In the beginning...

[Ryantology]

My diagram would look exactly like his, but with Christianity on the outside and he's walling himself into atheism. By limiting his scope of knowledge, he's making himself less free, not more.

How is he limiting his knowledge? Any presupposition which never progresses beyond presupposition is not knowledge. If I am to be as generous as I can be, Christianity can never be more than an educated guess, and it almost never even approaches that. That isn't knowledge. The last 400 years of science has demonstrated loudly that even if every single word of the Bible is absolutely valid, the Christian religion does not even begin anything but the most insignificant sliver of the truth of the universe and what is in it. The Bible isn't even aware of a universe beyond a tiny backwater of the planet it's set on. With many major sects of Christianity at war with science to some varying degree, it is hard to say that the religion encourages understanding beyond what it purports to provide. Therefore, the diagram above is a very accurate depiction.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

Yes. The guy says Christians believe the bible is inspired because its just so rooted in the brain. I called this "presuppositions" and it is what he actually makes his argument against. He has the standard evangelical definition of faith as "blind trust". This teaching wrong. If you learn, your faith grows. Never should it be encouraged to "to put aside the experience and intellect supposedly given to us by God – and to blindly 'just believe.'" That is garbage from lazy pastors with no education. He then claims those same presuppositions make us "condemn" ourselves, which I'll concede to.

I think his conclusion "the presuppositions are wrong" is wrong. Instead, I think everyone has presuppositions, including atheists. To evaluate independently of presuppositions is a great skill that allows for more truth. This "more truth" over time becomes another presupposition. The knowledge being a presupposition doesn't make it false, it's just the principles by which the brain operates. My diagram would look exactly like his, but with Christianity on the outside and he's walling himself into atheism. By limiting his scope of knowledge, he's making himself less free, not more.

Those are a lot of words which are not quite coherent but you have one common point that is clearly in error. ALL knowledge must be founded on the observation of physical evidence.

One can only validate a presupposition by using physical evidence. If it cannot be validated then it is of no interest. It may or may not be correct but you cannot know.

Another point is your consistent use of one word, Christianity. Which Christianity? 7th Day Adventist, Roman Catholic, Unitarian or some other? I have picked ones which preclude some pious gibberish claiming they are all the same. I mean, does Christianity have a trinity or not?

[Tex]

My diagram would look exactly like his, but with Christianity on the outside and he's walling himself into atheism. By limiting his scope of knowledge, he's making himself less free, not more.

How is he limiting his knowledge? Any presupposition which never progresses beyond presupposition is not knowledge. If I am to be as generous as I can be, Christianity can never be more than an educated guess, and it almost never even approaches that. That isn't knowledge. The last 400 years of science has demonstrated loudly that even if every single word of the Bible is absolutely valid, the Christian religion does not even begin anything but the most insignificant sliver of the truth of the universe and what is in it. The Bible isn't even aware of a universe beyond a tiny backwater of the planet it's set on. With many major sects of Christianity at war with science to some varying degree, it is hard to say that the religion encourages understanding beyond what it purports to provide. Therefore, the diagram above is a very accurate depiction.

Thank you for providing the perfect example, Ryan.

Ryan here is limiting his knowledge through his own presuppositions, which can through little or no effort be brought to light. When Ryan says, "The last 400 years of science has demonstrated loudly that even if every single word of the Bible is absolutely valid...", he is actually making a claim against God rather than physics. He cannot see this because, like the article states, his mind is conditioned to this. God, being able to spawn matter at will, probably can do miracles, which would take even less of a feat than that. This limitation has made Ryan think that the entirety of Christianity is the Jewish version of redneck superstition. There is little to be done with Ryan until he himself realizes the shell he's created.

Other examples of Ryan's shell includes, " The Bible isn't even aware of a universe beyond a tiny backwater of the planet it's set on." This statement allows us to know that Ryan holds the presupposition that any book trying to teach that doesn't care about the physical is worthless. However, I also believe he allows for the contradiction of other books, mostly due to a greater presupposition that "the bible is wrong and bad".

Finally, Ryan's last presupposition is here: "With many major sects of Christianity at war with science to some varying degree, it is hard to say that the religion encourages understanding beyond what it purports to provide." Apparently, there is a war between religion and science, and he has taken a side. This, too, limits his knowledge. More rational people would consider this the same as arguing that large scale physics (black holes, etc.) is better than small scale physics (quarks, etc.). However, because of his own presupposition, Ryan cannot even process this information. He probably will think that this is completely ridiculous, but these are the walls he set up and the walls he must take down.

