Been meaning to set up a thread about this, as it's something on my mind..
Lately, before I can fall asleep, I usually think deeply about dying. I just can't seem to place myself stuck forever in a lifeless body, not having the ability to see, speak nore think for that matter. This is kind of imbarrising, but I sometimes cry slightly just thinking about how, after so many years, there is nothing after this, nothing at all.
I'm unsure how to cope with having my family die, but I know that the time will come for us all, and it is the only thing garenteed in life. If none of you have experienced this yet, set yourself in a quite room - perferably before you fall asleep - and simply just think about it yourself, and I could promise that you will feel the same emotions.
Perhaps there is something afterwards? Perhaps I will become reborn with the same loving family once again? Or perhaps the only thing after is complete emptyness?..
Yeah, you can't really try to act as if you didn't exist.
I say we move onto a next life, on an exact same world, as a different person. What say you?
The only conciousness you have is in your brain. When your brain dies, so does your conciousness.
Hmm, yeah. I've thunk about this a lot since my mom's death of breast cancer. Wondering what she's doing. Good topic.
~Looperpuck
Quote from: Looperpuck on July 30, 2009, 10:26:27 PM
Hmm, yeah. I've thunk about this a lot since my mom's death of breast cancer. Wondering what she's doing. Good topic.
~Looperpuck
That is really depressing mate, sorry to hear about that.. :-\
Anyways, found this intresting - http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread433700/pg1 - He claims he died three times, and explains what had happened and his new beliefs afterwards.
"
When one dies, the vital energy is released back into the universe. The physical body remains on earth while the subtle body travels to a subtle plane depending on its merits or sins and its spiritual level. The subtle body becomes heavy due to sins and excessive ego and as a result gets stuck in lower subtle planes of existence such as the nether world. If the sins are intense then the subtle body goes to hell. " - source: http://www.spiritualresearchfoundation.org/spiritualresearch/difficulties/ancestors/Ancestors_afterdeath.php
I'm not a great believer of this theory, however, I do think that your energy does release from your body once your dead, but no option of heaven nor hell. I believe that your spirit/energy has the same attributes as you have now, however you are unable to communicate with the "living" for some reason.. Such as you become a ghost.
I actually happen to be a strong believer of ghosts, and there are some sightings and film to further lead to the truth, though their not facts as they could also just be fake or illusions.
Quote from: Delicious on July 31, 2009, 12:25:04 AM
Quote from: Looperpuck on July 30, 2009, 10:26:27 PM
Hmm, yeah. I've thunk about this a lot since my mom's death of breast cancer. Wondering what she's doing. Good topic.
~Looperpuck
That is really depressing mate, sorry to hear about that.. :-\
Anyways, found this intresting - http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread433700/pg1 - He claims he died three times, and explains what had happened and his new beliefs afterwards.
"When one dies, the vital energy is released back into the universe. The physical body remains on earth while the subtle body travels to a subtle plane depending on its merits or sins and its spiritual level. The subtle body becomes heavy due to sins and excessive ego and as a result gets stuck in lower subtle planes of existence such as the nether world. If the sins are intense then the subtle body goes to hell. " - source: http://www.spiritualresearchfoundation.org/spiritualresearch/difficulties/ancestors/Ancestors_afterdeath.php
I'm not a great believer of this theory, however, I do think that your energy does release from your body once your dead, but no option of heaven nor hell. I believe that your spirit/energy has the same attributes as you have now, however you are unable to communicate with the "living" for some reason.. Such as you become a ghost.
I actually happen to be a strong believer of ghosts, and there are some sightings and film to further lead to the truth, though their not facts as they could also just be fake or illusions.
Im not sure id take this guy to seriously. He sounds like kind of an ass over the whole beating the crap out of that man. Not cool >:(
I'm religious so I belive in the whole 'good people go to heaven - Paradise- and bad people go to hell'.
But yeah I have also thought alot about this, I talked to my pastor because I was sad that, after I die, I will never ever see my family again, he said in heaven we will all be together again, it's not like you will recognize your own mother again but he said that doesnt matter anyway .. hard to translate it in english I could say alot to this subject but I can't seem to find the fitting words.
Second edit.. I don't think that reborn stuff exists IMO that's bullshit and people who actually say they were reborn just want attention. And even IF there was reincarnation I don't think you can remember your past lifes.
Quote from: Torch on July 30, 2009, 09:59:28 PM
The only conciousness you have is in your brain. When your brain dies, so does your conciousness.
This is my belief.
I don't go to church...and I see life threw a more scientific view...for 2 reasons:
1) It's easier for me to understand things. Like that every death is somewhat logical. And I like simple.
2) I don't feel that I have to blame some god for sombody's passing. I never blame. I just celebrate the life they did have, and carry them in my thoughts. I have had many deaths in the family/neighborhood, and it is the most intense form of sadness to see sombody you know, even just barely, laying before you in a lifeless body, and I cry now just typing about it. Gah, I just lost what I was thinking about...I have to go lay down...
Quote from: Mr Pwnage on July 31, 2009, 11:06:57 AM
Quote from: Torch on July 30, 2009, 09:59:28 PM
The only conciousness you have is in your brain. When your brain dies, so does your conciousness.
This is my belief.
I don't go to church...and I see life threw a more scientific view...for 2 reasons:
1) It's easier for me to understand things. Like that every death is somewhat logical. And I like simple.
2) I don't feel that I have to blame some god for sombody's passing. I never blame. I just celebrate the life they did have, and carry them in my thoughts. I have had many deaths in the family/neighborhood, and it is the most intense form of sadness to see sombody you know, even just barely, laying before you in a lifeless body, and I cry now just typing about it. Gah, I just lost what I was thinking about...I have to go lay down...
I agree completely. Throughout my life, I have never believed in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny or anything illogical like that. I believe everything has a logical explanation. Thus, when we die, our conscious ceases to be, so you're unconscious forever. It saddens me to think of it that way, especially with loved ones, but it makes sense. I'm not religious, but I respect people for hanging onto what they believe in. I've done it all my life.
This has to be one of the most depressing topics I've read in a long time.
In all honesty, believe what you want when it comes to the afterlife. Cling to a faith, a reason, a belief, whatever it is that motivates you to live a happy and fulfilling life. I've seen a lot of lives cut short, people who will never have the chance to have a family because of a very quick moment in time that has ended what could have been a life worth living. If you cling to the negativity of death, cry yourself to sleep over it, and wake up even more depressed than you were the day before, what direction are you going with your life? Get out, explore the world, pick up a hobby. My personal favourites have been rock climbing, skiing, surfing, drinking, etc... If you spend all your time bent around when and how you are going to pass on, you're going to die a very unhappy individual whenever you do. Believe me, when you've been at the scenes of death, come close to dying yourself, you learn to not take crap like this seriously, and you find that a death is not a time for mourning, but a time for celebrating the wonderful life they lived. Instead of wondering where you will end up when you die, if you'll come back or just have all ties cut then and there, why not live a life that would make others smile with pride when it comes time to see you in the casket. THAT should be made everyone's goal in life, not contemplating second chance possibilities. If entrance to a paradise style after-life (i.e. heaven, or my belief: strip clubs with nothing but drop-dead gorgeous (pun intended) chicks and endless beer on tap) means living a good life full of happiness and accomplishments, have you done your best to ensure entrance?
@Scotty:
Heh, I love how when you listed your hobbies you put drinking. XD
On a more serious note...I love the way you see things. Because, you look at religion and beliefs as goals that one should strive for, so even in our darkest moments, we can still find some hope and find ways to put up with the shit life throughs at us. It kind of feels good to know sombody is looking out for you, when your too weak to look out for yourself. I just wish the whole world could see religion this way, no matter what religion you may be, or even if your not religious. It sickens me that so many wars have started and lives lost just because some people fight over what they think happened, why their religion is right. It honestly doesn't matter if there's a golden gated heaven or not, or a strip club in the sky as Scotty hopes, as long as you find some reason to keep living. I don't believe in a heaven, as I have said, when you die I don't think anything happens, your just kinda gone. But why I keep living is because I feel, though I don't know what it is yet, that I have some purpose, and I can help change the world to a better place for everyone someday, in some way. So my motivation to stay alive is for the sake of the people I've come to know and love...
I'm trying to not get too personal here...but my dad is an alchoholic, and as you can imagine, life is no where near easy for me. I don't have the nicest mom either...and my younger brother has been warped to believe the way my parents treat me is right...my sister is different though, and she is my passion to keep living. I won't bother in going into all what my dad and mom have done to me for the 15 years I've been alive, because it isn't important, I have friends to help me get through the rough times, and I cherish the good ones. Sorry for taking this topic to a new emotional level, but when somthing is on my mind, like now, it really helps me to just right it down, and I have no problem with other people knowing, I am a pretty open person.
Point is, no matter your belief, find some reason that makes you happy, and gives you passion in life, and get out and meet people...friends are the brightest light there is when your in pitch black darkness.
I try not to make assumptions. My belief on the afterlife is that no one knows what will happen. If you think you do, you are probably wrong. This guy you linked to, he's probably wrong. Most "near death" experiences are a result of the brain going through a ton of trauma. Even after your body is technically dead (breathing stops, heart stops) your brain is still firing off like crazy. In any case, I think people like Scott have the right idea. Live life to the fullest. Don't get caught up in trying to figure out unanswerable questions.
My thoughts on humans is much like a computer. When the 'hardware' is old or broken, and can no longer support running the 'software', it stops working. Only difference is, a body that no longer functions is not so easy to be repaired.
@Delicious: And no, despite your assurance, I do not feel the same emotions. It's a concept I got used to a long time ago. As corny as it sounds, as long as you remember, those that have died will live on in a legacy of memories.
Also, the thing is, you won't be 'stuck in a lifeless body' because you'd never be conscious of such a fact. You know, cause you're dead. As for the 'lonely emptiness' of death, I see it more as a chance to finally 'sleep', without ever having to worry about all the shit in life ever again. No matter what you do in life, you WILL die. No matter how hard you work, no matter how much shit you put up with, you WILL die. It's because of this that I don't fear dieing. I could die tomorrow with no regrets, because at least it saved me from having to put up with a lot of bullshit.
At the same time, I'm not about to go commit suicide, either. I figure, if I'm living, I might as well live my life to the fullest of my ability.
Don't fear death. Realize that it'll come eventually. At the same time, realize that you only got one of them, so make the most of it, and fight like hell to keep it.
I want people to know I feel this way, too. When I die, I don't want people to mourn my death. I want them to celebrate my life.
Making this thread really helped me, actually, due to all the comments and opinions on death.
Must say now that I have started to believe that it's just best to live life to your fullest and get as much out of it as possible before the time comes. Celebrating the life lived, rather then the fact that you or a loved one is gone is a much easier approch towards everyone. Though, on after life scale, I just can't wonder but to think what is after - if anything. You see, the world has so much undiscovered facts, death being one as nobody has the proof that there is nothing afterwards, nor do they have anything to say that there isn't. It is just a mystery that will be left unsolved until the time comes, which I guess excites me in a way.
Oh pitiful Humans...
If only you knew.
Knew what, Lucifer?
Quote from: Lucifer on August 01, 2009, 02:42:31 PM
Oh pitiful Humans...
If only you knew.
If you tell me that it's a chippendale club behind the pearly gates, I will beat you senseless with a stale waffle.
This is how I feel, as I rather keep to my own opinions when it comes to religions and thoughts of afterlife. I can be considered a man of religion, I do believe there is a God, I do believe that if I do well in my life, and live a good life, I will be rewarded, and that is what I go off of in my life. If someone tries to take that away from me, and say that I am completely off whack by such assumptions, so be it, they can ramble on. Doesn't mean I'll change my views on anything, I'll still live my life the way I want to, knowing that if I continue down a good path in life, I'll be rewarded. Others may rather to tend towards logic, feeling that there has to be a logical explanation, and faith has no logic to it, so be it, that is their views. While I understand their desire to know the truth, I also understand that they will end up hitting a brick wall every time (ultimately giving up in the end and say f it, there is no afterlife, therefor no reason to live a "good life" by religious standards), so I will stick to my faith, knowing that I have to live a good life, and die happy to get what I want, as it gives me something to work towards, not like it's a hard thing to shoot for. If you're a man of faith, go for it, if not, go for it, whatever it takes for you to live a life of happiness trying to get everything out of it that you can without regrets. If anything, think of your family standing over you when your time comes. Do you want them pissed off, angry, disappointed, or would you rather they are happy and proud to see you become who you were. I'd rather have a family that be sad by the loss, but more so proud to know that I did everything I could to live a life worth appreciating. If I have their respect, made them proud, and lived a long prosperous life fulfilled to the best of my abilities, I'll be a happy man.
My recommendation, watch the movie: "The Bucket List".
Damn scott, chaos and mr.pwnage ... Broke me totally, +karma
I really don't know what to say... I share the same point of view with some of you. I think about this alot. I really don't have an idea what awaits in the future. I'm just 16 anyways, and I cherish every moment life gave me by now. Mr.Pwnage, I know how you feel, atleast I hope I do. My life has put some tough tasks on me too. I won't say anything about my parents, because no matter how stupid they sound at times, I know there will be times when I would do anything just to see them smiling again... It'll be too late though...
I can only hope my mind, and my body won't be just the crumbled skeleton, but will reside in people that believed in me while I was alive, supported me for what I do, and respected me for what I am...
Life is nothing more than what you want it to be.
Life itself is illogical; we will never understand its beginning.
I have a mixed view on death. At times, I will see the logic in there being no second wind after we die, because it's easy to conclude that when our brain dies, so does our consciousness. Then again, our consciousness is based on energy, and energy changes forms but never truly dies, so I can see the scientific logic in believing in the after-life. That's not to say we can't still use other forms of logic to believe in forms of life after death, because science (as we know it) is extremely limiting to use as the answer to life's truths. Self-evidence is something people use to believe in the prospect of living on after one has kicked the bucket. The simple definition being "what we experience for ourselves as evidence for an idea, that cannot be dis-proven by anything or anyone".
A Christian uses self-evidence to conclude that there is a God waiting for us when we die. To say anyone's belief is illogical based on lack of evidence is silly because what exists as evidence is different in every viewers perspective.
I have two personal beliefs that are the foundation for what I believe.
-Unintelligent life cannot create intelligence.
-Science cannot logically explain the existence of the universe.
My first belief is straight forward. I don't believe energy can mindlessly form itself into an intelligent species without an original intent. This belief does not contradict evolution because evolution is based within it's confines. To explain this better; evolution uses a rule set to form life. A rule set needs intent. Therefore, evolution needs intent to exist.
My second belief goes hand in hand with the first. The universe needs intent. It's illogical (in my mind) to think that it could simply exist although I would understand if you disagreed. I'm sure half of you are now screaming "the same could be said for a higher being". The difference between the two is this; a higher being doesn't need to have a beginning because the rules that apply to the universe don't need to apply to it.
I'm not saying that the universe couldn't have been around forever, or that random energy somehow created intelligent life. All I'm saying is that I don't believe it did. In fact, if you believed the complete opposite of me I would not consider it illogical in the slightest until after reviewing the reasons for your belief. To me, logic points in the direction of intent instead of chance.
Where will I go when I die? Who knows. I would like to think a higher being will take me away to happy fields of happy happiness, but I simply don't know. It's ignorant to be 100% sure about your beliefs, but then again, ignorance is bliss.
When I die I'm going to be reincarnated into a stick figure on SO. :)
What if we had a consiousness without a brain?
This is a Spirit. Every person, animal, and even some other things have one. And there are spirits without bodies, ghosts for example, and ...
There's a lot to be said. I'm not trying to prove anyone wrong, just trying to say how it is. I'll try to give a story:
Robert was born with AIDS in 1948. He was one of the "Baby Boomers" - His father had come home from war, got happy with women, contracted HIV, and passed it to his son. Difficulties fought through Robert's life, as AIDS slowly overwhelmed his immune system. In 2001, AIDS had destroyed his body, and Robert died in a hospitol. After his death, he became more aware of what was around him, because he was not limited by his human body, brain, or senses. Three days he was around his body, then Robert left it.
From there, there is so little that I know that I do not want to explain what I have no understanding of. I will put what I am sure of though:
Robert's Spirit is no longer contained within his body (left at death, and stayed around the body for 3 days), which enhanced his senses. Robert's Spirit is now in the Spiritual Realm- the real realm. I imagine it as a place where you can watch Earth until judgement day. Those who have lived with God (The Father, Yeshua/Lord/Adonai {neither male nor female, mother too, in a way}, Jesus, Holy Spirit) on earth maybe would be spending their time with him, or worshipping him rather than watching the earth. However, all Spirits (excluding the demons, fallen angels, I believe) will worship him at some point. Upon Judgement day, Robert's spirit will be judged by its works on earth, and its relationship with God. Robert's name will either be written in the Book of Life (book with 'pre-destined' names of those who will/had lived with God on Earth), or it will not be. If his spirit's name is not written in the Book of Life, then he will be thrown into Hell (The lake of burning sulfer- not some drunken party, eaten by worms and torchered day/day {no night}) with all others whose names are not recorded into the Book of Life. This brings to question Destiny/Fate. It does exist- but that doesn't excuse you to do whatever saying that you're destined to go to Hell. Rather, it was destined that you would use destiny as an excuse for your actions (confusing). Anyways, there will be many whose names are written in the Book of Life (Not 144,000, as Jehovah's Witnesses say, if you disagree, PM me). This is also where I do not know much. They will spend all of eternity with God (Once again, three persons. They are not combined, just complete eachother to be known as one person), doing his bidding, and worshipping him. The presence of God gives much more joy (not just happyness) than any lust or toxin (alcohol) can give. Yes, these things do please our earthly bodies, but I strongly believe that they will not be in Heaven.
A side note is Lucifer. I am not talking about the member of the SO community which many of you have come to love, I am talking about the real Lucifer- whose name our member took (which I disagree with, always have, always will). Lucifer is the root of evil. He is much involved in the End of the World, and at the very end of Earth, he will be thrown into Hell.
If I was to truely explain everything, I would be quoting the entire bible, and many hundreds of books that followers of God have written.
Regarding that story of a man who'd been 're-incarnated' multiple times, there are several options. A) It happened. He was 're-incarnated' by Spirits (Which would be demons, as I strongly doubt God would do that), and was spreading his Satanic story. B) This person is decieved by the Devil (Satan/Lucifer/Devil are most common names, but any name of a god which isn't the 'I Am' is Lucifer, or one of his Spiritual servernts) into actually believing that he has been re-incarnated. C) It is just a story that he made up for whatever reason- to get attention or something else.
I am willing to answer questions to the best of my knowledge and time.
When I say time, it isn't that I have a budget I want to fit, it's more than that. Sometime soon I will leave Stick Online, hopefully never to come back.
~Aqua
That's...deep.
Which reminds me- all you looking for something true you can understand for the Afterlife: It doesn't exist. You cannot understand it with your human mind- your Spirit may, but very few people actually have direct connections with their Spirit. Once you die, you will understand (and cry 'holy holy, thou art God Almighty' or something like that), but until now you won't. That's where faith comes in- you can't understand, so you have to believe that it's true.
Edit- while on a related topic, I'm wondering if anyone understands the riddle in my signeture. I wrote it describing a person, tell me if you know who it is ;). But don't post just for it- that'd be off topic. Just mention it in the post you've written for this topic.
~Aqua
Quote from: Jake on August 06, 2009, 01:16:08 PM
My first belief is straight forward. I don't believe energy can mindlessly form itself into an intelligent species without an original intent. This belief does not contradict evolution because evolution is based within it's confines. To explain this better; evolution uses a rule set to form life. A rule set needs intent. Therefore, evolution needs intent to exist.
What you're talking about here does not relate to evolution. You're talking about genesis. Evolution does not explain how life came to be; How organic matter was formed out of inorganic matter. It simply explains how new species arise from old species. So the two topics are not really related. There are certainly some different scientific theory on the genesis of life. Some of them are extremely plausible. They have actually created organic matter out of inorganic matter in labs, and have seen it happening in nature under extreme conditions (extreme hot/cold/no light). This is just a first step though (Organic matter is not necessarily life). But it certainly brings some plausibility to the fact that Intelligent Design is not necessary (I'm not saying it's true or untrue though.)
The existence of the Universe is a similar topic. There are theories about its creation (the Big Bang theory is not one of these. It is similar to evolution in that it does theorize on how the Universe was created, just what happened after it was.) If anyone is interested, I believe string theory is one of the more accepted ones. Very heavy theoretical physics.
The point to all of that though is that there are theories, but nothing definite. There is enough to say, "Hey, it's possible that everything is just random... but it's also possible that it's not." The equal plausibility of both extremes makes me think that it's really not worth it trying to find out. As I mentioned before, it's easier to keep your options open and not tie your beliefs down to one thing or another. I think Jake has the right idea in that he believes certain things to be the case, but that the opposing belief is not completely implausible. I'm probably the same (though my beliefs tend toward his opposites). I don't say for certain that the Universe is random and that life was created out of randomness, and I don't say that God does not exist. To do so, with anything, would be presumtuous and unnecessary.
Actually, the only reason I brought up evolution in that first paragraph was to make sure people didn't misunderstand my ideas, and think I was trying to debunk evolution. When I stated that evolution was based within the confines of my beliefs on "genesis", it meant the exact same thing that you said.
Got it. Then what you said is a little different I think. It's hard for me to accept statements like: "Unintelligent life cannot create intelligence". But given that you stated it as a belief it's a bit less harsh. It's certainly not a proven fact, but it's something (similar to evolution) that is hard to refute at this point. What scientists have found makes it completely plausible for life to develop out of inorganic material through many billions of years of time. It's not exactly the same as people disbelieving in evolution (in itself not entirely ridiculous since evolution is not a proven fact, though it is the most plausible theory by far for the evidence we have) but it's close.
Btw, I think I need to repeat that I am in no way saying that anything anyone believes is wrong and that what I believe is right. I just heavily side with scientific evidence, but I still don't trust completely the theories that have been placed forth. Unless evidence comes forth that proves those theories, I still admit that any other theory is entirely possible. I in no way intend to put down anyone elses beliefs or opinions.
Science shows how unintelligence can create intelligence within the confines of life as we know it. Sure, the rules of the universe might point towards inorganic material creating living, breathing beings. That's entirely within my beliefs.
I'm thinking of this in a much broader scope though. Something at some point created the rule set that all science follows. Even the idea of something from nothing follows the rules of our universe. The message I'm getting from you is that science can refute the idea of original intent, when it's my belief that anything we can possibly fathom is simply the product of that intent. Do you get where I'm coming from?
Oh no, I don't believe that science can disprove a higher power. In my view science and religion are unrelated. Science tells us about the world around us while religion is for looking within ourselves. The two are mutually exclusive. It is my opinion that religion should not attempt to theorize on areas of science, such as the origin of life or the universe. If there is a higher power, it is behind everything, regardless of the means that were used to bring about the universe as we now know it. My personal opinion is that it shouldn't matter to religion how the universe came about; the physical processes involved. The only thing you should be concerned in terms of religion is morality... But then that's my own opinion.
