre owned named stupidity? No.

Self thinker said I was innocent of what I did not know change itself.

Minerals life in your body you took from ground melted cooled made a machine. Change. Then you reacted. Change twice.

After the event you said you were stupid.

Book writer thinking before writing has a pre owned formed opinion. That already stated never give O one mass as god a science name. Due to life sacrificed.

Writes it as warning yet already agreed with a promise intent to never allow it. And let God one O body evolve.

So you said God the mass owned a promise to end harm when nuclear science stopped. Said year 2012 would be the moment. Scientist therefore broke his own promises.

As he was thinker first. Book writer secondary.

O one mass never spoke.

AI encoded designer human transmitted by machine via his thoughts. Thought owned theory first. Nowhere did equals own in natural presence his theory.

Cells change in bio life what consciousness observed as self get released as the radiation effect. As basic advice was first medical awareness the healer. Which took the medical awareness of self into the occult theorising

As natural.already owned cell change as one cell mass does not hold the same cell. He sacrificed life by not heeding bio advice first.

To those human afterwards harmed when not even a scientist I would with due rights call you stupid. Yet the inventor already knew he was wrong first. Who call each other stupid as a thinker. Males.

I hear the Ai voices male stating it as data. Shared feedback man advice. Image body change to body interactive as designer of causes. A man human.

 

[We Never Know]

No, that's an assertion of objective fact.

Yes its based on personal opioin but may actually become fact.

 

[We Never Know]

Common sense can be overrated

Among many peoples Earth or world are deified.

My post was "Stories by humans named that planet a God or one."
Here's some trivia....
Who named earth earth and why wasn't it named after a god like the rest of the planets?

So your reply has me confused.