Join us next time on PSYCHOANALYZING RYANTOLOGY!

Yes. The guy says Christians believe the bible is inspired because its just so rooted in the brain. I called this "presuppositions" and it is what he actually makes his argument against. He has the standard evangelical definition of faith as "blind trust". This teaching wrong. If you learn, your faith grows. Never should it be encouraged to "to put aside the experience and intellect supposedly given to us by God – and to blindly 'just believe.'" That is garbage from lazy pastors with no education. He then claims those same presuppositions make us "condemn" ourselves, which I'll concede to.

I think his conclusion "the presuppositions are wrong" is wrong. Instead, I think everyone has presuppositions, including atheists. To evaluate independently of presuppositions is a great skill that allows for more truth. This "more truth" over time becomes another presupposition. The knowledge being a presupposition doesn't make it false, it's just the principles by which the brain operates. My diagram would look exactly like his, but with Christianity on the outside and he's walling himself into atheism. By limiting his scope of knowledge, he's making himself less free, not more.

Those are a lot of words which are not quite coherent but you have one common point that is clearly in error. ALL knowledge must be founded on the observation of physical evidence.

One can only validate a presupposition by using physical evidence. If it cannot be validated then it is of no interest. It may or may not be correct but you cannot know.

Another point is your consistent use of one word, Christianity. Which Christianity? 7th Day Adventist, Roman Catholic, Unitarian or some other? I have picked ones which preclude some pious gibberish claiming they are all the same. I mean, does Christianity have a trinity or not?

First Paragraph: There is ontological thought, which needs no physical evidence. However, largely, the physical is a part of most knowledge.

Second: One can only validate a presupposition by using logic. If you needed physical evidence to validate a presupposition, you would need physical evidence to validate that physical evidence is needed to validate a presupposition.

Third: I'm not concerned with denominations. I'm concerned with truth. If I say "Roman Catholicism", I also deny the authority of the pontiff, purgatory, and prayer to saints (including Mary). If I say "Swedenborgian", I also deny modalism. If I say "Tex-ism", I believe all I believe to be true, but I have areas which I don't have knowledge, areas that have not been properly examined, and areas that I may be flat wrong in.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

How is he limiting his knowledge? Any presupposition which never progresses beyond presupposition is not knowledge. If I am to be as generous as I can be, Christianity can never be more than an educated guess, and it almost never even approaches that. That isn't knowledge. The last 400 years of science has demonstrated loudly that even if every single word of the Bible is absolutely valid, the Christian religion does not even begin anything but the most insignificant sliver of the truth of the universe and what is in it. The Bible isn't even aware of a universe beyond a tiny backwater of the planet it's set on. With many major sects of Christianity at war with science to some varying degree, it is hard to say that the religion encourages understanding beyond what it purports to provide. Therefore, the diagram above is a very accurate depiction.

Thank you for providing the perfect example, Ryan.

Ryan here is limiting his knowledge through his own presuppositions, which can through little or no effort be brought to light. When Ryan says, "The last 400 years of science has demonstrated loudly that even if every single word of the Bible is absolutely valid...", he is actually making a claim against God rather than physics. He cannot see this because, like the article states, his mind is conditioned to this. God, being able to spawn matter at will, probably can do miracles, which would take even less of a feat than that. This limitation has made Ryan think that the entirety of Christianity is the Jewish version of redneck superstition. There is little to be done with Ryan until he himself realizes the shell he's created.

All this time you have been saying your god spawned physics making physics a subset of your god. The only possible consequence of that is "making something out of nothing" has no meaning in that there is only an issue with making something out of nothing is only after the arbitrary rules your god decided on for this universe. It is not rational to assume making something out of nothing is an issue external to the rules of this universe.

Other examples of Ryan's shell includes, " The Bible isn't even aware of a universe beyond a tiny backwater of the planet it's set on." This statement allows us to know that Ryan holds the presupposition that any book trying to teach that doesn't care about the physical is worthless. However, I also believe he allows for the contradiction of other books, mostly due to a greater presupposition that "the bible is wrong and bad".

Why am I not impressed with your presupposition that it is designed to teach? You do not like his assumption and you respond by inventing your own assumption. That is not a rational response.