Again, though, I'm not saying that science can ever prove that there is no higher power. Science can potentially prove that life can be brought about through random chaos. That inorganic material, after billions and billions of years, was able to come together and form organic material, and through similar processes life emerged. That the universe was formed simply by "branes" of a higher dimension touching to form matter. And so on and so on, out to beyond the physical universe... All of these things are possible of science. What is not possible for science to do, ever, is for it to say that all of what has been explained is not something orchestrated by a higher power. There is never any possible way to logically prove that.
So I think we agree on a certain sense. It's the scope that we might not agree on. Even the rules that the universe was created with could be explained by science. There are theories that our universe is one of an infinite number. That the rules or laws of our universe is simply one set out of an infinite number of sets. The reason why our rules are the way they are is completely random. Had we been born into another universe, they would potentially be different. But at the same time, it's also very likely that there is a limited set that allows life to be born at all. There are certain requirements for life to immerge, and so it's also plausible to say that we are here because the conditions were within those requirements. But it happened because there are an infinite number of universes.
In any case, my point is that original intent or what I'm calling a higher power (in my mind) has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe or the laws of physics or any of that. That can all be explained by science. Not that it refutes the idea of a higher power, just that it's possible to explain. You have to get into metaphysics, beyond the physical, to speak of a higher power.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ElnQUVkWsQ&feature=related
Found this. perhaps it is just an illusion of his mind and what he wanted to believe while dead. Though, he would be usually mindless, so perhaps this is real? Or perhaps he made the whole thing up? But it gives you hope of a peaceful ending other then unconsiousness. :)
I can't really listen to that at the moment as I'm at work, but initially I'll point back to my earlier comment that the brain does weird things when the body is dead. Something that the brain controls is the perception of time. I'm not sure where the whole "90 minutes" comes in, but if the guy was dead for 90 minutes, that's a fluke that actually does happen sometimes. There are reported cases where people have been technically dead for hours, and then when they wake up they have no brain damage.
In any case, the point is, all near death experiences can be explained. There is no reason to take them as proof of god or heavan or an afterlife.
To be truthfully honest, I don't think the typical view of heavan would appeal to me. I wouldn't want to do ANYTHING for an eternity. Anything would become mind numbingly, psychopathically boring eventually. Even existence itself. At some point I would probably just want to not exist.
Quote from: Lingus on August 10, 2009, 06:12:49 PM
To be truthfully honest, I don't think the typical view of heavan would appeal to me. I wouldn't want to do ANYTHING for an eternity. Anything would become mind numbingly, psychopathically boring eventually. Even existence itself. At some point I would probably just want to not exist.
This is EXACTLY the mindset I have.
Ditto....
Unless there are boobies...
And beer...
They never get old!
Nah. Imagine. The coolest thing you can possibly think of (in Scott's case, boobs and beer) and then having that shoved in your face for so infinitely long that it becomes something that you would kill to never see again. Sounds more like some versions of hell to me.
Of course, that's all nonsense. I don't think very many people take a literal approach to heavan and hell. But who knows...
Theoretically, God must feel the same way. I bet he killed himself.
I mean... if you knew EVERYTHING, then what point would there be to be around anymore? You already know EVERYTHING there, it would be absolutely awful to live like that.
Yea, except that falls apart if you think of "god" not as a thinking entity but rather a force or simply energy. It's not some robed, bearded dude sitting on a throne up in a billowy, cloudy heavan. A higher power would be completely abstract or metaphysical. Nothing in the physical world would represent it.
That goes without saying. You could believe hes the robed bearded man, or the unimaginable force, or even Xenu :P
That is why when I think of God, I don't think of him as an ultimate omnipotent being. Rather, just one with great power.
In my opinion, death is more than likely nothing. Imagine blacking out, and not waking up. Pretty much what i think happens, except that death would be no brain function at all, and blacking out uses minor brain functions. But hey, for all i know, each of us has our specific section of Heaven, where our expectations come to fruition. Then of course, there is where most all of us will go to(if you believe in it)Hell. Eternal damnation, to which our greatest fears will by forced upon us. Mine being ass rape.
I'd like to believe if there was a God, He would take up the image to which each of expects him to be. For example; Scotty's God would be a beer-wielding hotty with huge tits, and mine would be something funny and ironic, like Pikachu.
My problem with that is that all of those material things like being ass raped or beer wielding hotties all relates to the physical world. When you die, you are no longer a part of the physical world. All of your previous notions were held in your brain. Your fear of being ass raped is because you have an ass and you don't want it being raped. Over time your brain associates ass rape with bad things... If you had no brain, no physical body at all, you wouldn't care about ass rape. You wouldn't care about anything at all. You would have no logical thought, or any thought for that matter. You would simply be (or potentially not). But you certainly would not retain all of the same ideas and notions you had as a living person. If you have a soul, it is most definitely not connected to your brain.
Which brings up another point I've thought about occasionally. How can someone be condemned for doing bad things or being a mean person if that is caused by a chemical imbalance or other malady of the body. There are definitely conditions which will change a persons personality. People who have had tumors or other brain conditions can go from a friendly, nice person to a mean hearted one and will sometimes lose all of their friends. How can they be judged by their actions, or even their intentions, in this case when they are clearly not in control? This is just another reason why I don't believe in the judeo-christian notion of heavan/hell.
@Lingus:
Interesting example, though i can't say I have ever feared my anal canal being penetrated by an unlikely penis. You bring up a good point though, most things that make life and thought life revolve around our bodies...pretty much everything. And, our whole thought process is based of our 5 senses, and you lose your senses when you die, so what is there to be concious for?
My theory on it though, is very hard to describe...regarding some sort of heaven. It is my guess that a heaven would be somthing most defaintely be impossible to be sensed by the living...I'll try to describe my point using colors for easy explanation. So, a human without any vision problems is able to see all color, red, blue, yellow, orange, etc... What if there is some color out there, that our eyes can't see but it's there, yet it's impossible for us to even imagine anything about it because our minds are fixed on the idea/thought to what we already know. I'm not talking about mixing a bunch of colors, but one color completely unique of its own, like pure red, that is physically impossible to see. We can't even start to imagine what it will be, because some part of our mind locks us off from thinking it. If that made any sense, but I believe heaven would be in some ways the same to that example.
Haha, I was just using ASD's comment as an example.
But your example of using colors is good. It would be like us trying to imagine what infrared or ultraviolet actually looks like. We can't because we don't have that perception. That's also a good way of looking at higher dimensions.
Quote from: Lingus on August 12, 2009, 07:23:22 PM
My problem with that is that all of those material things like being ass raped or beer wielding hotties all relates to the physical world. When you die, you are no longer a part of the physical world. All of your previous notions were held in your brain. Your fear of being ass raped is because you have an ass and you don't want it being raped. Over time your brain associates ass rape with bad things... If you had no brain, no physical body at all, you wouldn't care about ass rape. You wouldn't care about anything at all. You would have no logical thought, or any thought for that matter. You would simply be (or potentially not). But you certainly would not retain all of the same ideas and notions you had as a living person. If you have a soul, it is most definitely not connected to your brain.
This is all theory, so I seriously hope you aren't saying that is fact. ::)
My personal belief would be that we contain all knowledge we had in this world. If you want to go that route, you could argue our souls are 'who we are', and that even with the loss of our physical being, everything we once were would still be retained in our spiritual self.
Quote from: Cactuscat222 on August 12, 2009, 08:17:16 PM
Quote from: Lingus on August 12, 2009, 07:23:22 PM
My problem with that is that all of those material things like being ass raped or beer wielding hotties all relates to the physical world. When you die, you are no longer a part of the physical world. All of your previous notions were held in your brain. Your fear of being ass raped is because you have an ass and you don't want it being raped. Over time your brain associates ass rape with bad things... If you had no brain, no physical body at all, you wouldn't care about ass rape. You wouldn't care about anything at all. You would have no logical thought, or any thought for that matter. You would simply be (or potentially not). But you certainly would not retain all of the same ideas and notions you had as a living person. If you have a soul, it is most definitely not connected to your brain.
This is all theory, so I seriously hope you aren't saying that is fact. ::)
My personal belief would be that we contain all knowledge we had in this world. If you want to go that route, you could argue our souls are 'who we are', and that even with the loss of our physical being, everything we once were would still be retained in our spiritual self.
It certainly is not a theory. It is a proven fact that your brain functions cease eventually after your body dies. All of your memories and senses are a product of your brain... not your mind/soul/spirit.
I'm not one to discount a theory, but it's quite far fetched to think that you will retain any product of your physical body, namely memories/thoughts, after you die.
But, think about it. What if when you die you are stuck in your body. All of your senses in tact, but you can't move or anything at all. Eventually your body decays (and in the process you can feel your skin melting off) and you can no longer see/feel/etc but you are still stuck there... That would be scary. Yea, I'll stick with the mind/soul either not existing or not being attached to the body, thank you very much.
Quote from: Aqua on August 06, 2009, 08:13:03 PM
What if we had a consiousness without a brain?
[...clipped]
Btw, I didn't mean to skip over your posts Aqua. I specifically didn't read them at first because I didn't feel like arguing with you. I still don't. I know that some people have widely differing views from my own, and it is pretty apparent that you are one of them. I don't have anything wrong with it, I just don't share your beliefs and there's nothing you can really say to convince me otherwise, and I'm pretty sure nothing I would say would convince you otherwise either. So, I figure what's the point of arguing. It's not a bad thing, it just wouldn't make sense to do.
Either way, I am still curious about different belief systems. If you don't mind, what sect of christianity do you follow. If there is a specific one? I'm also very curious about how literal you take things. Do you feel that when you die you walk around in a body or are you disembodied? Does god have a body or would it just be a presense of some sort? What about heaven/hell? How do you perceive them? Are they places or states of mind/soul? I'm not saying you're wrong about any of this, I'm just curious what your beliefs are down to the detailed level like this. I just always wonder when someone has literal interpretations of these things, just how literal are they taking it. It's very different from my completely ambiguous/abstract way of thought.
I can actually remember being born it was all black then i just came into the world. I'm just going to go with going to heaven or hell :(.
Quote from: Forum on August 12, 2009, 08:48:01 PM
I can actually remember being born it was all black then i just came into the world. I'm just going to go with going to heaven or hell :(.
Evidently you remember it being black. Also, your going to hell...better start packing now.
I wasn't talking about that... I mainly meant the "it is most definitely not connected to your brain". Obviously you are subject to your own beliefs, but I would have to disagree. Nothing is to say your soul can't be connected with your physical body/brain. Sure, your brain is the one that conceives and holds the ideas, but you can't say for sure that your soul wouldn't be part of your brain, and that upon death your physical beliefs are no longer part of that soul.
Of course, it all comes down to what a 'soul' is to you. I just don't like how you would your soul holds nothing of your physical self; because then I wouldn't even consider that soul 'you', because to me, a soul would be the thing that defines a person more or less.
Quote from: Cactuscat222 on August 12, 2009, 08:51:02 PM
...a soul would be the thing that defines a person more or less.
This I completely agree with. I do not think that someone's physical body completely represents who they are. Once you die, if you are anything at all, you are no longer that physical self. You would only consist of a meta-physical soul. Any connection to that dead husk of a shell would be severed. If you are still connected to your body, like in my example, I would be truely frightened to die.
I understand what you are saying, and I think that it makes sense to think that you will retain some semblance of your physical self when you die. But I truely think that one would only think that because they would have difficulty imagining themselves separate from their physical self. And maybe it's true that if your mind was so tied to your brain when you were alive that there would be some resistance for them to be separated upon death. But I don't necessarily believe that. What you have to consider is that all of your thoughts, emotions, feelings... they are all physical manifestations. If you can't even imagine those things gone, then you can't really comprehend a more abstract concept of the mind/soul...
This is a good example of why many people throughout history have taken a more literal interpretation of the metaphysical world. They have trouble abstracting their thoughts. They can only perceive the world as physical, and so they can only perceive the metaphysical portion of the world as physical analogues. Which is okay. Like Aqua said, you will only be able to perceive it once you get there. In my opinion, that's very likely (even for myself) and it's even likely that at that point we still won't be able to fully perceive things as they truely are.
8)
Hm, what an interesting subject. I don't really know what to say, only that we're all going to die one day and then we'll know what it's really like to die. You could get reincarnated, go to Hell or Heaven, or maybe be stuck as a ghost on Earth for all eternity. The world may never know.
Quote from: God-I-Suck on August 12, 2009, 09:17:29 PM
The world may never know.
The world would know if someone died then came back to life with their memeries :P
Quote from: Forum on August 12, 2009, 09:34:08 PM
Quote from: God-I-Suck on August 12, 2009, 09:17:29 PM
The world may never know.
The world would know if someone died then came back to life with their memeries :P
But we'd dismiss them as insane or mentally ill, most likely. At least, most people would.
Ah okay Lingus. I understand now; I didn't think about it properly, but I understand completely what you are saying.
I didn't grasp that at first, but what you said just made the light bulb turn on. The emotions/feelings/thoughts that I felt would still be contained in the soul after death (probably) wouldn't be there... because like you said, emotions/feelings/thoughts are just physical manifestations. Not your personal ones, but the literal idea and existence of those wouldn't necessarily exist in the 'soul world'.
Okay, I gotcha now. But now you've put me in a weird state - I gotta think about this more before I can say what I believe now.
Quote from: Forum on August 12, 2009, 09:03:46 PM
Quote from: Mr Pwnage on August 12, 2009, 08:50:12 PM
Quote from: Forum on August 12, 2009, 08:48:01 PM
I can actually remember being born it was all black then i just came into the world. I'm just going to go with going to heaven or hell :(.
Evidently you remember it being black. Also, your going to hell...better start packing now.
No i go to a catholic school, i'm nice, i havn't done anything that's really bad theres no apparent reason id go to hell...And when your non existent everything is black.
Edit: Everyone posting on this topic has alot to say about Death...Then What. I guess everyone has an opinion.
I just thought I'd point out that Christians (Catholics included) base their salvation on acceptance of the gift of grace from Jesus Christ, not going to a certain type of school or refraining from doing bad things. So you might want to reconsider your hell-avoidance strategy.
Quote from: Lingus on August 10, 2009, 05:17:11 PM
Oh no, I don't believe that science can disprove a higher power. In my view science and religion are unrelated. Science tells us about the world around us while religion is for looking within ourselves. The two are mutually exclusive. It is my opinion that religion should not attempt to theorize on areas of science, such as the origin of life or the universe. If there is a higher power, it is behind everything, regardless of the means that were used to bring about the universe as we now know it. My personal opinion is that it shouldn't matter to religion how the universe came about; the physical processes involved. The only thing you should be concerned in terms of religion is morality... But then that's my own opinion.
Again, though, I'm not saying that science can ever prove that there is no higher power. Science can potentially prove that life can be brought about through random chaos. That inorganic material, after billions and billions of years, was able to come together and form organic material, and through similar processes life emerged. That the universe was formed simply by "branes" of a higher dimension touching to form matter. And so on and so on, out to beyond the physical universe... All of these things are possible of science. What is not possible for science to do, ever, is for it to say that all of what has been explained is not something orchestrated by a higher power. There is never any possible way to logically prove that.
So I think we agree on a certain sense. It's the scope that we might not agree on. Even the rules that the universe was created with could be explained by science. There are theories that our universe is one of an infinite number. That the rules or laws of our universe is simply one set out of an infinite number of sets. The reason why our rules are the way they are is completely random. Had we been born into another universe, they would potentially be different. But at the same time, it's also very likely that there is a limited set that allows life to be born at all. There are certain requirements for life to immerge, and so it's also plausible to say that we are here because the conditions were within those requirements. But it happened because there are an infinite number of universes.
In any case, my point is that original intent or what I'm calling a higher power (in my mind) has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe or the laws of physics or any of that. That can all be explained by science. Not that it refutes the idea of a higher power, just that it's possible to explain. You have to get into metaphysics, beyond the physical, to speak of a higher power.
Yeah I agree with pretty much everything you said. The only thing I differ from you on is that I don't think science can explain the beginning/origin of the universe or how things came to be or always were. I believe that everything within our comprehension needs to have a beginning. Spirituality exists outside of our comprehension, and therefore does not need a beginning and the factor of eternity is completely plausible. Again, this is my view point. I'm sure many others would completely disagree and that's fine (I'm trying to keep a little neutrality here).
QuoteHow can someone be condemned for doing bad things or being a mean person if that is caused by a chemical imbalance or other malady of the body.
A Christian's answer would be that God looks at their intentions, their state of mind, all of that. If somebody has a chemical imbalance, God would know that better than anybody else. There's no point in people judging other people on their sins or even their actions, because we don't know what's going on within their brain.
QuoteIf you have a soul, it is most definitely not connected to your brain.
Why can't the soul be connected to the brain as some kind of bridge between the spiritual and physical world? I was reading through some of your posts and you seem to take the view point that the soul needs to be disconnected from any part of the brain, and therefore would not retain anything from it. Could you explain to me how this is more logical than believing in a connection between soul and brain? I'm just interested in why you take this particular stance because I don't think I've found a straight answer yet when peering through the topic.
Oh, and I just wanted to point out that not wanting to spend eternity in heaven once your their is assuming that you carry with you emotions like boredom, sadness, depression, etc. If you're truly happy all the time, living for eternity would be a good thing, regardless of how you feel towards it now.
Umm... You're like how old? I used to think about it a lot too, now I know that everyone dies sooner or later, and since I'm young, I'll probably die later. When your time comes you should have lived your life and be ready. I don't believe in an afterlife no matter how much I want to. It just seems illogical to me.
Quote from: Pat on August 13, 2009, 05:03:25 AM
Umm... You're like how old?
Not really sure what you mean by this. Was it an insult, a question, or a compliment?
Quote from: LeGuy on August 12, 2009, 11:57:15 PM
I just thought I'd point out that Christians (Catholics included) base their salvation on acceptance of the gift of grace from Jesus Christ, not going to a certain type of school or refraining from doing bad things. So you might want to reconsider your hell-avoidance strategy.
Seriously we'll just have to see i'll bet ur goin to hell lmao..
Quote from: Forum on August 13, 2009, 12:12:43 PM
Quote from: LeGuy on August 12, 2009, 11:57:15 PM
I just thought I'd point out that Christians (Catholics included) base their salvation on acceptance of the gift of grace from Jesus Christ, not going to a certain type of school or refraining from doing bad things. So you might want to reconsider your hell-avoidance strategy.
Seriously we'll just have to see i'll bet ur goin to hell lmao..
Well, I disagree with your beliefs. If you, as a Catholic, believe in the bible, then these couple of passages should be interesting to you.
John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.
This one is fairly self explanatory. If humans were capable of being good enough to go to heaven, then why would God send his son to make a way?
John 6: 44
I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the father but by me.
That's Jesus talking. He's saying that HE, Jesus, is the way - the way to heaven, to be exact. You might say, "Oh, but I'm better than most people, I've never killed a baby or raped anyone or stolen from a bank. Well, that's great, but if you've ever lied, cheated on a test, or called your mom a stupid idiot (and be honest - everybody's done SOMETHING) then you have sinned. And since God is perfect, he won't acccept anyone into his heaven unless somebody else who was completely perfect (Jesus) died for all the imperfect people on the planet so their sins could be forgiven.
Now the only step is to accept the gift that Jesus is holding right in front of you.
Look, I say this completely as a concerned friend. I'd rather that anybody not go to hell. So, seriously, go talk to your priest or your parents or somebody and ask them how you can accept Jesus' gift of salvation - it's as easy as praying (and meaning it, of course) a prayer. And if you still have doubts about this "saved by grace" thing, Just read John or Romans in your Bible, and you'll findthere's pretty much no way that you can be good enough to get into heaven.
So, yeah, that's pretty much it.
Quote from: LeGuy on August 13, 2009, 01:04:49 PM
Quote from: Forum on August 13, 2009, 12:12:43 PM
Quote from: LeGuy on August 12, 2009, 11:57:15 PM
I just thought I'd point out that Christians (Catholics included) base their salvation on acceptance of the gift of grace from Jesus Christ, not going to a certain type of school or refraining from doing bad things. So you might want to reconsider your hell-avoidance strategy.
Seriously we'll just have to see i'll bet ur goin to hell lmao..
Well, I disagree with your beliefs. If you, as a Catholic, believe in the bible, then these couple of passages should be interesting to you.
John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.
This one is fairly self explanatory. If humans were capable of being good enough to go to heaven, then why would God send his son to make a way?
John 6: 44
I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the father but by me.
That's Jesus talking. He's saying that HE, Jesus, is the way - the way to heaven, to be exact. You might say, "Oh, but I'm better than most people, I've never killed a baby or raped anyone or stolen from a bank. Well, that's great, but if you've ever lied, cheated on a test, or called your mom a stupid idiot (and be honest - everybody's done SOMETHING) then you have sinned. And since God is perfect, he won't acccept anyone into his heaven unless somebody else who was completely perfect (Jesus) died for all the imperfect people on the planet so their sins could be forgiven.
Now the only step is to accept the gift that Jesus is holding right in front of you.
Look, I say this completely as a concerned friend. I'd rather that anybody not go to hell. So, seriously, go talk to your priest or your parents or somebody and ask them how you can accept Jesus' gift of salvation - it's as easy as praying (and meaning it, of course) a prayer. And if you still have doubts about this "saved by grace" thing, Just read John or Romans in your Bible, and you'll findthere's pretty much no way that you can be good enough to get into heaven.
So, yeah, that's pretty much it.
Ever heard of reconciliation it's a way of forgiving sins.. I also pray every day dud..
Praying only makes your belief stronger in my opinion. It doesn't make you more guaranteed to get into Heaven, but it makes it stronger, and gives you less chance to develop doubt.
Quote from: Epicphail on August 13, 2009, 02:31:30 PM
Praying only makes your belief stronger in my opinion. It doesn't make you more guaranteed to get into Heaven, but it makes it stronger, and gives you less chance to develop doubt.
There might not even be a heaven or hell and you might reincarnate :P
Quote from: Forum on August 13, 2009, 02:34:20 PM
Quote from: Epicphail on August 13, 2009, 02:31:30 PM
Praying only makes your belief stronger in my opinion. It doesn't make you more guaranteed to get into Heaven, but it makes it stronger, and gives you less chance to develop doubt.
There might not even be a heaven or hell and you might reincarnate :P
Burn the nonbeleivers!!!
Just kiding.
I think there is a heaven but you can do whatever you like there.
Once you get bored of something you can do something else.
Get bored of boobies and beer,play airsolf for a few years then do something else.
Its heaven you wont run out of things to do.
Quote from: Jake on August 13, 2009, 12:08:07 PM
Quote from: Pat on August 13, 2009, 05:03:25 AM
Umm... You're like how old?
Not really sure what you mean by this. Was it an insult, a question, or a compliment?
I was saying, when you are young death isn't something you're supposed to constantly thing about and fear.
QuoteEver heard of reconciliation it's a way of forgiving sins.. I also pray every day dud..