Finally, Ryan's last presupposition is here: "With many major sects of Christianity at war with science to some varying degree, it is hard to say that the religion encourages understanding beyond what it purports to provide." Apparently, there is a war between religion and science, and he has taken a side. This, too, limits his knowledge. More rational people would consider this the same as arguing that large scale physics (black holes, etc.) is better than small scale physics (quarks, etc.). However, because of his own presupposition, Ryan cannot even process this information. He probably will think that this is completely ridiculous, but these are the walls he set up and the walls he must take down.

Join us next time on PSYCHOANALYZING RYANTOLOGY!

He has taken the side which has increased the well-being of the human race in the last couple centuries thousands of times more than all the god belief in all history. One the science side one can pick even the simplest single examples such as antibiotics and challenge the believer to name anything comparable from the realm of religion. Religion never has anything to contribute. Even the very concept of a god and religion has gotten in the way of learning how the universe works as it does not work in the manner believers claim.

---

Those are a lot of words which are not quite coherent but you have one common point that is clearly in error. ALL knowledge must be founded on the observation of physical evidence.

One can only validate a presupposition by using physical evidence. If it cannot be validated then it is of no interest. It may or may not be correct but you cannot know.

Another point is your consistent use of one word, Christianity. Which Christianity? 7th Day Adventist, Roman Catholic, Unitarian or some other? I have picked ones which preclude some pious gibberish claiming they are all the same. I mean, does Christianity have a trinity or not?

First Paragraph: There is ontological thought, which needs no physical evidence. However, largely, the physical is a part of most knowledge.

Let me call bullshit on that one. Please produce an example of this "ontological thought" which is completely and totally independent of physical evidence. That does mean a thought which has no reference whatsoever to any sensory input whatsoever meaning no knowledge of this universe in any form. Rotsa Ruck! Any reference to anything in this universe is a reference to physical evidence by definition.

Second: One can only validate a presupposition by using logic. If you needed physical evidence to validate a presupposition, you would need physical evidence to validate that physical evidence is needed to validate a presupposition.

Premises are the basis of logic. If A and B then C. A and B are your assumptions (presupposition is such a pompous word for assumption) can only be from observations which is essentially the same as physical evidence. Physical evidence is all there is. It is only observation. A mind without any sensory input means a mind without input and as such has nothing to think about.

Third: I'm not concerned with denominations. I'm concerned with truth. If I say "Roman Catholicism", I also deny the authority of the pontiff, purgatory, and prayer to saints (including Mary). If I say "Swedenborgian", I also deny modalism. If I say "Tex-ism", I believe all I believe to be true, but I have areas which I don't have knowledge, areas that have not been properly examined, and areas that I may be flat wrong in.

Your lack of concern with denominations is no different from no concern for religion yet you keep using the term Christianity. Please explain what you are trying to convey as Christianity conveys no information other than a number of cults that have some degree of connection to the Yahweh cult of Judea that appeared after the 1st c. AD and down to the present day. This of course includes gnosticism and deism and the dozens if not hundreds of others that have mostly disappeared.

In Deism for example the bible teaches, OT and NT, nothing as it is solely the invention of men yet you have claimed more than that for it. So absent an explanation you might as well write spoonerity in place of Christianity without definition of the latter the former is the as. ALL undefined terms are equally nonsense.

[Tex]

All this time you have been saying your god spawned physics making physics a subset of your god. The only possible consequence of that is "making something out of nothing" has no meaning in that there is only an issue with making something out of nothing is only after the arbitrary rules your god decided on for this universe. It is not rational to assume making something out of nothing is an issue external to the rules of this universe.

The universe is "like" God because it is ordered. The universe is not "part of" God any more that a child is a part of their parent (conception isn't ex nihilo either). A liver is a part of the parent, a set of lungs is a part of the parent, but the child is independent.

Why am I not impressed with your presupposition that it is designed to teach? You do not like his assumption and you respond by inventing your own assumption. That is not a rational response.

Then why did they write it down? Record keeping is a healthy part of intentional distribution of knowledge.

He has taken the side which has increased the well-being of the human race in the last couple centuries thousands of times more than all the god belief in all history. One the science side one can pick even the simplest single examples such as antibiotics and challenge the believer to name anything comparable from the realm of religion. Religion never has anything to contribute. Even the very concept of a god and religion has gotten in the way of learning how the universe works as it does not work in the manner believers claim.

Looks like you fall into that "pick a side" crap too. So many similarities. Perhaps I can have a spin-off show called "PSYCHOANALYZE A_NONY_MOUSE!" Anyway, science are competing for completely different things. Science is for advancement in technology and understanding of the physical world, while religion is for the advancement of human morality and understanding of things not of this world. Why even compare them? Apples vs. oranges everyone.

But while I'm here, science teaches you how to make atomic reactions, but morality tells if you can use a big one over the top of a city or not. Science is not everything.

Let me call bullshit on that one. Please produce an example of this "ontological thought" which is completely and totally independent of physical evidence. That does mean a thought which has no reference whatsoever to any sensory input whatsoever meaning no knowledge of this universe in any form. Rotsa Ruck! Any reference to anything in this universe is a reference to physical evidence by definition.

I exist.

Note: "I" is not my body (nor "in my body" nor is it my soul).

Premises are the basis of logic. If A and B then C. A and B are your assumptions (presupposition is such a pompous word for assumption) can only be from observations which is essentially the same as physical evidence. Physical evidence is all there is. It is only observation. A mind without any sensory input means a mind without input and as such has nothing to think about.

If A and B can be supported, I call them presuppositions. If they're not, I call them assumptions. Sorry for the confusion.

You're also using the brain/mind fallacy, but that's probably not worth discussing here.

You cannot observe the future or the past, but only the present. Obviously, science and history speak about both of these non-observable things. Are science and history futile?

Your lack of concern with denominations is no different from no concern for religion yet you keep using the term Christianity. Please explain what you are trying to convey as Christianity conveys no information other than a number of cults that have some degree of connection to the Yahweh cult of Judea that appeared after the 1st c. AD and down to the present day. This of course includes gnosticism and deism and the dozens if not hundreds of others that have mostly disappeared.

I'm trying to convey truth. Nothing more. If you're look for my theological beliefs, I hold to the the creeds of Nicaea, Constantinople, and the Athanasius.

In Deism for example the bible teaches, OT and NT, nothing as it is solely the invention of men yet you have claimed more than that for it. So absent an explanation you might as well write spoonerity in place of Christianity without definition of the latter the former is the as. ALL undefined terms are equally nonsense.

I don't sit in any denomination. I am conservative Christian, and borrow from Catholics heavily, but I'm not catholic nor desire to be catholic. Call me "Christian" since I desire to be "relating to Christ".

[A_Nony_Mouse]

All this time you have been saying your god spawned physics making physics a subset of your god. The only possible consequence of that is "making something out of nothing" has no meaning in that there is only an issue with making something out of nothing is only after the arbitrary rules your god decided on for this universe. It is not rational to assume making something out of nothing is an issue external to the rules of this universe.

The universe is "like" God because it is ordered. The universe is not "part of" God any more that a child is a part of their parent (conception isn't ex nihilo either). A liver is a part of the parent, a set of lungs is a part of the parent, but the child is independent.

Define ordered. The universe we know is fundamentally governed by quantum mechanics which deals with probability wave functions. But in the macro sense a coin that gives a 50/50 chance is also ordered.

I did not say it was part of you undefined god. It would be absurd to say the universe is part of something undefined because what is undefined in unknown.

I did say, by analogy, you are claiming inventing a board game requires omnipotence because the rules of the game say board games cannot be invented. Substitute universe for board game. It is only in the arbitrary rules of this creation that further creation is not possible for members of the creation. To assume that rule applies outside this universe is a fact no in evidence and which can never be in evidence as seeing outside of this universe would violate another arbitrary created rule of this universe.

Why am I not impressed with your presupposition that it is designed to teach? You do not like his assumption and you respond by inventing your own assumption. That is not a rational response.

Then why did they write it down? Record keeping is a healthy part of intentional distribution of knowledge.

Asking a question is called begging the question, a logical fallacy known for at least 2500 years. Record keeping has nothing to do with your claim it was designed to teach. I am still not impressed with your claim.

None of the OT stories appear in history before the mid 2nd c. BC without evidence of prior existence so you have to answer why they were written at that time.

He has taken the side which has increased the well-being of the human race in the last couple centuries thousands of times more than all the god belief in all history. One the science side one can pick even the simplest single examples such as antibiotics and challenge the believer to name anything comparable from the realm of religion. Religion never has anything to contribute. Even the very concept of a god and religion has gotten in the way of learning how the universe works as it does not work in the manner believers claim.