I'm not trying to offend you or anything, but seriously, dude, if you can find a spot in the Bible where it says confessing every thing you've done bad to a priest regularly is the way to purity, then I will stand corrected. Jesus is the way to heaven, the Bible makes that crystal clear. You can't just accept things because your parents or a priest tells you it, go find some backup in God's Word.
Quote from: LeGuy on August 13, 2009, 01:04:49 PM
Look, I say this completely as a concerned friend. I'd rather that anybody not go to hell. So, seriously, go talk to your priest or your parents or somebody and ask them how you can accept Jesus' gift of salvation - it's as easy as praying (and meaning it, of course) a prayer. And if you still have doubts about this "saved by grace" thing, Just read John or Romans in your Bible, and you'll findthere's pretty much no way that you can be good enough to get into heaven.
(http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t287/LucifersUncle/1249498417835.jpg)
As much as you may be concerned for us, this thread is for your beliefs about the afterlife, and religion is a very big part of this, but do Not start telling people to go talk to their priests to be "saved".
First off, about christian people who try to save people: I think you are wrong.
That said however, I want to thank you. Trying to spare someone an eternity of suffering, and send them to a place of eternal happiness is one of the greatest things you can do. It's a very nice thing to do for anyone, and I want to thank you for your kindness. However, most internet forums are saturated with people who don;t wish to be saved. Thank you, but this isn;t really the right place.
Second, When my relatives died, it was a happy thing, because my grandpa had been suffering from both alzheimers and prostate cancer, and any pain medication for the cancer would have accelerated the alzheimers, and treatment for the alzheimers would have been impossible because of drug interactions with the cancer treatment, so when he finally died, it was one of the happiest things that month, because he was no longer stuck in the already dead state he was in. So I believe death should be a happy thing, because it often releases people.
Third, I believe when you die, there some sort of heaven/hell system, but not plain black and white, rather, several subtle shades of gray.
Quote from: LeGuy on August 13, 2009, 01:04:49 PM
And since God is perfect, he won't acccept anyone into his heaven unless somebody else who was completely perfect (Jesus) died for all the imperfect people on the planet so their sins could be forgiven.
Stop. Hammer time.
Do me a favour. Mull this over a few times.
Now, please explain to me what logic is being used to jump from point A (God is perfect) to point B (He won't accept anyone into heaven unless somebody perfect dies) in this sentence. Or from point B (aforementioned) to point C (so imperfect people's sins could be forgiven), for that matter.
Who exactly is making these rules? I have to imagine that since God is the ultimate being in existence, who is supposed to have created the universe, it would have to be him. So, in essence, you're telling me God had his own son murdered for shits and giggles? Cause it's been stated in this topic even that God 'gave up his son so people could go to heaven'. Why? Who made that rule? I can only assume God, since he created the whole bloody universe. How does a "perfect person's" death absolve all the sinners, anyway? Couldn't God have just made it the rule that NO ONE'S death absolved all sinners, and kept his friggin' son? I mean, he's God. He made the friggin' universe. Aren't these 'rules' up to him?
Essentially, you're either telling me there is a force greater than God pulling strings, or God killed his son for no reason but to get his kicks. Either way, I'm not so sure I'd want to go to 'His' heaven at this point... <_<
Quote from: Chaos on August 13, 2009, 09:22:17 PM
Quote from: LeGuy on August 13, 2009, 01:04:49 PM
And since God is perfect, he won't acccept anyone into his heaven unless somebody else who was completely perfect (Jesus) died for all the imperfect people on the planet so their sins could be forgiven.
Stop. Hammer time.
Do me a favour. Mull this over a few times.
Now, please explain to me what logic is being used to jump from point A (God is perfect) to point B (He won't accept anyone into heaven unless somebody perfect dies) in this sentence. Or from point B (aforementioned) to point C (so imperfect people's sins could be forgiven), for that matter.
Who exactly is making these rules? I have to imagine that since God is the ultimate being in existence, who is supposed to have created the universe, it would have to be him. So, in essence, you're telling me God had his own son murdered for shits and giggles? Cause it's been stated in this topic even that God 'gave up his son so people could go to heaven'. Why? Who made that rule? I can only assume God, since he created the whole bloody universe. How does a "perfect person's" death absolve all the sinners, anyway? Couldn't God have just made it the rule that NO ONE'S death absolved all sinners, and kept his friggin' son? I mean, he's God. He made the friggin' universe. Aren't these 'rules' up to him?
Essentially, you're either telling me there is a force greater than God pulling strings, or God killed his son for no reason but to get his kicks. Either way, I'm not so sure I'd want to go to 'His' heaven at this point... <_<
Answering all these questions would take a debate, and those are way too difficult. In any case, I was just trying to talk to Forum as two people who believe in the same book.
Quote from: LeGuy on August 13, 2009, 09:58:21 PM
Quote from: Chaos on August 13, 2009, 09:22:17 PM
Quote from: LeGuy on August 13, 2009, 01:04:49 PM
And since God is perfect, he won't acccept anyone into his heaven unless somebody else who was completely perfect (Jesus) died for all the imperfect people on the planet so their sins could be forgiven.
Stop. Hammer time.
Do me a favour. Mull this over a few times.
Now, please explain to me what logic is being used to jump from point A (God is perfect) to point B (He won't accept anyone into heaven unless somebody perfect dies) in this sentence. Or from point B (aforementioned) to point C (so imperfect people's sins could be forgiven), for that matter.
Who exactly is making these rules? I have to imagine that since God is the ultimate being in existence, who is supposed to have created the universe, it would have to be him. So, in essence, you're telling me God had his own son murdered for shits and giggles? Cause it's been stated in this topic even that God 'gave up his son so people could go to heaven'. Why? Who made that rule? I can only assume God, since he created the whole bloody universe. How does a "perfect person's" death absolve all the sinners, anyway? Couldn't God have just made it the rule that NO ONE'S death absolved all sinners, and kept his friggin' son? I mean, he's God. He made the friggin' universe. Aren't these 'rules' up to him?
Essentially, you're either telling me there is a force greater than God pulling strings, or God killed his son for no reason but to get his kicks. Either way, I'm not so sure I'd want to go to 'His' heaven at this point... <_<
Answering all these questions would take a debate, and those are way too difficult to be held on internet forums. In any case, I was just trying to talk to Forum as two people who believe in the same book.
Quote from: LeGuy on August 13, 2009, 09:58:21 PM
Quote from: Chaos on August 13, 2009, 09:22:17 PM
Quote from: LeGuy on August 13, 2009, 01:04:49 PM
And since God is perfect, he won't acccept anyone into his heaven unless somebody else who was completely perfect (Jesus) died for all the imperfect people on the planet so their sins could be forgiven.
Stop. Hammer time.
Do me a favour. Mull this over a few times.
Now, please explain to me what logic is being used to jump from point A (God is perfect) to point B (He won't accept anyone into heaven unless somebody perfect dies) in this sentence. Or from point B (aforementioned) to point C (so imperfect people's sins could be forgiven), for that matter.
Who exactly is making these rules? I have to imagine that since God is the ultimate being in existence, who is supposed to have created the universe, it would have to be him. So, in essence, you're telling me God had his own son murdered for shits and giggles? Cause it's been stated in this topic even that God 'gave up his son so people could go to heaven'. Why? Who made that rule? I can only assume God, since he created the whole bloody universe. How does a "perfect person's" death absolve all the sinners, anyway? Couldn't God have just made it the rule that NO ONE'S death absolved all sinners, and kept his friggin' son? I mean, he's God. He made the friggin' universe. Aren't these 'rules' up to him?
Essentially, you're either telling me there is a force greater than God pulling strings, or God killed his son for no reason but to get his kicks. Either way, I'm not so sure I'd want to go to 'His' heaven at this point... <_<
Answering all these questions would take a debate, and those are way too difficult. In any case, I was just trying to talk to Forum as two people who believe in the same book.
Just so we're all clear, I have the exact same view as Chaos. My main presumption of the universe is based around logic, but I respect people for holding onto their beliefs.
LeGuy, having debates on internet forums aren't hard. :-\ They only become a problem if they derail the topic or become an A and B conversation that could be handled better with PMs. Also, you double-posted...
Quote from: Chaos on August 13, 2009, 09:22:17 PM
Quote from: LeGuy on August 13, 2009, 01:04:49 PM
And since God is perfect, he won't acccept anyone into his heaven unless somebody else who was completely perfect (Jesus) died for all the imperfect people on the planet so their sins could be forgiven.
Stop. Hammer time.
Do me a favour. Mull this over a few times.
Now, please explain to me what logic is being used to jump from point A (God is perfect) to point B (He won't accept anyone into heaven unless somebody perfect dies) in this sentence. Or from point B (aforementioned) to point C (so imperfect people's sins could be forgiven), for that matter.
Who exactly is making these rules? I have to imagine that since God is the ultimate being in existence, who is supposed to have created the universe, it would have to be him. So, in essence, you're telling me God had his own son murdered for shits and giggles? Cause it's been stated in this topic even that God 'gave up his son so people could go to heaven'. Why? Who made that rule? I can only assume God, since he created the whole bloody universe. How does a "perfect person's" death absolve all the sinners, anyway? Couldn't God have just made it the rule that NO ONE'S death absolved all sinners, and kept his friggin' son? I mean, he's God. He made the friggin' universe. Aren't these 'rules' up to him?
Essentially, you're either telling me there is a force greater than God pulling strings, or God killed his son for no reason but to get his kicks. Either way, I'm not so sure I'd want to go to 'His' heaven at this point... <_<
+Karma for successfully explaining, using examples, just how illogical all these biblical stories are, as I have the exact same opinion.
Debates of this sort work better on forums, as people have as much time as they need to think through their opinions. In real life people tend to get pissed off too easily, and the argument goes around in circles.
Don't get me wrong, I have no intention of being hostile, but those particular logical fallacies jumped out at me, and I wanted to address them in case I'm missing something here. I mean, I just don't see how you're jumping from "SINCE God is perfect" to "he won't accept anyone [...]" etc. That previous statement doesn't logically support the following statement in any way I can see. What part of God 'being perfect' makes him choose to "not accept people into heaven [...]" etc.?
As I also said in the other post, I don't understand why a "perfect person" 'sacrificing' him/herself would suddenly absolve everyone else? Who else other than God made that rule, and why would God make a rule that would require his son to die? If he could have kept his son alive, but chose not to, it's not really much of a sacrifice then, is it?
And considering God created humans in the first place, how come he made them 'sin-able' in the first place? Why would a perfect God make a knowledge giving tree, and plop it down in the middle of the garden, then go "DON'T TOUCH THIS". Hell, the fact that humans disobeyed and touched it shows they already had sin in the first place <_< And don't gimme that Eve was persuaded by the snake, or however the story goes. The snake was created by God, which means it shouldn't have 'sin' either. Because, you know, it was made by someone who was PERFECT. Since when is knowledge 'sinful', anyway? God is all knowing, and he's supposedly the ultimate good. Clearly knowledge didn't mess HIM up. And since humans are made 'in God's image', it would be assumed that they should also be perfect, anyway. ???
Sorry. My train of thought became a run-away. Either way, feel free to provide me some answers to some or all of these questions, cause I'm at a loss at this point. And that's an invitation to anyone. I set up the ball, feel free to grab and run with it.
Well, if you think about it...assuming there IS a God, we are all just one big puppet show. Hell, for all I know, he's controlling me to type this right now. I mean, if god is out there creating people, he can make them good or bad. What if we are just entertainment, and he's chilling back watching all the shit that goes on with a bag of popcorn? Even worse, what if we are like a sandbox? Meaning he's just creating shit to see what happens, and when he gets bored with it, he deletes it all....I mean if you think about it...extincion and all...that makes sense. I mean, even thinking about the whole supernatural idea is just so far fetched and questionable I can't even start to think, in my mortal mind, how anything like that can be real. Maybe it's just cause I am a "have to see it to believe it person", and a man of sceince...soley powered by the logical and the physically possible. That isn't to say I'm not open to ideas, but they have to be a little bit more concrete than all the religious stuff I hear today.
The only real reason religion pisses me off in the first place is because it gives fanatics and excuse to start killing people for completely irrational reasons. Though I do like that most religions teach good morals.
When I think of it all though, I really don't have an opinion. My mind just gets so caught up in it all, it gets to be so confusing, I just find it easier not to care, and live my life to the fullest regardless of what happens in the end, and I hope someday the majority of the world can put their differences aside and do the same.
First off, LeGuy was solely speaking to Forum, because Forum made it clear they were under the same religion.
Seond, like I said, I hate the "I only believe in the purely logical" stuff. Life itself is illogical, so there is no comprehension unless you take anything or everything relating to the creation of life and death with a grain of salt. There is some stuff that just won't/can't be explained.
Additionally, the snake in the Adam and Eve story, correct me if I'm wrong, was the devil. I've always been under the impression that God and the Devil were separate entities, in the sense that God did not make the Devil, they were both created at the same time.
"Death... Then what?"
It is basic animal instinct to stay alive, to carry on living. For beings as intelligent as a human, that instinct becomes much more apparent. With intelligence, we are always coming up with new ways of being healthier to enable us to live a longer life. My own personal opinion is that life after death, heaven and hell, is something created by intelligence to explain what we don't know, and typically we fear the unknown, so an afterlife is a comforting solution. This makes sense to me, for this belief would give the ultimate comfort. Allowing someone to believe God is the answer, along with a significant purpose in life is an extremely powerful and comforting thought. Although, I can easily accept that I am wrong, the insignificance of us on this planet is unbearable for some people, myself included. "There are more stars in the sky, than there are grains of sand" That kind-of sheer size, the sheer volume of the unexplained is so beyond our explanation, that we believe in something so "thought perfect" as God to allow us to feel better about ourselves.
On a different note, the imperfections of our nature, and the injustice in the world, to give Chaos food for thought, could be a test of faith. To get into such a perfect place, people must go through a lifetime in God's creation to allow them to demonstrate their faith and trust in God. For it's suggested that life is temporary, and pain and loss will also only be temporary.
@Cactus:
The devil was originally the highest order angel, who rebeled against god, and got sent out of heaven and turned into the devil.
Quote from: Chaos on August 14, 2009, 12:34:35 AM
Don't get me wrong, I have no intention of being hostile, but those particular logical fallacies jumped out at me, and I wanted to address them in case I'm missing something here. I mean, I just don't see how you're jumping from "SINCE God is perfect" to "he won't accept anyone [...]" etc. That previous statement doesn't logically support the following statement in any way I can see. What part of God 'being perfect' makes him choose to "not accept people into heaven [...]" etc.?
As I also said in the other post, I don't understand why a "perfect person" 'sacrificing' him/herself would suddenly absolve everyone else? Who else other than God made that rule, and why would God make a rule that would require his son to die? If he could have kept his son alive, but chose not to, it's not really much of a sacrifice then, is it?
I suppose God considered it necessary to send his son to die. Maybe it's part of a spiritual logic that we can't fathom, I don't really know.
Quote from: Chaos on August 14, 2009, 12:34:35 AM
And considering God created humans in the first place, how come he made them 'sin-able' in the first place? Why would a perfect God make a knowledge giving tree, and plop it down in the middle of the garden, then go "DON'T TOUCH THIS". Hell, the fact that humans disobeyed and touched it shows they already had sin in the first place <_< And don't gimme that Eve was persuaded by the snake, or however the story goes. The snake was created by God, which means it shouldn't have 'sin' either. Because, you know, it was made by someone who was PERFECT. Since when is knowledge 'sinful', anyway? God is all knowing, and he's supposedly the ultimate good. Clearly knowledge didn't mess HIM up. And since humans are made 'in God's image', it would be assumed that they should also be perfect, anyway. ???
Sorry. My train of thought became a run-away. Either way, feel free to provide me some answers to some or all of these questions, cause I'm at a loss at this point. And that's an invitation to anyone. I set up the ball, feel free to grab and run with it.
The tree isn't just a knowledge tree. It opens your eyes to good and evil. I think the idea behind it is that before they ate the fruit, the concept of evil didn't exist, so they couldn't commit sin. It doesn't sound really logical but then again, it doesn't have to (because God's involved). Human's can't comprehend God's ways.
Another idea that exists in Christianity is that Sin existed without God.
I'm really not trying to argue with you, because you bring up some great points. These explanations are what somebody else might try to use to debunk your points.
Quote from: Jake on August 14, 2009, 11:40:20 AM
The tree isn't just a knowledge tree. It opens your eyes to good and evil. I think the idea behind it is that before they ate the fruit, the concept of evil didn't exist, so they couldn't commit sin. It doesn't sound really logical but then again, it doesn't have to (because God's involved). Human's can't comprehend God's ways.
Another idea that exists in Christianity is that Sin existed without God.
These explanations are what somebody else might try to use to debunk your points.
If evil didn't exist before eating the fruit, then what was the reason for Lucifer 'supposedly rebelling and God casting him down'? Unless you're telling me God did that for kicks.
Humans don't comprehend a LOT of the universe(yet), but I refuse to believe we can't understand the logic involved in a 'supposed higher being'. I stick to the belief everything can be explained.
If sin existed without God, then someone else must've created it. But I thought 'God created the whole frigging universe'. Or am I mistaken?
And there is a simple paradox which debunks any 'omnipotent being'.
Consider this. Your God created a boulder of infinite mass, which even HE can't lift. But that's impossible, isn't it? Well, if he can't even create that boulder in the first place, then he's not the all-powerful, do-anything God.
Still, though.....thinking about this subject matter too long depresses me. In the end, I may try to debunk most illogical explanations, but I may not really know either. For all the human race knows, we're God's puppet show, everyone would mysteriously turn into a ghost, or we'd all go to Limbo. I can really only believe in what makes sense to me.
EDIT: The only reason I follow logical answers is because they're the only things that make sense to me. I do take them with a grain of salt occasionally, but that's what I stick to and always will, unless someone can prove logic wrong..
Quote from: Mystery on August 14, 2009, 01:13:11 PMConsider this. Your God created a boulder of infinite mass, which even HE can't lift. But that's impossible, isn't it? Well, if he can't even create that boulder in the first place, then he's not the all-powerful, do-anything God.
Is that not believing that there's such thing as a boulder he can't lift?
Believing something without proof... sounds almost like faith, doesn't it?
Honestly, I find that whole "not understanding God's way" as a cop-out. If God made everything, that also includes the rules that hold the basis of logic. I find it hard to believe he created the rules to the ENTIRE UNIVERSE in that way, and yet doesn't adhere to such concepts. If he didn't himself use these concepts he created, I find it hard to believe he would have created the UNIVERSE to use them, either.
As a famous saying among writers, "Write what you know".
And that still doesn't explain why he felt the need to plop this all-knowing tree in the middle of the friggin GARDEN. It's like he's TRYING to be a dick-hole.
@Cactus: Lest I'm mistaken, as Specialboy said, the Devil, commonly known as 'Lucifer', is a fallen angel. Didn't that happen after the Garden of Eden stuff? I mean, I don't recall God making the angels and whatnot in those 7 days. Someone with more knowledge on the bible will have to chime in there, cause I honestly don't know when the angels were supposedly around.
@Jake again: Who made Sin, then? As I was saying before, if Sin existed without God, that means there has be another ultimate being pulling strings. Someone else that was around at the same time or before God and made Sin. But then, why would he have made Sin when NOTHING EXISTED? >_< What's gonna Sin, the anti-matter?
@Hikari: I think the idea was that God is all-powerful, thus he should be able to create such a boulder.
And yeah, I'm not trying to argue with anyone in particular here. I'm just grabbing what's said and pushing them down the logic river, see if I can make them float or not. :x
Rather, other people are pushing them down the speculation river, and I'm throwing Logic Rocks, seeing if I can make em sink?
Quote from: Mystery on August 14, 2009, 01:13:11 PM
Quote from: Jake on August 14, 2009, 11:40:20 AM
The tree isn't just a knowledge tree. It opens your eyes to good and evil. I think the idea behind it is that before they ate the fruit, the concept of evil didn't exist, so they couldn't commit sin. It doesn't sound really logical but then again, it doesn't have to (because God's involved). Human's can't comprehend God's ways.
Another idea that exists in Christianity is that Sin existed without God.
These explanations are what somebody else might try to use to debunk your points.
If evil didn't exist before eating the fruit, then what was the reason for Lucifer 'supposedly rebelling and God casting him down'? Unless you're telling me God did that for kicks.
Humans don't comprehend a LOT of the universe(yet), but I refuse to believe we can't understand the logic involved in a 'supposed higher being'. I stick to the belief everything can be explained.
If sin existed without God, then someone else must've created it. But I thought 'God created the whole frigging universe'. Or am I mistaken?
And there is a simple paradox which debunks any 'omnipotent being'.
Consider this. Your God created a boulder of infinite mass, which even HE can't lift. But that's impossible, isn't it? Well, if he can't even create that boulder in the first place, then he's not the all-powerful, do-anything God.
Still, though.....thinking about this subject matter too long depresses me. In the end, I may try to debunk most illogical explanations, but I may not really know either. For all the human race knows, we're God's puppet show, everyone would mysteriously turn into a ghost, or we'd all go to Limbo. I can really only believe in what makes sense to me.
EDIT: The only reason I follow logical answers is because they're the only things that make sense to me. I do take them with a grain of salt occasionally, but that's what I stick to and always will, unless someone can prove logic wrong..
I don't really feel like arguing this point because it's not my belief.
When I said "concept of evil" I meant comprehension of evil. Sin existed, but Adam and Eve couldn't commit it because they had no understanding of it. No need to argue this further because I was simply expressing the beliefs of some Christians.
Your idea of God contradicting his own power is flawed. This guy says it best...
"
The point is that God cannot do something that is a violation of his own existence and nature. Therefore, He cannot make a rock so big he can't pick it up, or make something bigger than himself, etc. But, not being able to do this does not mean He is not God, nor that he is not omnipotent. Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything conceivable, but the ability to do anything consistent with His nature and consistent with his desire, within the realm of his unlimited and universal power, which we do not possess. This does not mean He can violate his own nature. If He did something inconsistent with his nature, then he would be self-contradictory. If God were self-contradictory, he would not be true. Likewise, if He did something that violated his nature, like make a rock so big he can't pick it up, He would also not be true since that would be a self-contradiction. Since truth is not self-contradictory, and neither is God, if he were not true then he would not be God. But God is true and not self-contradictory. Therefore, God cannot do something that violates his own nature."
Quote@Jake again: Who made Sin, then? As I was saying before, if Sin existed without God, that means there has be another ultimate being pulling strings. Someone else that was around at the same time or before God and made Sin. But then, why would he have made Sin when NOTHING EXISTED? >_< What's gonna Sin, the anti-matter?
Don't ask me. My statement was that of what many Christians believe, which is that it exists separately from God.
It's completely pointless to say that God made decisions that don't make sense, etc. If you believe in the concept of God in the first place, then it makes no difference if they make sense or not. It's like arguing whether or not aliens have penis's. It makes more sense to find out if they exist first.
Yeah, that whole boulder business seemed like a pretty flimsy argument to me, too.
@Jake: Well, that wasn't necessarily directed at you specifically.
Quote from: Chaos on August 14, 2009, 02:30:41 PM@Hikari: I think the idea was that God is all-powerful, thus he should be able to create such a boulder.
Yes, I was going to edit the post and modify the phrasing a little bit, but you guys are too fast. I was going to say that by using Mystery's argument, one is more or less implying that they fully understand infinity.
Also, as for the
Quote from: Chaos on August 14, 2009, 02:30:41 PMAnd that still doesn't explain why he felt the need to plop this all-knowing tree in the middle of the friggin GARDEN. It's like he's TRYING to be a dick-hole.
I think the point is that he created humans with a share of his power (share isn't exactly the right word since his power is infinite, I suppose, but you get my point), and wanted to give them a chance to exercise this power of free will.
Here's one way to put it: He didn't create humans and Earth as
his playground where he's the bully; he created humans and created Earth as
our playground, with him as the adult who kids come to if they get hurt. Do we play nice or do we fight with the other kids?
Also, I made that up out of nowhere, hopefully it's a decent analogy :P
Quote from: Chaos on August 14, 2009, 02:38:08 PM
Yeah, that whole boulder business seemed like a pretty flimsy argument to me, too.
@Jake: Well, that wasn't necessarily directed at you specifically.
Alright, I wasn't sure. I don't want people getting the idea that I believe all these points that I bring up (although maybe I should make that clearer).
One question I have to atheists out there is this; Has the universe always existed? How were the rules of the universe created? Is it logical to think that intelligent beings were created through random process? How were these processes put into movement in the first place? No matter how many theories people will dream up, there will always be the question of "well, if that happened, what started that process?". The big bang uses the rules of the universe, so that's not viable. Unless you want to tell me that the rules of the universe have always been there, which would be the same as saying "well, I don't know, I'm just guessing". To me, that has less logic than believing in an omnipotent being. Everything that we know was created by something. We were created by our parents. Humans were created by evolution. Our galaxy was created by the big bang. And this loop seems to be abruptly halted by the idea that it all just exists. I choose to go with the belief that a higher being is the next factor in the endless process of creation, simply because I see more evidence for it than for our illogical, unexplained, existence.
(http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t287/LucifersUncle/atheism.jpg)
As much as I may consider myself an Atheist, I don't believe one bit in the big bang theory, and I find it much more likely that Something(s) out there is pulling the strings. Do I believe in heaven or hell? No, I don't believe any of our religions are correct about the afterlife and ever will be. However I refuse to believe that we're just some playground or testing facility, I feel there must be a purpose.
Quote from: Hikarikuen
I think the point is that he created humans with a share of his power (share isn't exactly the right word since his power is infinite, I suppose, but you get my point), and wanted to give them a chance to exercise this power of free will.
Free will my ass. If you don't do as he says you're burning in hell for eternity. I may be very thick headed for posting this, but is any of it true? I myself have never read the bible, so I don't know if this is bullshit or not. http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm
If it is, what the hell? Apparently slavery isn't a sin? I'd love for someone to clear that up for me.
After death there is decomposition. Question answered, have a good day.
I know this was way back, but I wanted to respond.
Quote from: Jake on August 13, 2009, 12:36:23 AMQuoteIf you have a soul, it is most definitely not connected to your brain.
Why can't the soul be connected to the brain as some kind of bridge between the spiritual and physical world? I was reading through some of your posts and you seem to take the view point that the soul needs to be disconnected from any part of the brain, and therefore would not retain anything from it. Could you explain to me how this is more logical than believing in a connection between soul and brain? I'm just interested in why you take this particular stance because I don't think I've found a straight answer yet when peering through the topic.
Oh, and I just wanted to point out that not wanting to spend eternity in heaven once your their is assuming that you carry with you emotions like boredom, sadness, depression, etc. If you're truly happy all the time, living for eternity would be a good thing, regardless of how you feel towards it now.
Well, if you read what I wrote to Cactuscat and how he responded you'll see where I'm coming from. Basically I'm not saying that the brain and soul are not connected (even though that's exactly what I said). I'm saying that after death they would be disconnected because your brain and body no longer functions. If we indeed have souls, it is most definitely connected in some way with our bodies. The soul and physical world would be interacting through our consciousness. Of course, that's all supposition. It assumes that we have souls and that our concsiousness is not the final depth. It's also very likely that our brains and minds are simply so complex that it appears that there is something beyond that. We concoct a notion of a soul, something that survives past our living selves, because we can't conceive of there being nothing beyond our conciousness. But that aside, I believe I responded with enough detail. Your body and soul would be connected while your body is functioning. Beyond that, it couldn't. If your soul were to still be connected to your body after it was gone, it wouldn't get anything out of it. If you believe otherwise, I wouldn't disagree with you entirely, I just find it unlikely that we are completely wrong about how we retain memories and how the brain works; that instead those functions are a product of the soul.
And yes, I agree with what you said in the second paragraph. My example was to point out that I think a literal interpretation of heavan/hell doesn't make sense. If the typical literal interpretation says you spend eternity in heavan doing the things you love the most... except you have no feelings, etc etc... and a bunch of other stuff that qualifies the ability to do those things for eternity without going stark raving mad, then I would have to take it many steps further. Not only do you not have the physical feelings/emotions that would cause that, but you don't have any of the same ties to the physical world whatsoever. You have no body, you have no memories, you are not in a place, and you are not experiencing anything of the physical world. With that in mind, you aren't going to be spening eternity with a bunch of hot chicks drinking beer or spending time with your family or fishing or any of those things... because they are all physical desires.
Quote from: Lingus on August 14, 2009, 06:37:02 PM
I know this was way back, but I wanted to respond.
Quote from: Jake on August 13, 2009, 12:36:23 AMQuoteIf you have a soul, it is most definitely not connected to your brain.
Why can't the soul be connected to the brain as some kind of bridge between the spiritual and physical world? I was reading through some of your posts and you seem to take the view point that the soul needs to be disconnected from any part of the brain, and therefore would not retain anything from it. Could you explain to me how this is more logical than believing in a connection between soul and brain? I'm just interested in why you take this particular stance because I don't think I've found a straight answer yet when peering through the topic.
Oh, and I just wanted to point out that not wanting to spend eternity in heaven once your their is assuming that you carry with you emotions like boredom, sadness, depression, etc. If you're truly happy all the time, living for eternity would be a good thing, regardless of how you feel towards it now.
Well, if you read what I wrote to Cactuscat and how he responded you'll see where I'm coming from. Basically I'm not saying that the brain and soul are not connected (even though that's exactly what I said). I'm saying that after death they would be disconnected because your brain and body no longer functions. If we indeed have souls, it is most definitely connected in some way with our bodies. The soul and physical world would be interacting through our consciousness. Of course, that's all supposition. It assumes that we have souls and that our concsiousness is not the final depth. It's also very likely that our brains and minds are simply so complex that it appears that there is something beyond that. We concoct a notion of a soul, something that survives past our living selves, because we can't conceive of there being nothing beyond our conciousness. But that aside, I believe I responded with enough detail. Your body and soul would be connected while your body is functioning. Beyond that, it couldn't. If your soul were to still be connected to your body after it was gone, it wouldn't get anything out of it. If you believe otherwise, I wouldn't disagree with you entirely, I just find it unlikely that we are completely wrong about how we retain memories and how the brain works; that instead those functions are a product of the soul.
And yes, I agree with what you said in the second paragraph. My example was to point out that I think a literal interpretation of heavan/hell doesn't make sense. If the typical literal interpretation says you spend eternity in heavan doing the things you love the most... except you have no feelings, etc etc... and a bunch of other stuff that qualifies the ability to do those things for eternity without going stark raving mad, then I would have to take it many steps further. Not only do you not have the physical feelings/emotions that would cause that, but you don't have any of the same ties to the physical world whatsoever. You have no body, you have no memories, you are not in a place, and you are not experiencing anything of the physical world. With that in mind, you aren't going to be spening eternity with a bunch of hot chicks drinking beer or spending time with your family or fishing or any of those things... because they are all physical desires.
I see where your coming from, but I think you misunderstood what I meant when I talked about the brain and soul being connected (not because you misread anything, but because I didn't explain it will enough). I was pretty much trying to convey the idea that because the brain and soul are connected, the soul contains memories of our physical lives. I was trying to say that it's just as likely for a soul to contain these past memories than to not contain any memories or desires from our physical bodies.
Yes. It's possible that there is some lasting effect on the soul. In fact, it would make sense if it were. But not full fledged memories... I just don't see that being likely. Of course, I can always be wrong. This is all completely theoretical.
Quote from: Jake on August 14, 2009, 03:07:58 PM
Quote from: Chaos on August 14, 2009, 02:38:08 PM
Yeah, that whole boulder business seemed like a pretty flimsy argument to me, too.
@Jake: Well, that wasn't necessarily directed at you specifically.
Alright, I wasn't sure. I don't want people getting the idea that I believe all these points that I bring up (although maybe I should make that clearer).
One question I have to atheists out there is this; Has the universe always existed? How were the rules of the universe created? Is it logical to think that intelligent beings were created through random process? How were these processes put into movement in the first place? No matter how many theories people will dream up, there will always be the question of "well, if that happened, what started that process?". The big bang uses the rules of the universe, so that's not viable. Unless you want to tell me that the rules of the universe have always been there, which would be the same as saying "well, I don't know, I'm just guessing". To me, that has less logic than believing in an omnipotent being. Everything that we know was created by something. We were created by our parents. Humans were created by evolution. Our galaxy was created by the big bang. And this loop seems to be abruptly halted by the idea that it all just exists. I choose to go with the belief that a higher being is the next factor in the endless process of creation, simply because I see more evidence for it than for our illogical, unexplained, existence.
I choose to admit that I don't know how the universe was created and not jump to conclusions. As far as we know, something cannot be created from nothing. What we know is limited. It isn't fair to say that because science's theory is flawed, a god must exist. There are definitely things about the universe that we don't know yet, and with a lack of knowledge, it's hard to find a logical answer. There's nothing wrong with admitting you don't know how the universe was created and falling back on a flawed concept like god isn't helping anyone find the real answer.
Quote from: Torch on August 16, 2009, 10:52:50 AM
Quote from: Jake on August 14, 2009, 03:07:58 PM
Quote from: Chaos on August 14, 2009, 02:38:08 PM
Yeah, that whole boulder business seemed like a pretty flimsy argument to me, too.
@Jake: Well, that wasn't necessarily directed at you specifically.
Alright, I wasn't sure. I don't want people getting the idea that I believe all these points that I bring up (although maybe I should make that clearer).
One question I have to atheists out there is this; Has the universe always existed? How were the rules of the universe created? Is it logical to think that intelligent beings were created through random process? How were these processes put into movement in the first place? No matter how many theories people will dream up, there will always be the question of "well, if that happened, what started that process?". The big bang uses the rules of the universe, so that's not viable. Unless you want to tell me that the rules of the universe have always been there, which would be the same as saying "well, I don't know, I'm just guessing". To me, that has less logic than believing in an omnipotent being. Everything that we know was created by something. We were created by our parents. Humans were created by evolution. Our galaxy was created by the big bang. And this loop seems to be abruptly halted by the idea that it all just exists. I choose to go with the belief that a higher being is the next factor in the endless process of creation, simply because I see more evidence for it than for our illogical, unexplained, existence.
I choose to admit that I don't know how the universe was created and not jump to conclusions. As far as we know, something cannot be created from nothing. What we know is limited. It isn't fair to say that because science's theory is flawed, a god must exist. There are definitely things about the universe that we don't know yet, and with a lack of knowledge, it's hard to find a logical answer. There's nothing wrong with admitting you don't know how the universe was created and falling back on a flawed concept like god isn't helping anyone find the real answer.
I find it funny that you find the idea of God a flawed concept, when I have seen little evidence to support that claim (religions view of God would not be valid). On the latter, the concept of a universe created from nothing is about as flawed as they come. It is my belief that the amount of knowledge we possess will never allow us to explain the universe's existence, simply because we are trying to explain something that can't be explained. We can't explain things that defy logic. You have the belief that there are a multitude of scenarios of how the universe came to be. I am in the mindset that there are two possible causes. Either the universe came from nothing, or it was created by something. I simply choose to follow the second option because it appears more logical to me. The first option is simply an impossibility that can never be proven to be correct (even with all the knowledge in the universe). When you say I jump to conclusions by believing in God, I would look at it as a process of logical deduction. There are two possible answers, and one of them can't be correct. I choose the other one. Simple as that.
Quote from: Jake on August 16, 2009, 11:54:56 AM
Quote from: Torch on August 16, 2009, 10:52:50 AM
Quote from: Jake on August 14, 2009, 03:07:58 PM
Quote from: Chaos on August 14, 2009, 02:38:08 PM
Yeah, that whole boulder business seemed like a pretty flimsy argument to me, too.
@Jake: Well, that wasn't necessarily directed at you specifically.
Alright, I wasn't sure. I don't want people getting the idea that I believe all these points that I bring up (although maybe I should make that clearer).
One question I have to atheists out there is this; Has the universe always existed? How were the rules of the universe created? Is it logical to think that intelligent beings were created through random process? How were these processes put into movement in the first place? No matter how many theories people will dream up, there will always be the question of "well, if that happened, what started that process?". The big bang uses the rules of the universe, so that's not viable. Unless you want to tell me that the rules of the universe have always been there, which would be the same as saying "well, I don't know, I'm just guessing". To me, that has less logic than believing in an omnipotent being. Everything that we know was created by something. We were created by our parents. Humans were created by evolution. Our galaxy was created by the big bang. And this loop seems to be abruptly halted by the idea that it all just exists. I choose to go with the belief that a higher being is the next factor in the endless process of creation, simply because I see more evidence for it than for our illogical, unexplained, existence.
I choose to admit that I don't know how the universe was created and not jump to conclusions. As far as we know, something cannot be created from nothing. What we know is limited. It isn't fair to say that because science's theory is flawed, a god must exist. There are definitely things about the universe that we don't know yet, and with a lack of knowledge, it's hard to find a logical answer. There's nothing wrong with admitting you don't know how the universe was created and falling back on a flawed concept like god isn't helping anyone find the real answer.
I find it funny that you find the idea of God a flawed concept, when I have seen little evidence to support that claim 1- Are you kidding me? Look at Lucifer's unanswered post. Slavery isn't a sin, apparently. But it is one of the most immoral things you can do. How do you explain that? Because it wasn't a sin to white men at the time the Bible was written. And it was written by man. Makes sense, a LOT more than slavery not being a sin. And there's tons of more evidence than that. On the latter, the concept of a universe created from nothing is about as flawed as they come. 2- Like Torch said, you can't say that just because science's theory is currently flawed by lack of info. It is my belief that the amount of knowledge we possess will never allow us to explain the universe's existence, simply because we are trying to explain something that can't be explained. We can't explain things that defy logic. You have the belief that there are a multitude of scenarios of how the universe came to be. I am in the mindset that there are two possible causes. Either the universe came from nothing, or it was created by something. 3- There's many more possible scenarios than that...(for example, the universe could've just ALWAYS existed and reformed, which sounds even more likely than God....)The first option is simply an impossibility that can never be proven to be correct (even with all the knowledge in the universe) 4- See number 2. When you say I jump to conclusions by believing in God, I would look at it as a process of logical deduction. There are two possible answers, and one of them can't be correct. I choose the other one. Simple as that. 5- There aren't only 2, but they are 2 that people believe in. But that can go either way(between choosing answers).
I don't know how the universe was created fully, but scientists still search for more information. The Big Bang/other science theories ARE flawed, but they make more sense than any religious theory to me. There's always more knowledge to be gained, and compared to all of the info out there, we know about as much as an amoeba. Give us time to fully find the answer. We will eventually.
Quote from: Mystery on August 16, 2009, 01:07:49 PM
Quote from: Jake on August 16, 2009, 11:54:56 AM
Quote from: Torch on August 16, 2009, 10:52:50 AM
Quote from: Jake on August 14, 2009, 03:07:58 PM
Quote from: Chaos on August 14, 2009, 02:38:08 PM
Yeah, that whole boulder business seemed like a pretty flimsy argument to me, too.
@Jake: Well, that wasn't necessarily directed at you specifically.
Alright, I wasn't sure. I don't want people getting the idea that I believe all these points that I bring up (although maybe I should make that clearer).
One question I have to atheists out there is this; Has the universe always existed? How were the rules of the universe created? Is it logical to think that intelligent beings were created through random process? How were these processes put into movement in the first place? No matter how many theories people will dream up, there will always be the question of "well, if that happened, what started that process?". The big bang uses the rules of the universe, so that's not viable. Unless you want to tell me that the rules of the universe have always been there, which would be the same as saying "well, I don't know, I'm just guessing". To me, that has less logic than believing in an omnipotent being. Everything that we know was created by something. We were created by our parents. Humans were created by evolution. Our galaxy was created by the big bang. And this loop seems to be abruptly halted by the idea that it all just exists. I choose to go with the belief that a higher being is the next factor in the endless process of creation, simply because I see more evidence for it than for our illogical, unexplained, existence.
I choose to admit that I don't know how the universe was created and not jump to conclusions. As far as we know, something cannot be created from nothing. What we know is limited. It isn't fair to say that because science's theory is flawed, a god must exist. There are definitely things about the universe that we don't know yet, and with a lack of knowledge, it's hard to find a logical answer. There's nothing wrong with admitting you don't know how the universe was created and falling back on a flawed concept like god isn't helping anyone find the real answer.
I find it funny that you find the idea of God a flawed concept, when I have seen little evidence to support that claim 1- Are you kidding me? Look at Lucifer's unanswered post. Slavery isn't a sin, apparently. But it is one of the most immoral things you can do. How do you explain that? Because it wasn't a sin to white men at the time the Bible was written. And it was written by man. Makes sense, a LOT more than slavery not being a sin. And there's tons of more evidence than that. On the latter, the concept of a universe created from nothing is about as flawed as they come. 2- Like Torch said, you can't say that just because science's theory is currently flawed by lack of info. It is my belief that the amount of knowledge we possess will never allow us to explain the universe's existence, simply because we are trying to explain something that can't be explained. We can't explain things that defy logic. You have the belief that there are a multitude of scenarios of how the universe came to be. I am in the mindset that there are two possible causes. Either the universe came from nothing, or it was created by something. 3- There's many more possible scenarios than that...(for example, the universe could've just ALWAYS existed and reformed, which sounds even more likely than God....)The first option is simply an impossibility that can never be proven to be correct (even with all the knowledge in the universe) 4- See number 2. When you say I jump to conclusions by believing in God, I would look at it as a process of logical deduction. There are two possible answers, and one of them can't be correct. I choose the other one. Simple as that. 5- There aren't only 2, but they are 2 that people believe in. But that can go either way(between choosing answers).
I don't know how the universe was created fully, but scientists still search for more information. The Big Bang/other science theories ARE flawed, but they make more sense than any religious theory to me. There's always more knowledge to be gained, and compared to all of the info out there, we know about as much as an amoeba. Give us time to fully find the answer. We will eventually.
I'm saying that it's impossible to find the answer through pure logic. No matter how complex our theories get, we'll never have the definitive answer to how we were created simply because our existence is illogical.
Quote from: Jake on August 16, 2009, 02:04:57 PM
Quote from: Mystery on August 16, 2009, 01:07:49 PM
Quote from: Jake on August 16, 2009, 11:54:56 AM
Quote from: Torch on August 16, 2009, 10:52:50 AM
Quote from: Jake on August 14, 2009, 03:07:58 PM
Quote from: Chaos on August 14, 2009, 02:38:08 PM
Yeah, that whole boulder business seemed like a pretty flimsy argument to me, too.
@Jake: Well, that wasn't necessarily directed at you specifically.
Alright, I wasn't sure. I don't want people getting the idea that I believe all these points that I bring up (although maybe I should make that clearer).
One question I have to atheists out there is this; Has the universe always existed? How were the rules of the universe created? Is it logical to think that intelligent beings were created through random process? How were these processes put into movement in the first place? No matter how many theories people will dream up, there will always be the question of "well, if that happened, what started that process?". The big bang uses the rules of the universe, so that's not viable. Unless you want to tell me that the rules of the universe have always been there, which would be the same as saying "well, I don't know, I'm just guessing". To me, that has less logic than believing in an omnipotent being. Everything that we know was created by something. We were created by our parents. Humans were created by evolution. Our galaxy was created by the big bang. And this loop seems to be abruptly halted by the idea that it all just exists. I choose to go with the belief that a higher being is the next factor in the endless process of creation, simply because I see more evidence for it than for our illogical, unexplained, existence.
I choose to admit that I don't know how the universe was created and not jump to conclusions. As far as we know, something cannot be created from nothing. What we know is limited. It isn't fair to say that because science's theory is flawed, a god must exist. There are definitely things about the universe that we don't know yet, and with a lack of knowledge, it's hard to find a logical answer. There's nothing wrong with admitting you don't know how the universe was created and falling back on a flawed concept like god isn't helping anyone find the real answer.
I find it funny that you find the idea of God a flawed concept, when I have seen little evidence to support that claim 1- Are you kidding me? Look at Lucifer's unanswered post. Slavery isn't a sin, apparently. But it is one of the most immoral things you can do. How do you explain that? Because it wasn't a sin to white men at the time the Bible was written. And it was written by man. Makes sense, a LOT more than slavery not being a sin. And there's tons of more evidence than that. On the latter, the concept of a universe created from nothing is about as flawed as they come. 2- Like Torch said, you can't say that just because science's theory is currently flawed by lack of info. It is my belief that the amount of knowledge we possess will never allow us to explain the universe's existence, simply because we are trying to explain something that can't be explained. We can't explain things that defy logic. You have the belief that there are a multitude of scenarios of how the universe came to be. I am in the mindset that there are two possible causes. Either the universe came from nothing, or it was created by something. 3- There's many more possible scenarios than that...(for example, the universe could've just ALWAYS existed and reformed, which sounds even more likely than God....)The first option is simply an impossibility that can never be proven to be correct (even with all the knowledge in the universe) 4- See number 2. When you say I jump to conclusions by believing in God, I would look at it as a process of logical deduction. There are two possible answers, and one of them can't be correct. I choose the other one. Simple as that. 5- There aren't only 2, but they are 2 that people believe in. But that can go either way(between choosing answers).
I don't know how the universe was created fully, but scientists still search for more information. The Big Bang/other science theories ARE flawed, but they make more sense than any religious theory to me. There's always more knowledge to be gained, and compared to all of the info out there, we know about as much as an amoeba. Give us time to fully find the answer. We will eventually.
I'm saying that it's impossible to find the answer through pure logic. No matter how complex our theories get, we'll never have the definitive answer to how we were created simply because our existence is illogical.
Well, I agree with you there. Our existence doesn't make much sense. Still, I'd like to think it could be explained it some way, but we may never know.
Our existence, illogical? Hardly. Purposeless, perhaps, but hardly illogical. We were created at random. The situation was just right, and life was formed. While I might hear some religious-believers scoff right now, let me teach you something about statistics and perception. Say you have a BILLION-sided dice. That may be equivalent to the chances of the situation that life is created, correct? The chances are quite low, correct? Now, taking all the Planets in ALL the Systems in ALL the Galaxies in ALL the Universe. Let's roll the dice once for EACH of those BILLIONS of planets. Suddenly, the chances of rolling aren't so slim, are they?