Looks like you fall into that "pick a side" crap too. So many similarities. Perhaps I can have a spin-off show called "PSYCHOANALYZE A_NONY_MOUSE!" Anyway, science are competing for completely different things. Science is for advancement in technology and understanding of the physical world, while religion is for the advancement of human morality and understanding of things not of this world. Why even compare them? Apples vs. oranges everyone.

But while I'm here, science teaches you how to make atomic reactions, but morality tells if you can use a big one over the top of a city or not. Science is not everything.

I hate to attribute it to the Brits but clearly they were more moral than your god and priests as they condemned slavery while you folks' god approved of it.

As to human behavior in general ALL social species including wolves, ants, bees and elephants follow generally the same rules as commandments 4 through 10 so obviously your religion has nothing to do with morality. If you substitute master for lord dogs follow the first three too.

My statement was to the benefit of human race. There is nothing new or even specifically human in the morality of any religion. Religions have not benefited the human race in any manner.

BUT you have also assumed there is something good in morality when there is no evidence to that effect. Specifically most all the "benefits" of following the morality of religions was because god will get you if you violate them. As almost all of the means of god getting you have been solved by science there is no point in giving any attention to religion beyond expanding our knowledge of anthropology.

Let me call bullshit on that one. Please produce an example of this "ontological thought" which is completely and totally independent of physical evidence. That does mean a thought which has no reference whatsoever to any sensory input whatsoever meaning no knowledge of this universe in any form. Rotsa Ruck! Any reference to anything in this universe is a reference to physical evidence by definition.

I exist.

No fault of your own. It was an egg and sperm thing. You know about that don't you?

Note: "I" is not my body (nor "in my body" nor is it my soul).

What pray tell might be the I when every aspect of self awareness and sense of identity has been traced back to a physical area of the physical brain?

Premises are the basis of logic. If A and B then C. A and B are your assumptions (presupposition is such a pompous word for assumption) can only be from observations which is essentially the same as physical evidence. Physical evidence is all there is. It is only observation. A mind without any sensory input means a mind without input and as such has nothing to think about.

If A and B can be supported, I call them presuppositions. If they're not, I call them assumptions. Sorry for the confusion.

I said they are observed. What is observed is not an assumption.

You're also using the brain/mind fallacy, but that's probably not worth discussing here.

Yes it is. Please do so.

You cannot observe the future or the past, but only the present. Obviously, science and history speak about both of these non-observable things. Are science and history futile?

If those are intended to be your examples, the past and future are dependent upon observations, life experience and experimentation and such. You were claiming there was something which people can think about without any experience at all. Please tell me what those things are.

Your lack of concern with denominations is no different from no concern for religion yet you keep using the term Christianity. Please explain what you are trying to convey as Christianity conveys no information other than a number of cults that have some degree of connection to the Yahweh cult of Judea that appeared after the 1st c. AD and down to the present day. This of course includes gnosticism and deism and the dozens if not hundreds of others that have mostly disappeared.

I'm trying to convey truth. Nothing more. If you're look for my theological beliefs, I hold to the the creeds of Nicaea, Constantinople, and the Athanasius.

WHY do you go along with the mutterings of poorly educated near illiterates in what are largely political statements directed against branches of Christianity which held different beliefs?

Doesn't it bother you that all this time you have been pushing morality and when in a corner present things which have nothing whatsoever to do with morality? If one of them just said "I believe in one god who will damn all slave owners to hell and his only begotten son who will spit on his grave" you might have a point. But they list things things which have absolutely no bearing on the real world whether or not they are "true" in any sense.

Do you pay attention to what you believe?

In Deism for example the bible teaches, OT and NT, nothing as it is solely the invention of men yet you have claimed more than that for it. So absent an explanation you might as well write spoonerity in place of Christianity without definition of the latter the former is the as. ALL undefined terms are equally nonsense.

I don't sit in any denomination. I am conservative Christian, and borrow from Catholics heavily, but I'm not catholic nor desire to be catholic. Call me "Christian" since I desire to be "relating to Christ".

Which Christ are you talking about? Again I can go through present day and defunct denominations to raise critical questions. For example, Deism the Christ was at most a social philosopher with no unique wisdom or message. In fact he said very little which is included in Christianity and much that is not.

[Tex]

Part of me thinks you are intentionally trying to waste my time, but the other part of me thinks this is fun.

Define ordered.