Secondly, perception. What are the chances we'd end up perfectly like this, you may ask? I'd tell you that your question is IRRELEVANT. Chances have nothing to do with it. Perception, my dear friends. You could be an intelligent baboon, and be asking yourself the same question. Why? Because you've never experienced anything else, so you assume that your current form is the 'proper' one. You could have easily come out any other way and be asking yourself the same question, and be none-the-wiser.
Anyway, I must say, Jake, that's an awfully bold statement to make. Making a statement about how we'll never find the truth, that is. We're closer to an answer than we were 20 years ago, and they were closer to an answer than they were 100 years ago. Logically speaking, as long as progress is made, there would likely be an end-point. While the Big Bang theory may be flawed, it at least has more factual evidence than God making everything. :-X
Also, might I point out that your "Something must be created from something" argument could just as easily be pointed at God himself? If something MUST have created the universe, shouldn't something MUST have created God? After all, it is illogical to assume that something was created from nothing, right? And if it is your argument that God has always existed, then couldn't the exact same argument then be reversed onto the universe? Why can God exist for all eternity, but not the Universe?
Quote from: Chaos on August 16, 2009, 03:03:14 PM
Our existence, illogical? Hardly. Purposeless, perhaps, but hardly illogical.
That's what I meant. It doesn't make much sense to me that we'll/we'd never accomplish anything TRUELY outstanding in the universe(say, that it would affect a huge chunk of the universe). You'd think over time, we'd do something huge..
EDIT: Unless we're just a species doomed to not do much..
Quote from: Chaos on August 16, 2009, 03:03:14 PM
Our existence, illogical? Hardly. Purposeless, perhaps, but hardly illogical. We were created at random. The situation was just right, and life was formed. While I might hear some religious-believers scoff right now, let me teach you something about statistics and perception. Say you have a BILLION-sided dice. That may be equivalent to the chances of the situation that life is created, correct? The chances are quite low, correct? Now, taking all the Planets in ALL the Systems in ALL the Galaxies in ALL the Universe. Let's roll the dice once for EACH of those BILLIONS of planets. Suddenly, the chances of rolling aren't so slim, are they?
Secondly, perception. What are the chances we'd end up perfectly like this, you may ask? I'd tell you that your question is IRRELEVANT. Chances have nothing to do with it. Perception, my dear friends. You could be an intelligent baboon, and be asking yourself the same question. Why? Because you've never experienced anything else, so you assume that your current form is the 'proper' one. You could have easily come out any other way and be asking yourself the same question, and be none-the-wiser.
This argument does not contradict my beliefs (although I believe you think it might). The reason being that something had to allow us the minuscule chance to be created. Your statement starts with the assumption that something already existed to create the chance for our existence. This means that your argument (while completely logical and something I would agree with completely) is simply a sub-category of what I'm arguing.
QuoteAnyway, I must say, Jake, that's an awfully bold statement to make. Making a statement about how we'll never find the truth, that is. We're closer to an answer than we were 20 years ago, and they were closer to an answer than they were 100 years ago. Logically speaking, as long as progress is made, there would likely be an end-point. While the Big Bang theory may be flawed, it at least has more factual evidence than God making everything. Lips sealed
I can see how you might think this. The reason we'll never find the reason to our existence is because it's impossible to answer the question without saying "and then this big thingy magically appeared". In the end, even with all the knowledge you can imagine, you pretty much have to assume that everything was just there, and that's something very illogical to me.
QuoteAlso, might I point out that your "Something must be created from something" argument could just as easily be pointed at God himself? If something MUST have created the universe, shouldn't something MUST have created God? After all, it is illogical to assume that something was created from nothing, right? And if it is your argument that God has always existed, then couldn't the exact same argument then be reversed onto the universe? Why can God exist for all eternity, but not the Universe?
I'm glad to finally be answering this question, since I've been waiting all day for someone to bring it up. If you believe in the concept of God, then it is completely logical to believe that he has existed for eternity. It's a simple matter of him being above the laws of science and what we consider to be logical. It is also my firm belief that unintelligence cannot create intelligence unless it was designed to. Therefore, something like evolution could occur because it's original creator intended it, but it cannot simply exist of it's own accord.
@Jake
First off, "something created from something" isn't the same as a god. A god is implied to be a conscious being. What logic is there to lead you to believe that a conscious being created everything?
Second, to believe that something is above the laws of science and logic is more flawed than the theory that the universe was created of nothing. You could use that same argument to say that the Big Bang was above the laws of science and logic.
Third, we don't know that everything must have a starting point or that something can't be created from nothing, we can only assume that based on what we know right now. As Chaos said, we continually learn and science is always progressing. It isn't unreasonable to think that we will eventually find the answer and make sense of it.
"It is also my firm belief that unintelligence cannot create intelligence unless it was designed to."
Therefore, God couldn't exist. :-\
Ummm, without reading all what has been posted above because I don't have the time...I'd like to point out a flaw I've always had in my mind about the idea of God/Biblical stories:
Has anybody noticed, when pictured in practically any religion...God is always depicted as a human? God usually has somewhat a supernatural appearance to him, but he always looks human. This makes no sense to me whatsoever, because many things existed on Earth before humans...so how than does it make sense that God has a human like appearance? Just wondering what you all think of that?
You're an idiot Pwnage, religion doesn't teach the theory of evolution. God created the world and everything in it, even though evolution is pretty much proven.
First off, Mr. Pwnage - the bible states that "God made us in His own image". This is why God is depicted in a 'human' form.
Second @ Chaos - I don't find nothing randomly turning into something logical, by any means what so ever. If absolutely NOTHING existed, how could ANYTHING have ever occurred? Its completely illogical, no doubt about that. Additionally, about Jake's statement that "unintelligence cannot create intelligence unless it was designed to." does not mean God couldn't exist either - Jake's point was that God has always been there, he wasn't created. He is above the laws of man and our comprehension.
Quote from: Pat on August 17, 2009, 02:06:53 AM
You're an idiot Pwnage, religion doesn't teach the theory of evolution. God created the world and everything in it, even though evolution is pretty much proven.
And your a flaming troll Pat. I pose a question and get called an idiot? Not to mention you must not even have read what I wrote. I didn't mention a thing about evolution in my whole post, so your pulling that out of your ass.
@Cactuscat
Oh, I was unaware...about the "God made us in His own image". Thanks for clearing that bit up...not that I really believe much of what is in the Bible anyways...but I guess that justifies why god is depicted as us if you believe in the Bible. And I'm not shooting down that there are no true things inside the Bible, but many I do not believe to be true. And you all realize this stuff was written by people who drank water with high levels of lead in it, along with many other neurotoxins that people were exposed to back then.
That was a friendly fire... You said that other animals were around before humans, I assumed you were talking about evolution. Sorry...
Quote from: Cactuscat222 on August 17, 2009, 02:14:18 AM
First off, Mr. Pwnage - the bible states that "God made us in His own image". This is why God is depicted in a 'human' form.
Second @ Chaos - I don't find nothing randomly turning into something logical, by any means what so ever. If absolutely NOTHING existed, how could ANYTHING have ever occurred? Its completely illogical, no doubt about that. Additionally, about Jake's statement that "unintelligence cannot create intelligence unless it was designed to." does not mean God couldn't exist either - Jake's point was that God has always been there, he wasn't created. He is above the laws of man and our comprehension.
It has yet to been addressed on why the universe couldn't have always existed just as easily as God. Frankly, I'm of the theory that the Big Bang was not the beginning of the universe, just the start of a new era in an infinite cycle. As for the 'unintelligence cannot create intelligence', that's irrelevant anyway, because it's a load of bollocks. :-\ Intelligence always comes from Unintelligence. That's how we progress. Once upon a time, no one understood physics. No one understood biology. No one understood chemistry. And let me tell you, no magical intelligence came along and showed us the way. Intelligence evolved from unintelligence. It happens CONSTANTLY in nature all around us.
P.S. Feel free to ignore my previous post before this one, it was late and I was in the middle of a ustream, and I couldn't be arsed to write something more explanatory and insightful.
Quote from: Chaos on August 17, 2009, 12:02:26 PMIntelligence always comes from Unintelligence. That's how we progress. Once upon a time, no one understood physics. No one understood biology. No one understood chemistry. And let me tell you, no magical intelligence came along and showed us the way. Intelligence evolved from unintelligence. It happens CONSTANTLY in nature all around us.
The UNDERSTANDING evolved (in a manner of speaking), but that has little to do with the intelligence, assuming we're looking at this as
understanding being knowledge itself and
intelligence being the capacity for knowledge - but this may not be what you meant. Anyway, I fail to see how this proves that humans were not always intelligent and therefore gained understanding.
This theory of "infinite cycles" is certainly fascinating - but it still almost sounds like it was created in a conscious attempt
not to involve an intelligent being in the origins of the universe. If nothing else, it explains what (supposedly?) went "bang".
At least we pretty much all agree that something has to be eternal and that humans came from somewhere, so we know that we all have some degree of sanity :D
... unfortunately, now that we've summed up all the basics of beginnings, we're still left with the actual subject of this topic: what happens
after life. And the means we've been discussing most definitely affect the ends, which pretty much means we're going in a circle: the end has one of 2 general results depending on which of the beginnings is true... we get as far as we can with the beginnings, and we realize that we've learned nothing when we get back to the end.
So when it comes to the actual topic, I for one have nothing left to discuss.
I think the 'nothing left to discuss' part is what kind of spawned the new direction of topic in the first place, lol.
Yeah, in a way, I think a clock is a perfect representation for time. No matter how much time passes, it always repeats in an infinite loop. There is no beginning or end to the loop, it just continues to pass. I heard once upon a time that the universe was expanding, and that it was to eventually stop, reverse, and contract again. That would support my stated theory perfectly, since the universe would eventually contract into a tight little ball of matter, explode, and start all over again.
From what I've heard, the 'contracting' of the universe has since been disproven, and apparently it is indeed supposedly ACCELERATING. What that means for my theory, I couldn't tell you at the moment.
However, another concept is to once again keep in mind the concept of perception. If everything in the entire universe was 3 times as big as it was now, would we notice ANY difference? Naturally, the answer is no. We have no point of reference for comparison, so as far as we'd be concerned, everything is the exact same size as it would be if it were 3 times as big. After all, a 'foot', a 'meter', a 'mile' are all human-made systems of measurement. They would also be 3 times as big. So, what if everything was a trillion times smaller than it is now. WOULD WE NOTICE A DIFFERENCE? :-X
Firstly, I need to address the fact that people are stating that the Big Bang Theory is flawed. Why does anyone think that? The Big Bang Theory is pretty much proven. What I believe people are referring to here is that the Big Bang Theory does not explain how the universe was created from nothing... Guess what, it doesn't have to. The Big Bang Theory only addresses what happened from the beginning of time, the beginning of the universe as we know it, onward. It does not address what caused that. So, encapsulated as it is, it is not flawed. It would be like saying the theories that address the quantum levels and the macro levels are flawed because they do not address the opposite sides of things. Encapsulated as they are, they correctly address everything they are supposed to address. What we need to say here is that we currently do not have a proven theory on what caused the big bang. In fact, there are already several theories that look plausible. As I've mentioned before, one of them is (I believe) called "Brane" (as in membrane) theory. Without going into detail, it uses the concept of a membrane (a 2 dimensional sheet) as reperesentations of objects in higher dimensions. Something about these branes moving in a higher dimension and then colliding somehow cause the creation of our 4 dimensional universe. Again, I don't understand it fully, but suffice it to prove that there are actually theories out there that deal with this kind of thing unlike some people here have claimed.
On that note, I would also like to address the claim that something cannot be created from nothing. On the contrary, it has been theorized that this does occur. I will state again that I do not fully understand all of the concepts. I'm not a theoretical physicist. None of us are and we're all just using what we know to discuss a topic, so we'll leave it at that. But, anyways, they say that around a black hole certain particals would be destroyed, and other particals are actually created. That is, something is created from nothing. It is not a matter of something changing into something else. The theory is that something is actually created.
And furthermore, on the topic of intelligence coming from unintelligence, this is also something that science can perfectly explain. Again, not going into detail, but I do know that there are perfectly plausible theories for how this occurs.
Basically, my point is that science is actually capable of explaining quite a bit, even now. It's not a matter of, "One day we might be smart enough to explain these things." Some of us are smart enough now. It's a matter of years/decades before a lot of these things are put together. Progress is constantly being made. It's highly likely that the elusive "Theory of everything" (that is a theory that explains both the quantum and macro levels accurately) will be presented some time soon. With that will come a lot more. I urge people who are into using God or a higher power to explain some things to look up some of these theories and scientific explanations.
And again, I will state that I am NOT trying to say there is no God or higher power. As I mentioned before, that is NOT something science can ever explain away. What science can do is give us answers for these questions that we're asking. What was the force that created everything? How did life, and from it, intelligence, come to be? The answer doesn't have to be a higher power that is pulling the metaphorical strings of the universe. That can all be perfectly explained by science. But the role that a god plays in everyone's life is deeper than that. It is something inside each of us... those that choose to believe in that manner. And that is fine. That means everything is completely logical and makes sense. Science advocates are right, and religion advocates are right... but only within the confines of their own arena.
+karma for j00, my good man. That was *sniff sniff* beatiful... ;)
WARNING Above post contains dangerous amounts of win.
THAT was incredible, Lingus. +karma, my good sir. +karma.
I honestly can't say I agree with Lingus though. :/
Quote from: Cactuscat222 on August 17, 2009, 08:13:45 PM
I honestly can't say I agree with Lingus though. :/
How so?
Quote from: Lingus on August 17, 2009, 06:22:57 PM
Firstly, I need to address the fact that people are stating that the Big Bang Theory is flawed. Why does anyone think that? The Big Bang Theory is pretty much proven. What I believe people are referring to here is that the Big Bang Theory does not explain how the universe was created from nothing... Guess what, it doesn't have to. The Big Bang Theory only addresses what happened from the beginning of time, the beginning of the universe as we know it, onward. It does not address what caused that. So, encapsulated as it is, it is not flawed. It would be like saying the theories that address the quantum levels and the macro levels are flawed because they do not address the opposite sides of things. Encapsulated as they are, they correctly address everything they are supposed to address. What we need to say here is that we currently do not have a proven theory on what caused the big bang. In fact, there are already several theories that look plausible. As I've mentioned before, one of them is (I believe) called "Brane" (as in membrane) theory. Without going into detail, it uses the concept of a membrane (a 2 dimensional sheet) as reperesentations of objects in higher dimensions. Something about these branes moving in a higher dimension and then colliding somehow cause the creation of our 4 dimensional universe. Again, I don't understand it fully, but suffice it to prove that there are actually theories out there that deal with this kind of thing unlike some people here have claimed.
On that note, I would also like to address the claim that something cannot be created from nothing. On the contrary, it has been theorized that this does occur. I will state again that I do not fully understand all of the concepts. I'm not a theoretical physicist. None of us are and we're all just using what we know to discuss a topic, so we'll leave it at that. But, anyways, they say that around a black hole certain particals would be destroyed, and other particals are actually created. That is, something is created from nothing. It is not a matter of something changing into something else. The theory is that something is actually created.
And furthermore, on the topic of intelligence coming from unintelligence, this is also something that science can perfectly explain. Again, not going into detail, but I do know that there are perfectly plausible theories for how this occurs.
Basically, my point is that science is actually capable of explaining quite a bit, even now. It's not a matter of, "One day we might be smart enough to explain these things." Some of us are smart enough now. It's a matter of years/decades before a lot of these things are put together. Progress is constantly being made. It's highly likely that the elusive "Theory of everything" (that is a theory that explains both the quantum and macro levels accurately) will be presented some time soon. With that will come a lot more. I urge people who are into using God or a higher power to explain some things to look up some of these theories and scientific explanations.
And again, I will state that I am NOT trying to say there is no God or higher power. As I mentioned before, that is NOT something science can ever explain away. What science can do is give us answers for these questions that we're asking. What was the force that created everything? How did life, and from it, intelligence, come to be? The answer doesn't have to be a higher power that is pulling the metaphorical strings of the universe. That can all be perfectly explained by science. But the role that a god plays in everyone's life is deeper than that. It is something inside each of us... those that choose to believe in that manner. And that is fine. That means everything is completely logical and makes sense. Science advocates are right, and religion advocates are right... but only within the confines of their own arena.
I agree with you on many points, but theories on creation from nothing are assuming that nothing is creating that something, when it could simply be a force out their that can't be detected with any of our instruments. If a particle appears out of no where with no visible trace of how it got there (much like the concept of quantum physics), people assume that it had no reason for it's creation, simply because we don't know how it got to be. So to say that we can prove that creation from nothing does indeed exist is false, and can only ever be regarded as a theory because of our limited scope of what is actually happening in the universe.
As for your statement on the big bang, I never disagreed with this. The big bang is a perfectly plausible scenario. As for ideas on the creation of it, I am skeptical of the concepts behind it. I feel like basing theory on theory on theory gets you into a rut. Do I believe a higher being created the big bang? Not really. I believe a higher being is only existent at the very base of all existence.
As for your statement that unintelligence can create intelligence, it can't be proven simply because any theories created that try to prove this statement could be from the result of a greater intent driving the science of the universe. We simply don't know in this respect. You can't say for certain that it's one way or the other. My belief is that unintelligence cannot create intelligence, but I admit that this could be wrong, while you must do the same because you have to take into account theories that do not coincide with your beliefs.
Why am I making these points? To support the idea that believing science (as we believe it to be) can explain everything is simply a concept that can't be proven. Somebody can take an opposite stance and still have logical reasons for doing so.
Jake, I think that we perfectly agree. We are just coming from two different view points. You're siding more with religion whereas I am siding more toward science. I think we are still coming to similar conclusions though: that the other viewpoint is potentially just as plausible. It seems like we have a similar viewpoint of what a higher power would be were it to exist. Not some dude with a beard sitting in heavan making things happen within our world. It would be just a force that is within everything. Not that it is the root cause of the universe or anything like that.
Btw, my point in mentioning all of those theories was not to say, "Hey look, we have theories on that therefore it must be true." My point was more to say that we have theories on those things... That's it. I'm not saying that they are necessarily true, but that we are coming pretty close to understanding a lot of the more difficult things to understand about the universe.
In any event, to respond to some of your comments: The theory relating to something from nothing is in fact that a physical particle is created. There was nothing there, and then there is. That's not to say something isn't happening in a higher dimension. But I don't really understand the entire theory so I don't know. And keep in mind, these are theories based on mathematics. I don't believe any of this has actually been observed. But in general, these types of theories tend to be true. For instance, the theory that black holes even exist was originally just based on some mathematical function. When the theory first came out no one had ever observed anything about a black hole. Now though, they have ways of detecting the existance of black holes, and so the theory was essentially proven.
Again, my comment on the big bang theory was simply to set the record straight. The discussion was not relating to the big bang but everyone was using that term. The discussion was actually about what happened before the big bang. What caused the big bang to happen. And my point in mentioning theories was simply to point out that theories are there, not that they are necessary true.
I think what this comes down to is acceptance of certain things. If you can accept certain truths about the universe, then you have to accept certain other things. If you aren't willing to accept those things, than that can be used against you. If you don't accept scientific theories as likely possibilities, then you shouldn't accept the truths that we know about the universe either. Maybe everything you perceive is really false. Everything breaks down at that point. Saying that the accepted theories on certain scientific questions are potentially false is like the old arguement that evolution is potentially false. Sure, it's not necessarily proven, but you can't deny the fact that it is based on some strong evidence. It's the same with a lot of the other things I'm talking about. The big bang theory wasn't always accepted as fact. It's still considered a theory because it's pretty much impossible to prove. But there is enough factual evidence that points to it being true. Some of the other theories I'm talking about might not be as strong, but it's a similar idea. They won't ever be anything more than theories because you can't prove them. The only thing scientists can do is amass evidence that agrees with their theory. The more observations that agree with a theory, the stronger the theory is. It's really only ever possible to disprove a theory.
But, the point of all of this is not to say, "I'm right and you're wrong." In fact, I think we both accept that the other person might be right. I'm just pointing out that science isn't as flawed as one might think. I don't claim that science will one day be able to explain everything about everything. But I do think it's a potential possibility. You can't prove that wrong as much as I can't prove it to be true.
Btw, Cactuscat, what parts don't you agree with? I'm curious.
You'll have to forgive me; I didn't mean I disagreed with all of what you said.
I was mainly irked about the same things Jake was, but you two have deliberated much the same way I would have, and you have made things more clear (IE I had the same interpretation from your first post that "These things are fact", but you've clarified now).
I still haven't figured out my own personal belief system yet though - one day I'll have to try and figure it out fully.
Now only if there was a way to turn these sentences in this topic into lines of code for stick online 3.
Ah. I see. That's cool.
As far as figuring out your own beliefs. Don't. Don't solidify your way of thinking. Don't convince yourself that "This is the way it is as far as I'm concerned." Leave your mind completely open to new ways of thinking. Constantly reassess your viewpoint on these things. Once you settle on one way of thought, you've closed off other avenues of possible truths. None of us have the answers, so don't ever fool yourself into thinking you do.
At least that's how I see it.
Looking at the last few post i think this topic has gone off what is after death. I wanted to make a post but im really not sure what we are discussing as a main topic now. It seems to be science and religion. Is that right?
We are still kind of discussing that. The question itself leads into the current discussion. If you ask what comes after death and why, it kind of leads into whether there is a god or higher power or whether everything is random. Depending on the answer to that, there's either a heaven/hell kind of afterlife, or some kind of ethereal dimension of sorts, or nothing.
Quotegod or higher power or whether everything is random
I believe in neater as of now. I would post what i think but i what to do more research first.
Huh. I'm interested in what would fall outside of those 3 things (really 2: Higher power or no higher power)
what would be the no higher power?
It would be that there is no higher power in the universe. Everything is essentially random.
Im of the belief that every thing happens all of the time. That's an over simplified way of saying it, but i bet you have heard it before.
So may i ask you Lingus . how do we as of now test for randomness of a simple line of numbers ranging from 0-9?
That's not a bad theory. It goes along with quantum mechanics. How particles can take every possible path. The conclusion is that there are infinite universes in which every possibility occurs.
I'm not sure about your question there. I don't really know the answer to how to test for randomness. I know that sometimes what looks random is actually just extremely complex. So yea... More on that later?
Quote from: ARTgames on August 18, 2009, 08:48:35 PM
Im of the belief that every thing happens all of the time. That's an over simplified way of saying it, but i bet you have heard it before.
So may i ask you Lingus . how do we as of now test for randomness of a simple line of numbers ranging from 0-9?
How do you mean test? The chance to get the desired number on your first try would be 1/10 or 10%... I'm pretty confused by the question...
Quote from: krele on August 19, 2009, 01:46:37 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on August 18, 2009, 08:48:35 PM
Im of the belief that every thing happens all of the time. That's an over simplified way of saying it, but i bet you have heard it before.