It doesn't really have a good definition. "Proper arrangement" is the only thing I can think of. If we think of an engine, that engine must be in the correct order to actually be a working engine. Synonyms would be "organized" or "systematized" or even "reasonable" if in the right context.

The universe we know is fundamentally governed by quantum mechanics which deals with probability wave functions.

But the universe we knew in 1880 wasn't fundamentally governed by quantum mechanics. Does the universe depend upon what we think?

What if 500 years in the future they know that quantum is false but that theory Y is true? That makes your position that "quantum mechanics explains everything" a lot like an atheist in 1880 saying "Newtonian mechanics explains everything".

Nevertheless, the fact that quantum or newtonian or other mechanics is true isn't actually addressing my claim. It is that fact there is a system that governs the universe. There is only one possible coherent system, but infinite incoherent systems.

I did not say it was part of you undefined god. It would be absurd to say the universe is part of something undefined because what is undefined in unknown.

I define my God as "Being per se". Saying the universe is a part of God is not an uncommon response.

I did say, by analogy, you are claiming inventing a board game requires omnipotence because the rules of the game say board games cannot be invented. Substitute universe for board game. It is only in the arbitrary rules of this creation that further creation is not possible for members of the creation.

You are helping my case.

To assume that rule applies outside this universe is a fact no in evidence and which can never be in evidence as seeing outside of this universe would violate another arbitrary created rule of this universe.

I'm assuming the rule doesn't apply outside this universe. Therefore, there are more possible rules. In fact, there are an infinite possibility for rules. We get the one that is statistically impossible without design (coherency).

Then why did they write it down? Record keeping is a healthy part of intentional distribution of knowledge.

Asking a question is called begging the question, a logical fallacy known for at least 2500 years. Record keeping has nothing to do with your claim it was designed to teach. I am still not impressed with your claim.

First, asking a question is not begging the question. Begging the question is circular reasoning, and "the question" is "why does the system exist in the first place?".

Second, record keeping is instrumental to teaching. Don't we record scientific experiments, history, personal information, and a whole sort of different things? If we didn't record information, no one would have text books, there would be no internet, no one would record history, and the cap to technological advancement would be so low it would be laughable.

Third, with writing being such a rare ability and papyrus expensive, record keeping was only for what was most valuable. The only reason to write things down 3000 years ago was because something was REALLY important and the information shouldn't be lost. Information in the bible does not speak of empirical data, so Ryan sees it as valueless. The people of the time and people now see it with great value.

None of the OT stories appear in history before the mid 2nd c. BC without evidence of prior existence so you have to answer why they were written at that time.

The OT is the history book for the Jews. Your rejection of it does not restrict truth, but restricts your knowledge of the truth. More importantly:

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

I hate to attribute it to the Brits but clearly they were more moral than your god and priests as they condemned slavery while you folks' god approved of it.

Slavery is not inherently bad. Cruelty or racism is, and the bible condemns those. The Jews were slaves in Egypt and were commanded not to be like their ancient oppressors multiple times. Contracted employment under a person with multiple ways out of the contract is by no means cruel. Human rights limits upon slave owners is by no means cruel. The only thing that could even be interpreted as cruel is punishment. However, even that is regulated to a certain number of whips, a certain amount of damage to the person's body, and a sentence of "life for life" if the slave dies.

As to human behavior in general ALL social species including wolves, ants, bees and elephants follow generally the same rules as commandments 4 through 10 so obviously your religion has nothing to do with morality. If you substitute master for lord dogs follow the first three too.

Animals only follow stimulus. They do not will. Plus, even if some person were to follow the law perfectly, it doesn't mean they're doing it for the right reason. If I give money to charity because I want to help shoeless children, I have done good. If I give money to charity because I want to get media attention, I have not done a good thing, even though the result is good.

My statement was to the benefit of human race. There is nothing new or even specifically human in the morality of any religion. Religions have not benefited the human race in any manner.

Your use of "benefit" is restricted. Religions provide meaning and answers to life where science does not. Again, science can tell you how to make an atom bomb, religion tells you if you should use it or not. Science does not tell you if you should use it, it only says you can use it. Lets use the current US gun debate. Science tells you how to make guns. Science tell you how to make really cool guns. Science (math, but close enough) tells you the statistics about guns and death. Science tells you how fast certain guns can fire, how much ammo they hold, and approximate reload times. Science cannot tell you that restricting gun ownership is beneficial. It might be able to say that there will be less deaths, but then you have to make the philosophical/religious claim "Less death is beneficial".