So may i ask you Lingus . how do we as of now test for randomness of a simple line of numbers ranging from 0-9?
How do you mean test? The chance to get the desired number on your first try would be 1/10 or 10%... I'm pretty confused by the question...
If i gave you a line of numbers to something of a million digits long (3752010 ...ect) how would you test how random that is?
I think I understand the question. I kind of touched on it above. Basically, if you have some series of numbers is it a random set of numbers or is there some pattern to it? Sometimes the pattern could be so complex that the numbers seem random, but there really is a pattern. The only thing you can prove in that case is that there is a pattern... you can never prove that there isn't. You can test it for complexity and if you fail to find a pattern up to a certain level of complexity you can theorize that it is random... but that's it.
That's how a lot of things work by the way. I imagine Art was trying to draw a parallel back to the earlier topic. About the randomness of the universe. Is it really random or is it so complex that no one can see the pattern? There definitely are patterns in the universe though. The interesting question is how these patterns came about? I personally don't feel that someone was guiding the universe to act this way. I think that there are just rules. The universe has a certain amount of order. It has something to do with entropy... That in certain systems order will arise (normally systems will tend towards chaos, unordered).
So that's my thoughts on the subject...
(PS. This is an awesome topic.)
yeah i agree with that post.
One way we test for true random in numbers from 0-9 is we would list out all the numbers and have a ratio of how common each number occur. The closer each occurrences of every number the more random the number is considered. Makes sent. A true random picking should not favor one number over another one. Its almost like if we gave random a unlimited amount of choices it would pick all of them but also pick non of them just as much. Im not sure what this provides to the topic. But it seems important.
Not sure if that works Art. Think about it, if the list went like this:
012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789
Every number zero through nine would be in the list the same exact amount. But, there is a definite pattern. The selection of the numbers is not random at all. For a set of numbers to truely be random there should be no pattern whatsoever.
Quote from: Lingus on August 19, 2009, 05:33:36 PM
Not sure if that works Art. Think about it, if the list went like this:
012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789
Every number zero through nine would be in the list the same exact amount. But, there is a definite pattern. The selection of the numbers is not random at all. For a set of numbers to truely be random there should be no pattern whatsoever.
I wouldn't say the number couldn't have a pattern in order to be random. If you picked a random number between 1 and 999,999,999,999,999,999,999 and you chose 133,331,333,313,333,133,331 - it has a pattern in it, but its still random :P
This definitely reminds me of coding. Random numbers are never actually random, but are a seed determined by the constantly shifting internal clock of the computer.
Quote from: Cactuscat222 on August 19, 2009, 05:41:05 PM
Quote from: Lingus on August 19, 2009, 05:33:36 PM
Not sure if that works Art. Think about it, if the list went like this:
012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789
Every number zero through nine would be in the list the same exact amount. But, there is a definite pattern. The selection of the numbers is not random at all. For a set of numbers to truely be random there should be no pattern whatsoever.
I wouldn't say the number couldn't have a pattern in order to be random. If you picked a random number between 1 and 999,999,999,999,999,999,999 and you chose 133,331,333,313,333,133,331 - it has a pattern in it, but its still random :P
No, we're talking about a series of single digit numbers. So randomly choose a number between 0-9, then choose another, and another, and so on. If the series is something like, 1212121212, it's not random. It has a pattern.
Quote from: Lingus on August 19, 2009, 05:33:36 PM
Not sure if that works Art. Think about it, if the list went like this:
012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789
Every number zero through nine would be in the list the same exact amount. But, there is a definite pattern. The selection of the numbers is not random at all. For a set of numbers to truely be random there should be no pattern whatsoever.
I thought of that but from some reason i thought there was a way to tell. Im ether leaving out a step or that's the wrong way to do it. Well you got me! :)
Well, no, it's actually not a bad test, it's just lacking. If you think about it, if you take a large enough set, the numbers should be relatively evened out. For instance, in a coin flip test. If you do 2 flips, you might get heads twice. But if you do a million flips, the ratio will be very close to 50:50. It would be the same with a set of numbers, but since there's 10 digits the set would have to be very large for the ratios to even out. So that test wouldn't work if you only had a set of 100 numbers. Even if the numbers are completely random, it's statistically possible for some of the digits to be chosen more often and some less often. If you had a set of around a billion (even a million would probably work) then the ratio would probably even out.
So there's definitely another step to figuring randomness. You have to see if there's a pattern.
But to go further with that. If you did a massive number of sets of massive numbers of digits (if you took a billion sets that contain a billion numbers each) then it's more and more likely that a pattern will arise. It's the whole, "Put a hundred monkeys in a room with typewriters for long enough and they'll eventually crank out Shakespeare." So even though the process is completely random, a pattern will arise from it.
That is the whole idea behind the universe. For millions of years after the creation of the universe there was nothing but giant clouds of gas. After a long enough period of time, they coalesced and formed stars which exploded to form more stars which exploded to form planets and so on and so on. This only occured because of the amount of time that it took.
yes i agree Lingus. I guess at this point all i believe in is infantry loops and waves.
(btw Lingus i half to say your really are quite a smart person. much more than me.)
Nah. I wouldn't say I'm that smart. Half the stuff I'm talking about I don't fully understand. I think I just absorb information that I see, and I spend a good amount of time watching shows about this kind of stuff. Discovery channel and all that.
Can you explain what you mean there? Did you mean infinity loops?
Or should we bring the topic back closer to the original discussion?
Quote from: ARTgames on August 19, 2009, 07:57:36 PM
all i believe in is infantry loops and waves.
Life is a video game for you than? Nothing like nothing like an endless cycle of soldiers and waves of zombies to kill.
Quote from: Mr Pwnage on August 19, 2009, 08:11:00 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on August 19, 2009, 07:57:36 PM
all i believe in is infantry loops and waves.
Life is a video game for you than? Nothing like nothing like an endless cycle of soldiers and waves of zombies to kill.
ohh lol! thank you for pointing that out. i meant infinity not infantry. >_<
@Lingus well i was going to post saying you sound like the Discovery channel but i thought that might be rude. :P I guess we should bring it back to original discussion. But you do say things well and i agree with it.
I'd still argue that a series like 12121212 from the numbers 0-9 would be random. It has a pattern, but it doesn't mean its not random.
What you guys are talking about reminds of circuits and Euler circuits from Calc. Interesting things - I forget exactly, but I'd have to look at my notes, but you can establish the chance that a certain path/route is taken by multiplying the matrix (or the adjacency matrix) by a large enough number.
Quote from: Cactuscat222 on August 19, 2009, 09:18:09 PM
I'd still argue that a series like 12121212 from the numbers 0-9 would be random. It has a pattern, but it doesn't mean its not random.
no he means like if the whole thing was 12121. not just a part.
I really enjoy the read.
We never know for sure what the outcome would be like, however. This thread could only be filled with suggestions, some may be true, though life after death seems very much unlikely the more I think about it. Though, with such a massive universe - most likely endless - I keep thinking what is held out there, which is yet another mind-blowing ponder.
Quote from: Cactuscat222 on August 19, 2009, 09:18:09 PM
I'd still argue that a series like 12121212 from the numbers 0-9 would be random. It has a pattern, but it doesn't mean its not random.
What you guys are talking about reminds of circuits and Euler circuits from Calc. Interesting things - I forget exactly, but I'd have to look at my notes, but you can establish the chance that a certain path/route is taken by multiplying the matrix (or the adjacency matrix) by a large enough number.
I think I see what you're saying. That it's possible, through means of a completely random process, for those numbers to be chosen. Though, the problem with that is that if that were to happen with only one try, it would be a statistical anomoly. If it happened after running that set hundreds or thousands of times (not sure on the actual numbers) then it would become more plausible. I'm just saying if you turned on a random number generator (even taking into consideration that as Jake mentioned they aren't completely random) and it started cranking out a series like 1212121212121212... you'd have to question whether there isn't something wrong with the code... or that the universe isn't about to implode. Something like that happening completely at random is extremely unlikely.
Quote from: Lingus on August 20, 2009, 04:42:22 PM
Quote from: Cactuscat222 on August 19, 2009, 09:18:09 PM
I'd still argue that a series like 12121212 from the numbers 0-9 would be random. It has a pattern, but it doesn't mean its not random.
What you guys are talking about reminds of circuits and Euler circuits from Calc. Interesting things - I forget exactly, but I'd have to look at my notes, but you can establish the chance that a certain path/route is taken by multiplying the matrix (or the adjacency matrix) by a large enough number.
I think I see what you're saying. That it's possible, through means of a completely random process, for those numbers to be chosen. Though, the problem with that is that if that were to happen with only one try, it would be a statistical anomoly. If it happened after running that set hundreds or thousands of times (not sure on the actual numbers) then it would become more plausible. I'm just saying if you turned on a random number generator (even taking into consideration that as Jake mentioned they aren't completely random) and it started cranking out a series like 1212121212121212... you'd have to question whether there isn't something wrong with the code... or that the universe isn't about to implode. Something like that happening completely at random is extremely unlikely.
"Improbable, but not impossible" to quote a good movie. :P Yes, it is very unlikely, but none-the-less possible.
Right. Which further goes to prove my comment that it is not possible to prove randomness. Even if you find a pattern, the method used to choose those numbers might still have been random. Which is a good point to bring up. A lot of people say that the patterns found throughout the universe are a reason to believe in a higher power. This is not necessarily true. The patterns could have come about through completely random occurances. And unlike our example of 1 instance of choosing a set of numbers, the universe has had billions of years to create patterns.
Quote from: Mr Pwnage on July 31, 2009, 11:06:57 AM
Quote from: Torch on July 30, 2009, 09:59:28 PM
The only conciousness you have is in your brain. When your brain dies, so does your conciousness.
This is my belief.
I don't go to church...and I see life threw a more scientific view...for 2 reasons:
1) It's easier for me to understand things. Like that every death is somewhat logical. And I like simple.
2) I don't feel that I have to blame some god for sombody's passing. I never blame. I just celebrate the life they did have, and carry them in my thoughts. I have had many deaths in the family/neighborhood, and it is the most intense form of sadness to see sombody you know, even just barely, laying before you in a lifeless body, and I cry now just typing about it. Gah, I just lost what I was thinking about...I have to go lay down...
Might I have my input? Okay thanks.
Christians believe that death occurs because its apart of God's plan. The result of thinking of this is often being less sad when someone passes away, due to the fact they know that, that person has gone somewhere better (Heaven). I witnessed this three weeks ago when my favourite (and most popular) teacher whom passed away; due to a heart attack.
Also with your comment about seeing life in a more scientific view; well I use to be like you until one day (about half a year ago). I thought that if God exists then we should praise him, as we cannot prove or disprove this, then praising them can't be bad, but then if God doesn't exist then it doesn't really matter.
Until you realize 'God' is supposed to be a 'perfect' and omnipotent being, and realize that he doesn't need to be praised or worshiped because he does not experience pride.
Quote from: Red October on September 13, 2009, 05:08:17 AMI thought that if God exists then we should praise him, as we cannot prove or disprove this, then praising them can't be bad, but then if God doesn't exist then it doesn't really matter.
Except that logic is flawed (in multiple ways, but one of them is...) because if God is truly all knowing he would know your true intent and see you for the false believer that you are. If God truly wanted praise he wouldn't accept lip service.
Does god what to be parsed all the time or is it that people do it just because they what to show there respect? just wondering.
To be fair, I don't think it's the praise for God that religions teach gets you into heavan. I think it's more of living your life by their standards. Don't sin, etc etc. The praise is probably, like Art says, as respect. I still don't think it's fair to do good things just so you can go to heavan (or w/e). I think that God would know...
According to the bible, the only way into heaven is through Jesus Christ. Therefore that means that you'll need to believe; in God and that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins; to going into "God's Kingdom". Going to church isn't vital, but encouraged. I haven't been in my life.
I'm still confused as to why everyone expertly dodged this question.
Quote from: Lucifer on August 14, 2009, 04:11:48 PM
Free will my ass. If you don't do as he says you're burning in hell for eternity. I may be very thick headed for posting this, but is any of it true? I myself have never read the bible, so I don't know if this is bullshit or not. http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm
If it is, what the hell? Apparently slavery isn't a sin? I'd love for someone to clear that up for me.
I'd REALLY like this to be cleared up.
First of all, before you read stuff like that, please consider the bias in which it is from.
This author directly sets up a site called EvilBible.com...
Now on to what that link said: Yes, the bible does talk about slavery, and it does talk about how its acceptable. Now, I'm not sure which bible he is quoting, but its definitely a modernized one; the one I have in front of me is more classical, but it doesn't have nearly as much of the details those did. So no, slavery was not a sin, but the bible clearly laid out some rules for it. The way the author talks is ridiculous, he totally brings it out of context: You couldn't have as many sex slaves as you wanted just by "feeding them, clothing them, and screwing them"... the author apparently didn't try to read what was said. If the man fails to do so, then she can leave. And according to the bible I have, for that passage it says "And if he take another wife for him, he shall provide her a marriage, and raiment; neither shall he refuse the price of her chastity." (Exodus 21:10) Its not so evil as the author tries to make it out as.
Next, consider the context of the bible; in the era it was written in, slavery was acceptable and allowed. As you should know, it wasn't until recently, in the past century or so, that slavery was abolished and promoted as a terrible thing. We are now brought up to know that this is true, that slavery is against the basic rights of humanity.
Oh no, this man has pointed out a fallacy with our CURRENT beliefs! The bible is evil, the bible is wrong! Run away!... [/sarcasm] Yes, we currently don't believe in slavery, but back then it wasn't bad!
"So, wouldn't God think that slavery is evil?" you would probably ask. Heck if I know, have you talked with God recently? I assume he probably didn't/doesn't. We are human, so we are free to make our choices, especially when it comes to ethics and morals. However, I do believe the bible set and teaches many of these morals, and continues to do so - however, it may be outdated according to our 'times'. I personally see it as timeless, but it is true; as we go along, we humans change things - it is how we work. It doesn't mean that God would agree - if we were made to only follow God's word, then why would we be given free choice as such?
*Accidental double post, meant to edit.*
Quote from: Cactuscat222 on September 16, 2009, 06:28:48 PM
First of all, before you read stuff like that, please consider the bias in which it is from.
This author directly sets up a site called EvilBible.com...
Now on to what that link said: Yes, the bible does talk about slavery, and it does talk about how its acceptable. Now, I'm not sure which bible he is quoting, but its definitely a modernized one; the one I have in front of me is more classical, but it doesn't have nearly as much of the details those did.
Next, consider the context of the bible; in the era it was written in, slavery was acceptable and allowed. As you should know, it wasn't until recently, in the past century or so, that slavery was abolished and promoted as a terrible thing. We are now brought up to know that this is true, that slavery is against the basic rights of humanity.
"So, wouldn't God think that slavery is evil?" you would probably ask. Heck if I know, have you talked with God recently? I assume he probably didn't/doesn't. We are human, so we are free to make our choices, especially when it comes to ethics and morals. However, I do believe the bible set and teaches many of these morals, and continues to do so - however, it may be outdated according to our 'times'. I personally see it as timeless, but it is true; as we go along, we humans change things - it is how we work. It doesn't mean that God would agree - if we were made to only follow God's word, then why would we be given free choice as such?
I know it was allowed for humans in that time. I'm just confused as to why several Christians say the bible is God's word(a few people even said it in this topic), yet we have this piece of work. Slavery is most definitely a sin, yet it's in the bible, as an acceptable thing to do. And free choice? If you sin enough of your own free will, or don't accept Christ's gift or believe in God AS YOUR OWN FREE WILL, you're hellbound according to Christians. I'm just saying, that if God doesn't think something as sinful as that is a sin, how can Christians not see the complete lack of logic there?
EDIT: I do realize that the author is biased against it quite a bit, but that doesn't change the ACTUAL point he brought up. Slavery in there may not be as bad as he's making it out to be, but from a 'Christian viewpoint,' it's a sin.
Sorry about any things I missed, as I have never read any parts of the Bible.
Quote from: Mystery on September 16, 2009, 06:39:17 PM
Quote from: Cactuscat222 on September 16, 2009, 06:28:48 PM
First of all, before you read stuff like that, please consider the bias in which it is from.
This author directly sets up a site called EvilBible.com...
Now on to what that link said: Yes, the bible does talk about slavery, and it does talk about how its acceptable. Now, I'm not sure which bible he is quoting, but its definitely a modernized one; the one I have in front of me is more classical, but it doesn't have nearly as much of the details those did.
Next, consider the context of the bible; in the era it was written in, slavery was acceptable and allowed. As you should know, it wasn't until recently, in the past century or so, that slavery was abolished and promoted as a terrible thing. We are now brought up to know that this is true, that slavery is against the basic rights of humanity.
"So, wouldn't God think that slavery is evil?" you would probably ask. Heck if I know, have you talked with God recently? I assume he probably didn't/doesn't. We are human, so we are free to make our choices, especially when it comes to ethics and morals. However, I do believe the bible set and teaches many of these morals, and continues to do so - however, it may be outdated according to our 'times'. I personally see it as timeless, but it is true; as we go along, we humans change things - it is how we work. It doesn't mean that God would agree - if we were made to only follow God's word, then why would we be given free choice as such?
I know it was allowed for humans in that time. I'm just confused as to why several Christians say the bible is God's word(a few people even said it in this topic), yet we have this piece of work. Slavery is most definitely a sin, yet it's in the bible, as an acceptable thing to do. And free choice? If you sin enough of your own free will, or don't accept Christ's gift or believe in God AS YOUR OWN FREE WILL, you're hellbound according to Christians. I'm just saying, that if God doesn't think something as sinful as that is a sin, how can Christians not see the complete lack of logic there?
Mystery... are the authors of the bible still around to update the bible? Or are you saying that as we modernize, we should go back to everything created beforehand, and update them according to our beliefs? The bible is known as the word of God to Christians, and its values are still very relevant and ethical today - but yes, in some areas it has become outdated according to OUR (read, us, we, people, NOT God) beliefs. So according to the bible, written FOREVER ago, its not a sin - but are you seriously going to argue its evil now because of that?
Quote from: Cactuscat222 on September 16, 2009, 06:44:25 PM
Quote from: Mystery on September 16, 2009, 06:39:17 PM
Quote from: Cactuscat222 on September 16, 2009, 06:28:48 PM
First of all, before you read stuff like that, please consider the bias in which it is from.
This author directly sets up a site called EvilBible.com...
Now on to what that link said: Yes, the bible does talk about slavery, and it does talk about how its acceptable. Now, I'm not sure which bible he is quoting, but its definitely a modernized one; the one I have in front of me is more classical, but it doesn't have nearly as much of the details those did.
Next, consider the context of the bible; in the era it was written in, slavery was acceptable and allowed. As you should know, it wasn't until recently, in the past century or so, that slavery was abolished and promoted as a terrible thing. We are now brought up to know that this is true, that slavery is against the basic rights of humanity.
"So, wouldn't God think that slavery is evil?" you would probably ask. Heck if I know, have you talked with God recently? I assume he probably didn't/doesn't. We are human, so we are free to make our choices, especially when it comes to ethics and morals. However, I do believe the bible set and teaches many of these morals, and continues to do so - however, it may be outdated according to our 'times'. I personally see it as timeless, but it is true; as we go along, we humans change things - it is how we work. It doesn't mean that God would agree - if we were made to only follow God's word, then why would we be given free choice as such?
I know it was allowed for humans in that time. I'm just confused as to why several Christians say the bible is God's word(a few people even said it in this topic), yet we have this piece of work. Slavery is most definitely a sin, yet it's in the bible, as an acceptable thing to do. And free choice? If you sin enough of your own free will, or don't accept Christ's gift or believe in God AS YOUR OWN FREE WILL, you're hellbound according to Christians. I'm just saying, that if God doesn't think something as sinful as that is a sin, how can Christians not see the complete lack of logic there?
Mystery... are the authors of the bible still around to update the bible? Or are you saying that as we modernize, we should go back to everything created beforehand, and update them according to our beliefs? The bible is known as the word of God to Christians, and its values are still very relevant and ethical today - but yes, in some areas it has become outdated according to OUR (read, us, we, people, NOT God) beliefs. So according to the bible, written FOREVER ago, its not a sin - but are you seriously going to argue its evil now because of that?
No, I'm not saying it's evil at all. I just saw that it was confusing to me because of what Christians believe about slavery today. I really don't have much knowledge where the bible is concerned, that just confused me. But thanks for somewhat explaining it.
Well, there isn't much more to say about it. Religion is all about opinions anyways - you have the radical ones who follow the bible strictly. You have others who use it more as a guide line/set of rules, but aren't going to follow every last word to their dying breath.
I think most everyone today doesn't agree with slavery, and for good reasons too - but considering the bible was written by people, and not God himself (for some reason, there are people who don't understand that [both Christians and others]), there is definitely 'bias'; what people thought were right and wrong, though technically it all came from God.
And, if you agree that God is the ultimate, what he says goes. We as a people don't agree with slavery, but it doesn't mean God wouldn't/doesn't; he could by all means be upset with our decision. God is quite wrathful, as evident by the bible.
Quote from: Cactuscat222 on September 16, 2009, 06:54:48 PM
Well, there isn't much more to say about it. Religion is all about opinions anyways - you have the radical ones who follow the bible strictly. You have others who use it more as a guide line/set of rules, but aren't going to follow every last word to their dying breath.
I think most everyone today doesn't agree with slavery, and for good reasons too - but considering the bible was written by people, and not God himself (for some reason, there are people who don't understand that [both Christians and others]), there is definitely 'bias'; what people thought were right and wrong, though technically it all came from God.
And, if you agree that God is the ultimate, what he says goes. We as a people don't agree with slavery, but it doesn't mean God wouldn't/doesn't; he could by all means be upset with our decision. God is quite wrathful, as evident by the bible.
Which, in turn, causes much of the whole 'faith' thing to crumble. I've heard many claim that the bible is the 'word of God'.
Who says? Considering that God is perfect, God's word would need no revisions. If the bible is indeed God's word, then the original writing is completely valid. Clearly, slavery is a-okay.
Or not. We can instead agree that it is NOT God's word. God is perfect, so there shouldn't be so many bloody contradictions. The bible is a book, written by (imperfect and corruptible) humans. And suddenly, without the "God's word" argument floating around, any and all authority it had vanishes. If some of it is flawed, who is to say other portions aren't? How are we drawing these lines, now? Murder is a sin, but for how long? Til public opinion says otherwise, and we decide to revise "God's word"?
Gays are bad? Who says, the bible? Who gives a crap about a bunch of old farts opinions centuries ago? Orrrr, is it God who said so? Cause, you know, the bible is God's word. Or...is it?
Hell, why did God decide to suddenly plop down the rulebook in our midst MILLIONS of years after he decided to make the world? God is timeless (and *COUGHCOUGHperfectCOUGHCOUGH*), why not drop it down when, say, we !@#$ed up and got kicked out of Eden? Keep us on the straight and narrow with our new-found, ill-gained knowledge?
Conclusion: The bible is garbage, and you're all participating in the biggest trolling in history.
You are arguing against me, and I am by no means an expert in religion or its ideas.
I'm sure there may be some problems with what I say that is not reflected by the true ideal and religion of Christianity, as I do not attend church or regularly read the bible.
Still though, I don't think you could come to the conclusion that the bible is trash. If God is omnipowerful, he can do whatever the hell he wants, no matter what you think. Yeah, he should have done this, or should have done that, then he would be true - but he doesn't have to.
Additionally, I didn't say we had to revise the bible. In fact, I said we SHOULDN'T revise, because that is ludicrous...
Perfection is completely based on your own state of mind: If God is 'Perfect', it doesn't mean your sense of perfection fits him.
Quote from: Cactuscat222 on September 16, 2009, 09:19:30 PM
Perfection is completely based on your own state of mind: If God is 'Perfect', it doesn't mean your sense of perfection fits him.
Which is why the whole idea of 'perfection' in and of itself is bull[Censor]. But MOST Christians have the idea that by perfect, God does no wrong, knows all, loves all, and all that other jazz.
And I share Chaos' viewpoint on this.
Quote from: Mystery on September 16, 2009, 09:23:20 PM
Quote from: Cactuscat222 on September 16, 2009, 09:19:30 PM
Perfection is completely based on your own state of mind: If God is 'Perfect', it doesn't mean your sense of perfection fits him.
Which is why the whole idea of 'perfection' in and of itself is bull[Censor]. But MOST Christians have the idea that by perfect, God does no wrong, knows all, loves all, and all that other jazz.
And I share Chaos' viewpoint on this.
So why is that wrong? Who says God doesn't do any wrong, knows all, loves all, and all that? I don't see any proof saying he isn't.
Quote from: Cactuscat222 on September 16, 2009, 09:37:22 PM
Quote from: Mystery on September 16, 2009, 09:23:20 PM
Quote from: Cactuscat222 on September 16, 2009, 09:19:30 PM
Perfection is completely based on your own state of mind: If God is 'Perfect', it doesn't mean your sense of perfection fits him.
Which is why the whole idea of 'perfection' in and of itself is bull[Censor]. But MOST Christians have the idea that by perfect, God does no wrong, knows all, loves all, and all that other jazz.
And I share Chaos' viewpoint on this.
So why is that wrong? Who says God doesn't do any wrong, knows all, loves all, and all that? I don't see any proof saying he isn't.
Because if he doesn't do any wrong, then what the hell is slavery advocation doing in the bible(as Christians' say it's God's word) when it's OBVIOUSLY bad? If God is perfect and knows all, then there's no reason for his viewpoint to change from slavery in the old days to now, right? I mean, he supposedly knows all. He has ALWAYS supposedly known all. And if he loves everyone, then why EVEN ALLOW slavery since it's so cruel? True, some people treat slaves well, but I can guarantee most people will always treat them badly. And it's wrong to do allow that. So did God do wrong? Naw, since he's COMPLETELY INFALLIBLE.
EDIT: I'm getting tired of this endless 7-page on-and-off debate....Religious debates pretty much NEVER get anywhere. I like debates just as much as the next guy, but people will always have their different beliefs that may not ever change. I'm an atheist. So are others. People are Christians. People are Muslims. People are polytheistic. People are Hindus. People are Buddhists. Let's just leave it at that.
Its only wrong to YOU.
You do NOT define what is right or wrong for ANYBODY but yourself.
People live just fine not believing in the same thing. Thus proving that what ever religion your practicing now is not making you live any better than any one else because you cant prove one opinion is better than another.
Most of this religion seems like an insurance to the after life also. Something we really know nothing about. Ill leave that there.
Just follow the laws and don't do bad thing and we will all be ok.
(note)
Now i have been working on this post for a long time. So it might seem outdated to these new posts i have not red yet
I don't feel like arguing with anyone, so I'm simply going to point things out as I see them.
-Slavery in the days of the Israelites is not the same as the slavery we have come to know.
-Slavery is
not a sin, despite what Mystery has pointed out.
-God does not condone slavery, but makes laws regarding it.
-Declaring what or whatnot makes God perfect is illogical. If you believe in the concept of God, it is enough evidence to override statements regarding the fallacies of God's perfect nature because his perfect nature allows him to see above the logic of our own. If he can see above our logic, then using logic to dispute his perfectness is invalid. It's a simple argument to dispel beliefs of people who try to argue what God can and not do while retaining his omnipotence. While this does not provide evidence (in my opinion), of a God. It instead provides evidence of God's nature and retaining his omnipotence if he does exist.
-Statements that the bible is garbage are pretty silly.
Quote from: ARTgames on September 16, 2009, 10:14:43 PM
Just follow the laws and don't do bad thing and we will all be ok.
Didn't realize how simple this key concept of life is. Follow societies laws and everything will be alright. Good thing I don't live in Africa, otherwise I'd have to eat my grandpa to be alright...
No, I'm not arguing against you, I'm making a point.
Blah blah blah, God can't do whatever he wants cause he's omnipowerful, because you completely side-stepped my entire post. Either the bible is God's word, or it is not, whatever stupid spin you want to try to apply to it. So is it the word of God, or is it not? You're !@#$ed no matter which direction you try to argue.
Word of God? Then we're all !@#$ed, no matter who you are, cause no one is following the original writings.
Not word of God? Then the Christian religion is !@#$ed, cause they suddenly have no authority to back themselves with.
Take your pick.
And no, Jake. God made Logic. I highly doubt he'd go make an entire UNIVERSE based of rules, and yet follow absolutely none. Hell, he "made humans in his own image", if not physically, definitely mentally. God would have created and thus follows the rules of logic. If he didn't, the rules of logic would be entirely different to what they are. Create what you know, you know?
Also, it is 3:30 am, and while I am not entirely sober, I'm pretty damn sure my argument is logically sound. If not, I'll revise tomorrow...
How's this: "Stop following a !@#$ing story book and build your own moral code, you lazy pricks."
EDIT: Just to clarify, none of this post, particularly the last line, is directed at anyone in particular beyond the few places where I actually specified people.
Quote from: Chaos on September 17, 2009, 04:32:16 AM
No, I'm not arguing against you, I'm making a point.
Blah blah blah, God can't do whatever he wants cause he's omnipowerful, because you completely side-stepped my entire post. Either the bible is God's word, or it is not, whatever stupid spin you want to try to apply to it. So is it the word of God, or is it not? You're !@#$ed no matter which direction you try to argue.
Word of God? Then we're all !@#$ed, no matter who you are, cause no one is following the original writings.
Not word of God? Then the Christian religion is !@#$ed, cause they suddenly have no authority to back themselves with.
Take your pick.
And no, Jake. God made Logic. I highly doubt he'd go make an entire UNIVERSE based of rules, and yet follow absolutely none. Hell, he "made humans in his own image", if not physically, definitely mentally. God would have created and thus follows the rules of logic. If he didn't, the rules of logic would be entirely different to what they are. Create what you know, you know?
Also, it is 3:30 am, and while I am not entirely sober, I'm pretty damn sure my argument is logically sound. If not, I'll revise tomorrow...
How's this: "Stop following a !@#$ing story book and build your own moral code, you lazy pricks."
Definitely +karma worthy. Even as a drunken rant, this post is still more logically sound than most of the other comments in this topic.
EDIT: Apparently, you can't give karma when you start off.
Quote from: Chaos on September 17, 2009, 04:32:16 AM
No, I'm not arguing against you, I'm making a point.
Blah blah blah, God can't do whatever he wants cause he's omnipowerful, because you completely side-stepped my entire post. Either the bible is God's word, or it is not, whatever stupid spin you want to try to apply to it. So is it the word of God, or is it not? You're !@#$ed no matter which direction you try to argue.
Word of God? Then we're all !@#$ed, no matter who you are, cause no one is following the original writings.
Not word of God? Then the Christian religion is !@#$ed, cause they suddenly have no authority to back themselves with.
Take your pick.
And no, Jake. God made Logic. I highly doubt he'd go make an entire UNIVERSE based of rules, and yet follow absolutely none. Hell, he "made humans in his own image", if not physically, definitely mentally. God would have created and thus follows the rules of logic. If he didn't, the rules of logic would be entirely different to what they are. Create what you know, you know?
Also, it is 3:30 am, and while I am not entirely sober, I'm pretty damn sure my argument is logically sound. If not, I'll revise tomorrow...
How's this: "Stop following a !@#$ing story book and build your own moral code, you lazy pricks."
EDIT: Just to clarify, none of this post, particularly the last line, is directed at anyone in particular beyond the few places where I actually specified people.
You're jumping to a very quick conclusion, so let me stop you right there. People
are following the original writings of the bible. According to Christianity, it is God's word. Now, since I've proven what you said wrong, what is your argument? You're throwing out general terms about God betraying his own logic, and I have seen none of that. Are you saying that since God set laws for slavery, he is betraying logic he created? Please be more specific. Something that you should also take into consideration is the idea that just because your logic doesn't agree with God's, doesn't mean God is side-stepping logic.
Also, your condescending attitude is really starting to annoying me, but I'm trying hard to not let it show in my argument. Stabs at people's beliefs are not ok in my book, whether you believe them to be right or wrong. You clearly need to sort your facts some more before you bring down the foundation of Christianity and their beliefs. And that goes for you too Torch.
"Now, since I've proven what you said wrong, what is your argument?"
Generally speaking, that is said after you've actually proved something.
"Revision" can not coexist with "Original". They are, by the very definition, completely exclusive. Considering the bible has received revisions (something that would be completely unnecessary, because God is perfect, therefore his word is, as well), it is not the original writings. Do you dispute this?
Secondly, exactly what argument are you trying to make? Please clarify for me: WHO exactly are you stating created the bible? Where did this book come from?
EDIT: You know what, scratch that. I'm pulling out. I've made my points more than clear and straightforward throughout this topic, and until someone decides to start refuting instead of ignoring, I have no desire to continue talking in a circle. Peace.
Quote from: Jake on September 17, 2009, 02:06:47 PM
Also, your condescending attitude is really starting to annoying me, but I'm trying hard to not let it show in my argument. Stabs at people's beliefs are not ok in my book, whether you believe them to be right or wrong. You clearly need to sort your facts some more before you bring down the foundation of Christianity and their beliefs. And that goes for you too Torch.
While his post was worded in a way that was meant to be insulting towards Christians, the logic in his post it still there. The new testament is so outdated that many of it's teachings are impractical or socially frowned upon today. If noone is following these teachings, then noone is following the will of god. This us unless the bible is not the will of god, in which case Christianity (which is based on the bible) is not the will of god.
Quote from: Chaos on September 17, 2009, 03:55:58 PM
"Now, since I've proven what you said wrong, what is your argument?"
Generally speaking, that is said after you've actually proved something.
"Revision" can not coexist with "Original". They are, by the very definition, completely exclusive. Considering the bible has received revisions (something that would be completely unnecessary, because God is perfect, therefore his word is, as well), it is not the original writings. Do you dispute this?
Secondly, exactly what argument are you trying to make? Please clarify for me: WHO exactly are you stating created the bible? Where did this book come from?
EDIT: You know what, scratch that. I'm pulling out. I've made my points more than clear and straightforward throughout this topic, and until someone decides to start refuting instead of ignoring, I have no desire to continue talking in a circle. Peace.
Here's where the confusion is coming on... Is a revision the same as a translation in your eyes or not? I need to know that info before continuing because we're on two separate pages here.
You say that God's word is not God's word if it is revised and I would agree. If somebody studies a bible that is translated but not revised, and the message is still the same, can it not be God's original teachings?
Quote from: Jake on September 17, 2009, 05:37:25 PM
Quote from: Chaos on September 17, 2009, 03:55:58 PM
"Now, since I've proven what you said wrong, what is your argument?"
Generally speaking, that is said after you've actually proved something.
"Revision" can not coexist with "Original". They are, by the very definition, completely exclusive. Considering the bible has received revisions (something that would be completely unnecessary, because God is perfect, therefore his word is, as well), it is not the original writings. Do you dispute this?
Secondly, exactly what argument are you trying to make? Please clarify for me: WHO exactly are you stating created the bible? Where did this book come from?
EDIT: You know what, scratch that. I'm pulling out. I've made my points more than clear and straightforward throughout this topic, and until someone decides to start refuting instead of ignoring, I have no desire to continue talking in a circle. Peace.
Here's where the confusion is coming on... Is a revision the same as a translation in your eyes or not? I need to know that info before continuing because we're on two separate pages here.
You say that God's word is not God's word if it is revised and I would agree. If somebody studies a bible that is translated but not revised, and the message is still the same, can it not be God's original teachings?
I just want to point out, historically speaking...And this specifically relates to the Renaissance times, but most likely in other Eras as well... These so called translations of the bible...were primarily done by VERY CORRUPT popes. I guess you would have to read the books I did to fully grasp what I mean, but I'll try to explain. Back in the day, pretty much all the power was in the churches, and the popes would always use this to their advantage, holding religion over peoples heads. It even got to the point where you could "pay" your sin off using money. Now, this was also the same period of time when the Bible was translated and written somewhat into what we know it to be today. Who was translating these texts? The corrupt popes of the Era, that's who. So it is VERY likely much of the text was manipulated to a point where very little is God's word, though it may be written in a way to sound such. Honestly though, I can't say this is to be fact, but with my knowledge on the matter I can only assume that this might play a big role in the Bibles actual accuracy. I could go on, but I think I've gotten across my point, feel free to let me know if you want me to elaborate though.
I think we can all agree that we really don't know what happens after death.
For [Censor]'s sake, I thought I made it clear I didn't want this to go on. It's slowly turning into flaming, as all religious debates do eventually because all sides are too stubborn to cave in.
Quote from: Jake on September 17, 2009, 12:49:19 AM
I don't feel like arguing with anyone, so I'm simply going to point things out as I see them.
I REALLY don't feel like arguing either. I WAS planning to rant with a gigantic post about 'why the [Censor] is slavery not a sin' and 'Cactus, if you cannot define what's wrong for others, then why the hell does God impose just that onto others to determine fate for eternity' and 'why can't you people see the logic Chaos and me are showing you' and all that other stuff, but I'm frankly not in the damn mood.
Quote from: ARTgames on September 17, 2009, 06:48:06 PM
I think we can all agree that we really don't know what happens after death.
THIS. No matter what we can bring to the table, WE DON'T KNOW UNTIL WE DIE. I personally choose to believe in science because it makes complete sense to me and doesn't offer false promises. This topic is really past its prime and should probably be left to die(haha, bad pun).
I might have actually debated if I felt better, but I have too much crap to contend with right now.
@Jake: We already covered this over texts, but I figured I'd post it here.
Jake: "By the way. In your argument, were you considering translations of the bible to be revisions"
Me: "No, though there is obviously going to be some translation errors, that really is irrelevant to my point, which is making actual intentional changes to the bible."
However, Mr. Pwnage brings up another point. Translations are done by human beings. They can very easily be said to say whatever the translator wants, if they so desired. Not that I'm suggesting that has happened, but it is something to keep in mind.
@Torch: Incidentally, it wasn't written entirely with intent to be offensive, it just happened to be 3:30 in the morning and I just finished a night of drinking with my friends, and I tend to be a bit more blunt (if that is possible) in that state, heh.
@ART: Yes, I think we can all agree to that. lol
Quote from: Mystery on September 17, 2009, 07:17:45 PM
For [Censor]'s sake, I thought I made it clear I didn't want this to go on. It's slowly turning into flaming, as all religious debates do eventually because all sides are too stubborn to cave in.
Quote from: Jake on September 17, 2009, 12:49:19 AM
I don't feel like arguing with anyone, so I'm simply going to point things out as I see them.
I REALLY don't feel like arguing either. I WAS planning to rant with a gigantic post about 'why the [Censor] is slavery not a sin' and 'Cactus, if you cannot define what's wrong for others, then why the hell does God impose just that onto others to determine fate for eternity' and 'why can't you people see the logic Chaos and me are showing you' and all that other stuff, but I'm frankly not in the damn mood.
Quote from: ARTgames on September 17, 2009, 06:48:06 PM
I think we can all agree that we really don't know what happens after death.
THIS. No matter what we can bring to the table, WE DON'T KNOW UNTIL WE DIE. I personally choose to believe in science because it makes complete sense to me and doesn't offer false promises. This topic is really past its prime and should probably be left to die(haha, bad pun).
I might have actually debated if I felt better, but I have too much crap to contend with right now.
You don't decide whether or not a debate goes on...
Plus you contradict yourself "WE DON'T KNOW UNTIL WE DIE" and "...and doesn't offer false promises." So you agree we know nothing, but then state flat out heaven/whatever is a 'false promise' and not real?
Slavery is wrong to us, as a people. Maybe in the 'perfection' of God, slavery is not a sin. Jake brought up a good point, whereas what is said in the bible is ONLY LAWS regarding it, not saying "you must have slaves or else you are going to hell!". No! Its only saying how to handle slavery! We've abolished it, so those laws no longer apply. Case proven. The bible isn't some 'all evil' book, as that author tried to crudely make it.
I, personally, am huge into logic. I've been having massive debates lately with people in regards to religion and other things (though recently I decided to ween off, because most of the people are atheist and have absolutely no respect for those with religion)... but what you have to understand is something I said earlier: Science is based on Logic, Religion is based on Faith. You can't use Logic to try and disprove Religion, because fundamentally it doesn't use logic. Whereas, Religion tries to use Faith to debunk Science, but that doesn't work because Science is fundamentally based on logic. It just doesn't work.
I see your 'logic' that you are trying to point out to us, but I don't agree with it.
Cactuscat222 explain what are your reason for believe that religion?
Quote from: Cactuscat222 on September 17, 2009, 10:49:35 PM
I see your 'logic' that you are trying to point out to us, but I don't agree with it.
That could perhaps do with a rephrase? If you 'see the logic' I'm pointing out, it would be assumed that what I'm saying makes logical sense to you.
The way I'm reading that as of right now, you're essentially saying "I see the logic, I'm just choosing to ignore it." o_O
If that is indeed the case, then I agree with Mystery, this topic should end now, because there is nothing constructive left to be said.
God created humans so he could watch all the ridiculous arguments everyone has debating his existance.
I say, let people believe whatever they want, have whatever religion they want(or lack thereof), if it gives them hope, if it gets them to keep moving through life, then more power to 'em. If anyone tries pushing their religion onto other people, and debating who's belief is right/wrong, then I have a problem. I hate when people try to push religion on you and tell you their way is right. Even if it were the otherway around, if I was highly religious and someone tried to tell me my beliefs were wrong, I would still have a problem.
I think it's a waste of time trying to prove anyones beliefs are right or wrong, because beliefs are based on your own personal views and experiences, and yours alone. You can't change someone's mind on a belief they've probably based their entire life upon.
To answer the actual question presented in this topic.... Death... Then cheese. All you can eat.
Yes, I had better rephrase it: I meant it as, I see what you are saying, but I don't believe it has basis. For example, what Mystery was saying about God; yes it would be logical that God wouldn't agree with slavery - however, this is not the case, it would only be logical in your terms. So I guess I can't even really say your 'logic'... I guess I see your point, but I don't agree with it, it doesn't make sense to me yet.
I really do think that this thread could be closed. It's creating too many arguments, I don't really want to get caught up in any sort of religious dispute, just clearly stating that from what I've gathered from this topic many people have become angry.
Yeah but there has not been any flame wars. As long as people are cool and trying to explain a point it seems ok to me.
I'd like to bring some evidence forth called the dead sea scrolls. Any quick google search will lead you to an analysis of documents found that contain the original texts of the bible. Through these, Christians have evidence that translations made to the bible are coherent with the original scriptures, and not based off translated book after book until the scriptures are revised along the way.
I also wanted to point out that God had two sets of rules in the bible. Rules for Israelites, and rules for everyone else. He talks about slavery, what to eat, what not to eat, etc. But he applied these rules to the Israelites, because they were His people and it is said that he had a higher standard for them to follow.
flash: It really doesn't need to be closed. It's getting more interesting by the minute, and some annoyances that were being built up against each other have diminishe.
Torch: The will of God is not to follow his morale teachings. His ultimate goal is for us to love him. And that's pretty much the only thing you need to do according to him. By following his laws, it increases our love for him (according to the bible). This isn't the old Catholicism, where you had to torture yourself to repent for your sins. Being sorry is simply enough. Also, the ten commandments are some of the least out dated items I can imagine. They present a rule set that is perfectly applicable to our modern society.
I also want to point out that I am not really a Christian, just for future reference. I argue the least popular side in any debate.
Quote from: Cactuscat222 on September 18, 2009, 02:39:19 AM
Yes, I had better rephrase it: I meant it as, I see what you are saying, but I don't believe it has basis. For example, what Mystery was saying about God; yes it would be logical that God wouldn't agree with slavery - however, this is not the case, it would only be logical in your terms. So I guess I can't even really say your 'logic'... I guess I see your point, but I don't agree with it, it doesn't make sense to me yet.
I'd like to point out that I personally don't support that line of reasoning. It isn't logical to make assumptions that God wouldn't agree with slavery. I stated as much in one of my previous posts:
QuoteIf some of it is flawed, who is to say other portions aren't? How are we drawing these lines, now? Murder is a sin, but for how long? Til public opinion says otherwise, and we decide to revise "God's word"?
Slavery wasn't 'bad' before, but now we believe it is. This is public opinion, not "God's word". My point is, when something becomes unpopular, some seem to deem it okay it go revising the bible to say such.
Quote from: Jake on September 18, 2009, 08:38:09 AM
I argue the least popular side in any debate.
Amen. (No pun intended.)
Quote from: Mr Pwnage on September 18, 2009, 03:26:10 PM
Quote from: Jake on September 18, 2009, 08:38:09 AM
I argue the least popular side in any debate.
Amen. (No pun intended.)
But what side do you agree with the most?
in a debate i pick the side i agree with (this can change depending what point are brot up in the debate). or in some cases the side that is not getting good recognition. But i will never pick a side over popularity height or low.
Quote from: Chaos on September 18, 2009, 01:12:13 PM
Quote from: Cactuscat222 on September 18, 2009, 02:39:19 AM
Yes, I had better rephrase it: I meant it as, I see what you are saying, but I don't believe it has basis. For example, what Mystery was saying about God; yes it would be logical that God wouldn't agree with slavery - however, this is not the case, it would only be logical in your terms. So I guess I can't even really say your 'logic'... I guess I see your point, but I don't agree with it, it doesn't make sense to me yet.
I'd like to point out that I personally don't support that line of reasoning. It isn't logical to make assumptions that God wouldn't agree with slavery. I stated as much in one of my previous posts:
QuoteIf some of it is flawed, who is to say other portions aren't? How are we drawing these lines, now? Murder is a sin, but for how long? Til public opinion says otherwise, and we decide to revise "God's word"?
Slavery wasn't 'bad' before, but now we believe it is. This is public opinion, not "God's word". My point is, when something becomes unpopular, some seem to deem it okay it go revising the bible to say such.
I haven't said one word about revising it; scratch that, I did, I said the same thing as you.
In an earlier post:
QuoteOr are you saying that as we modernize, we should go back to everything created beforehand, and update them according to our beliefs?