BUT you have also assumed there is something good in morality when there is no evidence to that effect.

So there is nothing wrong with a judge accepting bribes? There is nothing wrong with raping children? There is nothing wrong with governmental imperialism? Or oppression? Or racism? Or anything? Ever? I think you make me look rather good.

Specifically most all the "benefits" of following the morality of religions was because god will get you if you violate them. As almost all of the means of god getting you have been solved by science there is no point in giving any attention to religion beyond expanding our knowledge of anthropology.

Fear is a valid reason for doing something, but it doesn't merit you any credit. If you simply follow fear, you are no better than the animals following their stimulus.

I exist.

No fault of your own. It was an egg and sperm thing. You know about that don't you?

I don't have that knowledge. I have no memory of that event, nor can I do a scientific experiment to show that I was born. More importantly, even if I could somehow travel back in time and witness my my life from conception (eww, parents...) to now, I don't need that knowledge to know I exist. Ergo, ontological reasoning is.

What pray tell might be the I when every aspect of self awareness and sense of identity has been traced back to a physical area of the physical brain?

The "I" is not the brain. If I get hit in the head with a rock really hard, I'm still 100% Tex. If my entire body shuts down (brain waves, heart beat, all of it) and then is revived, I didn't cease being Tex momentarily. The "I" cannot be brain (or body, for that matter). The "I" is hylomorphic. You're positing materialism, which is wrong for the reason that you must deny an "I" to begin with. There is no "I", there is only matter which, because it is in a certain position, will do certain things.

I said they are observed. What is observed is not an assumption.

How do you know you can trust your senses? Perhaps they are lying to you or you're in the matrix. Don't assume that, my good sir.

You're also using the brain/mind fallacy, but that's probably not worth discussing here.

Yes it is. Please do so.

Aint nobody got time for dat.

If those are intended to be your examples, the past and future are dependent upon observations, life experience and experimentation and such. You were claiming there was something which people can think about without any experience at all. Please tell me what those things are.

So the past depends upon what we observe. If I observe something new, the past changes? I'm going to assume you mean "the past and future can be known through present observations, life experience and experimentation and such". If that is the case (which I think it is), you are not learning about the past through material means. You're using deduction and induction, which are logical processes that generally have premises using physical data but are not exclusive to physical data.

With no experience (lets say some man was formed in a test tube, but we didn't allow any sort of brain activity beyond growth until 25 y/o) and only rational thought, one can know they exist due to the ability to have rational thought. This is Descartes' first example. Even if I was in the matrix and all experiences are false, I still know that I exist. Even if I was convinced I did not exist, I am still assuming an I that is convinced. Further, I can know I did not cause my own existence, and therefore have a parent (the scientists that did the test tube stuff). Descartes says therefore God, but I don't buy his logic on this one. Truthfully, I don't even know if Descartes buys Descartes' logic.

WHY do you go along with the mutterings of poorly educated near illiterates in what are largely political statements directed against branches of Christianity which held different beliefs?

Get off the conspiracy theory sites. First, they could write in very intricate Latin and Greek. Second, the bishops held no political power until the 600s and this is all 4th century. Third, they were defining what Christianity was, therefore denouncing Arius, Sabellius, and the like as "Christian" teachers.

Doesn't it bother you that all this time you have been pushing morality and when in a corner present things which have nothing whatsoever to do with morality? If one of them just said "I believe in one god who will damn all slave owners to hell and his only begotten son who will spit on his grave" you might have a point. But they list things things which have absolutely no bearing on the real world whether or not they are "true" in any sense.

I would be bothered if your claim that the creeds have no bearing on the real world were true. Those creeds define the Christianity and the Christian God. The fact that you do not get the connection between Christianity and the creeds is most likely why you hate Christianity so much.

Do you pay attention to what you believe?

What now? I wasn't paying attention.

Yes, which is why I do not claim a denomination as true. I have beliefs from multiple denominations (largely Catholic and Lutheran, but I include the Jehovah's Witness as influential as well) and use more philosophy as backing than church fathers.

Which Christ are you talking about? Again I can go through present day and defunct denominations to raise critical questions. For example, Deism the Christ was at most a social philosopher with no unique wisdom or message. In fact he said very little which is included in Christianity and much that is not.

I love this question. It's usually what I ask those people who believe that everyone goes to heaven, or that they believe in the same God I do, or something to that extent. Anyway, the Christ I speak about is in those creeds.