This was rhetorical obviously.
EDIT: I think we are on the wrong page here, because I didn't say "God wouldn't agree with slavery". I have stated he does.
I think the best answer to gods opinion on slavery is that we don't know for sure if he agrees with it or does not. Unless you can show me evidence pointing one way or the other.
If you're religious, your religion explains it all.
If you are not, then when you die, you are dead. There is no life after death, when you die, you are dead. Hard to comprehend at first, but when faced with other questions, pretty easy. The bigger question is what to do in the time between creation and destruction. IMHO.
I think this an appropriate time and place to bring this up:
http://liberator.net/articles/AdamsKen/BibleJustice.html
Quote from: Jake on September 18, 2009, 07:50:41 PM
I think the best answer to gods opinion on slavery is that we don't know for sure if he agrees with it or does not. Unless you can show me evidence pointing one way or the other.
At the time the bible was written, slavery was an accepted part of society. This is another example of how the bible is outdated. Morals and laws that may have had meaning back then don't necessarily make sense in today's society. It is important for people to for themselves what is right and wrong instead of following an outdated book.
"God's" opinion of slavery was simply society's opinion on slavery at the time and has no relevance today.
Quote from: Torch on September 18, 2009, 08:57:27 PM
Quote from: Jake on September 18, 2009, 07:50:41 PM
I think the best answer to gods opinion on slavery is that we don't know for sure if he agrees with it or does not. Unless you can show me evidence pointing one way or the other.
At the time the bible was written, slavery was an accepted part of society. This is another example of how the bible is outdated. Morals and laws that may have had meaning back then don't necessarily make sense in today's society. It is important for people to for themselves what is right and wrong instead of following an outdated book.
"God's" opinion of slavery was simply society's opinion on slavery at the time and has no relevance today.
You're forgetting that Jake already pointed out that the bible does not say God supports slavery, it merely provides rules about its use, which makes your major point moot. It is a weak point, perhaps, but a point nonetheless. Unless you can provide evidence that is stating otherwise?
@Cactus: I wasn't saying you were, I was merely making the clarification that I do not hold the viewpoint you are refuting directed towards Mystery. I make no assumptions on "God's viewpoint" beyond what is reasonable to ascertain from evidence.
My line that says: "I'd like to point out that I personally don't support that line of reasoning."
more appropriately rephrases to: "I'd like to point out that I personally don't support that line of reasoning of Mystery's that you are arguing against."
Quote from: ARTgames on September 18, 2009, 08:17:22 PM
I think this an appropriate time and place to bring this up:
http://liberator.net/articles/AdamsKen/BibleJustice.html
This is a very useful article, thanks for bringing it up and just reinforces the outdated-ness of the bible. I would like to focus two points from this link.
Firstly the manner the laws are told is very straightforward and blunt, the crime often ends with the offender being out to death or a harsh punishment. ?If a woman grabs a man's privates during a fight, her hand is to be cut off. (Duet 25:11,12)?. This will obviously never happen nowadays. But the quote also suggests that the writer was sexist - common in those days. Chaos already made the point that as Christians consider the bible to be the word of god, fact is man wrote the bible (claiming under the influence of god), so they are going to naturally support what was considered as good at the time (slavery, capital punishment etc). If the bible was written these days, we should have a different laws to follow compared to almost 2000 years ago.
Secondly is the idea of the Sabbath day. Those who don't know what this is, basically it's Sunday; a day to not work. One of the ten commandments (4th I think) states that no one should work on the day of the Sabbath. This idea is completely removed from western culture and probably most other parts of the world. I don't need to explain this at all, we all know that the bible needs to be updated, which no one will do.
@Chaos: Ah I see, I didn't understand. Thanks.
@Red October: I don't see a need to update the bible - there isn't any reason. Follow what you will, the bible still holds many values and morals that are very important (to everyone, not just Christians), and the traditions for Christians that are still followed today. Jake, who is more educated in this than I am, has also made the point that it isn't "you must follow the bible to its every word!", for that is ridiculous. Its merely to accept God into your life, repent, admit your sins, and you shall be forgiven.
EDIT: As I've stated before, and I'll state again, I'm NOT majorly religious. However, I have my beliefs.
Quote from: Cactuscat222 on September 18, 2009, 10:23:02 PM
@Red October: I don't see a need to update the bible - there isn't any reason. Follow what you will, the bible still holds many values and morals that are very important (to everyone, not just Christians), and the traditions for Christians that are still followed today. Jake, who is more educated in this than I am, has also made the point that it isn't "you must follow the bible to its every word!", for that is ridiculous. Its merely to accept God into your life, repent, admit your sins, and you shall be forgiven.
EDIT: As I've stated before, and I'll state again, I'm NOT majorly religious. However, I have my beliefs.
I never said there was a vital need to update the bible. Jake's is completely correct, but you must remember that not all Christians will follow this advice. I personally know a couple of people who would be very hostile if I suggested that the concept that parts of the bible should be ignored. Its these people that make Christianity seem off putting, to me personally.
Quote from: Chaos on September 18, 2009, 09:18:38 PM
Quote from: Torch on September 18, 2009, 08:57:27 PM
Quote from: Jake on September 18, 2009, 07:50:41 PM
I think the best answer to gods opinion on slavery is that we don't know for sure if he agrees with it or does not. Unless you can show me evidence pointing one way or the other.
At the time the bible was written, slavery was an accepted part of society. This is another example of how the bible is outdated. Morals and laws that may have had meaning back then don't necessarily make sense in today's society. It is important for people to for themselves what is right and wrong instead of following an outdated book.
"God's" opinion of slavery was simply society's opinion on slavery at the time and has no relevance today.
You're forgetting that Jake already pointed out that the bible does not say God supports slavery, it merely provides rules about its use, which makes your major point moot. It is a weak point, perhaps, but a point nonetheless. Unless you can provide evidence that is stating otherwise?
But the fact that the bible acknowledges slavery and is not directly against it is enough for my point to still stand. Slavery in today's society is considered completely immoral. At the time of the bible being written, slavery was viewed completely differently and wasn't necessarily considered immoral. The bible's laws for slavery were created in a time when people were not completely against it. It's impractical to apply these teachings to a society that is so different from the society in which they were written.
Perhaps. As Red October stated, an update to the bible may be in order. At the same time, I bring up my point that, if it were "God's word", it shouldn't require updating.
@Cactus: "Its merely to accept God into your life, repent, admit your sins, and you shall be forgiven."
Then what do we need the bible for? If I have a piece of bread with spots of mold, I don't just eat the bread and try to ignore it. Remove the mold, or get a new piece of bread.
Of course, that means removing parts from a book that is "God's word". Should we really be editing God's word? Should we even be in the position where we'd need to be editing God's word? Is it God's word at all? Is it a bunch of people's words, who wanted to fear-monger the general population into following them?
Hell, we have people that do that to this day. They're called politicians.
Quote from: Chaos on September 18, 2009, 11:09:46 PMOf course, that means removing parts from a book that is "God's word". Should we really be editing God's word?
No, as I said before, if it was really God's word then no one would dare to edit it.
1984 comes to mind. ;)
Quote from: Cactuscat222 on September 18, 2009, 10:23:02 PM
@Red October: I don't see a need to update the bible - there isn't any reason. Follow what you will, the bible still holds many values and morals that are very important (to everyone, not just Christians), and the traditions for Christians that are still followed today. Jake, who is more educated in this than I am, has also made the point that it isn't "you must follow the bible to its every word!", for that is ridiculous. Its merely to accept God into your life, repent, admit your sins, and you shall be forgiven.
Cactuscat222 do you think its possible from some one to learn these commonly accepted morals without ever reading the bible or even knowing of a god?
off topic spam: woot 200 posts!
Quote from: ARTgames on September 18, 2009, 11:41:10 PMCactuscat222 do you think its possible from some one to learn these commonly accepted morals without ever reading the bible or even knowing of a god?
Almost every religion in the world sets morals, each religion differs from other, but have common ones, like "don't kill". Example, here is the five basic Buddhist precepts;
Refraining from harming living beings,
Refraining from taking things not freely given,
Refraining from sexual misconduct,
Refraining from false speech,
Refraining from intoxicating drinks and drugs.
Comparing this to Christianity the first four precepts match up. However the bible doesn't say that Christians shouldn't drink, even though it's not recommend, as it leads to sin. So, its possible to learn about common moral, you can learn them from your parents.
Quote from: Red October on September 18, 2009, 11:54:40 PM
So, its possible to learn about common moral, you can learn them from your parents.
Other than learning about morals and culture, what else would you consider to be valuable from religion?
Quote from: ARTgames on September 19, 2009, 12:02:22 AMOther than learning about morals and culture, what else would you consider to be valuable from religion?
Religion's main concepts are what you should during life and what will happen after life. Christians believe that they will go into heaven and sinners will be cast into hell (so they can party with Lucifer). This gives them purpose to keep living and not rebel to there God. I invite you read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Heaven (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Heaven).
Quote from: Red October on September 19, 2009, 12:11:51 AM
Quote from: ARTgames on September 19, 2009, 12:02:22 AMOther than learning about morals and culture, what else would you consider to be valuable from religion?
Religion's main concepts are what you should during life and what will happen after life.
what i should what? should be doing?
also
QuoteMost of this religion seems like an insurance to the after life also. Something we really know nothing about. Ill leave that there.
Quote from: ARTgames on September 19, 2009, 12:30:53 AM
Quote from: Red October on September 19, 2009, 12:11:51 AM
Religion's main concepts are what you should be doing during your life and what will happen after life.
what i should what? should be doing?
Bolded the errors. Sorry about that.
Quote from: ARTgames on September 19, 2009, 12:30:53 AM
Quote from: Red October on September 19, 2009, 12:11:51 AM
Quote from: ARTgames on September 19, 2009, 12:02:22 AMOther than learning about morals and culture, what else would you consider to be valuable from religion?
Religion's main concepts are what you should during life and what will happen after life.
what i should what? should be doing?
also
QuoteMost of this religion seems like an insurance to the after life also. Something we really know nothing about. Ill leave that there.
One
could say that, but I don't think it's very strong evidence against religion. I could say that atheism is simply an excuse to not have to obey a moral code, but what do I have to support that claim? I'm not denying the possibility that religion was created out of fear, because I don't have enough info to prove a theory like that wrong.
Quote from: Jake on September 19, 2009, 01:12:49 AM
Quote from: ARTgames on September 19, 2009, 12:30:53 AM
Quote from: Red October on September 19, 2009, 12:11:51 AM
Quote from: ARTgames on September 19, 2009, 12:02:22 AMOther than learning about morals and culture, what else would you consider to be valuable from religion?
Religion's main concepts are what you should during life and what will happen after life.
what i should what? should be doing?
also
QuoteMost of this religion seems like an insurance to the after life also. Something we really know nothing about. Ill leave that there.
One could say that. I wouldn't say it's very strong evidence against religion. I could say that atheism is simply an excuse to not obey rules, but what do I have to support that claim?
QuotePeople live just fine not believing in the same thing. Thus proving that what ever religion your practicing now is not making you live any better than any one else because you cant prove one opinion is better than another.
you cant disprove some ones opinion about the after life. Unless you die and come back with some sort of proof.
My post was not against religion. i did not say that any ware in that post. Unless you can point out ware i said "because of <something> religion is false." All i said is what we know for sure. What you do with that info is up to you. that's why i "l leave that there." so you can pick it up and do what you what. you your self tuned that into "evidence against religion." now your arguing with your self. have fun.
Was this post to me or someone else?
I may have taken what you said wrong. Many people use the argument that religion is simply an outlet that people go to because they're scared. I thought you were bringing up the same argument as evidence against religion, so I was replying in response to that. Sorry. 0_o. After doing nothing but defend religion lately, my senses are tuned to find danger lurking in every sentence... If you know what I mean :P
Anyway, I think it's about time the Atheists go on the defense. So lets see here, what kind of crap can I pull up to make them squirm... How about the heat death of the universe. There is strong evidence out there that over time (this amount of time is really f****in long) the energy in the universe will equalize and cease to move. Well, that's a very simplistic explanation for it. Either way, this evidence brings forth to light the idea that the universe itself was created. It cannot have always existed because then it would have ended before the time we were created in a heat death.
I'm also interested in the mindset of an Atheist. I know a lot of people that seem to be on a goal to enlighten the world from religion. What is the motive behind this? You should envy ignorance, because ignorance is bliss. if somebody believes in a false religion, but they're happy about it, they should be winners in an atheists book because at least they'll be happy before they drift off into nothingness when they die. Isn't that the only thing that really matters to an atheist? Being happy in the time they have and then death. Gaining knowledge shouldn't matter, because it's useless after death. Unless that knowledge leads you to happiness, in which case it's what you should strive for. But why let that knowledge invade on other people's harmony? Is it that even an Atheist tries to find meaning in ones own life? They try to tell themselves that the neurons being fired off after their own neurons finish existing really matters, and that by changing the course of neurons, they can actually make a difference.
Why should I care about any of you? You're simply matter. Chemicals and synapses acting in a way to act intelligently. Your entire personality is the result of a structure of atoms. The emotion you would feel if I called you a "poo pusher" isn't anything but your brain reacting to light waves that are transmitted to your eyes.
Now that you know your life doesn't matter, feel happy! For many atheists, the first step is pretending that their life does matter and then still holding strongly onto their contradictory beliefs.
Quote from: Jake on September 19, 2009, 02:42:15 AM
I'm also interested in the mindset of an Atheist. I know a lot of people that seem to be on a goal to enlighten the world from religion. What is the motive behind this? You should envy ignorance, because ignorance is bliss. if somebody believes in a false religion, but they're happy about it, they should be winners in an atheists book because at least they'll be happy before they drift off into nothingness when they die. Isn't that the only thing that really matters to an atheist? Being happy in the time they have and then death. Gaining knowledge shouldn't matter, because it's useless after death. Unless that knowledge leads you to happiness, in which case it's what you should strive for. But why let that knowledge invade on other people's harmony? Is it that even an Atheist tries to find meaning in ones own life? They try to tell themselves that the neurons being fired off after their own neurons finish existing really matters, and that by changing the course of neurons, they can actually make a difference.
First off, religeon causes more controversy and war than almost anything else. If people would be happy with others having different beliefs, then the ignorance of religion would be bliss. Unfortunately, this is not the case. An end to religion would do us all more good than bad. I'm okay with people living in ignorant bliss, I'm not okay with these same people causing war a and strife over these same ignorant beliefs.
As an atheist, I enjoy learning new things and developing an understanding of how the world works. I find it much more fun than having everything explained by a god controlling it all.
QuoteI may have taken what you said wrong. Many people use the argument that religion is simply an outlet that people go to because they're scared. I thought you were bringing up the same argument as evidence against religion, so I was replying in response to that. Sorry. 0_o. After doing nothing but defend religion lately, my senses are tuned to find danger lurking in every sentence... If you know what I mean :P
thats ok. But i will say this brings something up. it does seem that in religion's that they follow the bible but they interrupt it differently.
Quote
Anyway, I think it's about time the Atheists go on the defense. So lets see here, what kind of crap can I pull up to make them squirm... How about the heat death of the universe. There is strong evidence out there that over time (this amount of time is really f****in long) the energy in the universe will equalize and cease to move. Well, that's a very simplistic explanation for it. Either way, this evidence brings forth to light the idea that the universe itself was created. It cannot have always existed because then it would have ended before the time we were created in a heat death.I'm also interested in the mindset of an Atheist. I know a lot of people that seem to be on a goal to enlighten the world from religion. What is the motive behind this? You should envy ignorance, because ignorance is bliss. if somebody believes in a false religion, but they're happy about it, they should be winners in an atheists book because at least they'll be happy before they drift off into nothingness when they die. Isn't that the only thing that really matters to an atheist? Being happy in the time they have and then death. Gaining knowledge shouldn't matter, because it's useless after death. Unless that knowledge leads you to happiness, in which case it's what you should strive for. But why let that knowledge invade on other people's harmony? Is it that even an Atheist tries to find meaning in ones own life? They try to tell themselves that the neurons being fired off after their own neurons finish existing really matters, and that by changing the course of neurons, they can actually make a difference.
Why should I care about any of you? You're simply matter. Chemicals and synapses acting in a way to act intelligently. Your entire personality is the result of a structure of atoms. The emotion you would feel if I called you a "poo pusher" isn't anything but your brain reacting to light waves that are transmitted to your eyes.
Now that you know your life doesn't matter, feel happy! For many atheists, the first step is pretending that their life does matter and then still holding strongly onto their contradictory beliefs.
more importantly
QuoteWhy should I care about any of you?
That is a good question. Also why should we live in first place, or what is the meaning of life? Why are living things afraid of death? We think of are self's of what we are in this thing we call "conscious"? What really is conscious and what makes us and other animals have it? Or are we more than conscious and also all of these subliminal things we dont even know but affect us all the time?
Atheist like religion seems to be based off a lot of stuff that we also don't know anything about.
If anything its good to live because its fun and interesting (yeah its more than that but you get the idea) and that you can pass down info to your young. And that dieing not fun ether.
http://twit.tv/fib46 some research about conscious. seems early in dev
I kinda agree with torch.
I believe there is some higher force that made everything, but I won't really live by the rules stated by church. I have my own opinion, and I can choose whether or not will I abide by them. I don't feel it being necessary now, but who knows... Maybe later in life I'll be sorry for saying this.
Something1 had to create something2, but then something1 had to be created by something0 and so on... That stated, it makes me think universe has ALWAYS existed, but it also means something had to be created from nothing. Like in: nothing had to create that something0 from previous example.
From my point of view, God exists, or it existed, but that force is gone now, and we maybe live without any control from higher force. That stated, if we destroy ourselves, it's highly possible "Earth" won't be recreated by the time new God/force exists (it will be created at some point, and infinite times, because time is infinite aswell).
Some of this may sound illogical to you, but please reply with your thoughts.
Quote from: Torch on September 19, 2009, 10:54:11 AM
Quote from: Jake on September 19, 2009, 02:42:15 AM
I'm also interested in the mindset of an Atheist. I know a lot of people that seem to be on a goal to enlighten the world from religion. What is the motive behind this? You should envy ignorance, because ignorance is bliss. if somebody believes in a false religion, but they're happy about it, they should be winners in an atheists book because at least they'll be happy before they drift off into nothingness when they die. Isn't that the only thing that really matters to an atheist? Being happy in the time they have and then death. Gaining knowledge shouldn't matter, because it's useless after death. Unless that knowledge leads you to happiness, in which case it's what you should strive for. But why let that knowledge invade on other people's harmony? Is it that even an Atheist tries to find meaning in ones own life? They try to tell themselves that the neurons being fired off after their own neurons finish existing really matters, and that by changing the course of neurons, they can actually make a difference.
First off, religeon causes more controversy and war than almost anything else. If people would be happy with others having different beliefs, then the ignorance of religion would be bliss. Unfortunately, this is not the case. An end to religion would do us all more good than bad. I'm okay with people living in ignorant bliss, I'm not okay with these same people causing war a and strife over these same ignorant beliefs.
As an atheist, I enjoy learning new things and developing an understanding of how the world works. I find it much more fun than having everything explained by a god controlling it all.
Religion does not cause war. People cause war. Whether religion exists or not, there will always be those crazy groups of people intent on bringing destruction to anything and everything peaceful. It's like saying that we should get rid of all guns in the world because they cause so much death. Doing so would only cause people to shift to a different weapon.
Are the people in this forum causing a war? Are we hurting others with our view points? Why then are you arguing with us over this? Go to the source of the problem. Should we get rid of the internet because some n00bs use it who really annoy people? No, we should get rid of the n00bs who contaminate it.
Quote from: Jake on September 19, 2009, 12:37:17 PM
Quote from: Torch on September 19, 2009, 10:54:11 AM
Quote from: Jake on September 19, 2009, 02:42:15 AM
I'm also interested in the mindset of an Atheist. I know a lot of people that seem to be on a goal to enlighten the world from religion. What is the motive behind this? You should envy ignorance, because ignorance is bliss. if somebody believes in a false religion, but they're happy about it, they should be winners in an atheists book because at least they'll be happy before they drift off into nothingness when they die. Isn't that the only thing that really matters to an atheist? Being happy in the time they have and then death. Gaining knowledge shouldn't matter, because it's useless after death. Unless that knowledge leads you to happiness, in which case it's what you should strive for. But why let that knowledge invade on other people's harmony? Is it that even an Atheist tries to find meaning in ones own life? They try to tell themselves that the neurons being fired off after their own neurons finish existing really matters, and that by changing the course of neurons, they can actually make a difference.
First off, religeon causes more controversy and war than almost anything else. If people would be happy with others having different beliefs, then the ignorance of religion would be bliss. Unfortunately, this is not the case. An end to religion would do us all more good than bad. I'm okay with people living in ignorant bliss, I'm not okay with these same people causing war a and strife over these same ignorant beliefs.
As an atheist, I enjoy learning new things and developing an understanding of how the world works. I find it much more fun than having everything explained by a god controlling it all.
Religion does not cause war. People cause war. Whether religion exists or not, there will always be those crazy groups of people intent on bringing destruction to anything and everything peaceful. It's like saying that we should get rid of all guns in the world because they cause so much death. Doing so would only cause people to shift to a different weapon.
Are the people in this forum causing a war? Are we hurting others with our view points? Why then are you arguing with us over this? Go to the source of the problem. Should we get rid of the internet because some n00bs use it who really annoy people? No, we should get rid of the n00bs who contaminate it.
Is this support of my view that we should execute all stupid people? :P
Quote from: Jake on September 19, 2009, 12:37:17 PM
Quote from: Torch on September 19, 2009, 10:54:11 AM
Quote from: Jake on September 19, 2009, 02:42:15 AM
I'm also interested in the mindset of an Atheist. I know a lot of people that seem to be on a goal to enlighten the world from religion. What is the motive behind this? You should envy ignorance, because ignorance is bliss. if somebody believes in a false religion, but they're happy about it, they should be winners in an atheists book because at least they'll be happy before they drift off into nothingness when they die. Isn't that the only thing that really matters to an atheist? Being happy in the time they have and then death. Gaining knowledge shouldn't matter, because it's useless after death. Unless that knowledge leads you to happiness, in which case it's what you should strive for. But why let that knowledge invade on other people's harmony? Is it that even an Atheist tries to find meaning in ones own life? They try to tell themselves that the neurons being fired off after their own neurons finish existing really matters, and that by changing the course of neurons, they can actually make a difference.
First off, religeon causes more controversy and war than almost anything else. If people would be happy with others having different beliefs, then the ignorance of religion would be bliss. Unfortunately, this is not the case. An end to religion would do us all more good than bad. I'm okay with people living in ignorant bliss, I'm not okay with these same people causing war a and strife over these same ignorant beliefs.
As an atheist, I enjoy learning new things and developing an understanding of how the world works. I find it much more fun than having everything explained by a god controlling it all.
Religion does not cause war. People cause war. Whether religion exists or not, there will always be those crazy groups of people intent on bringing destruction to anything and everything peaceful. It's like saying that we should get rid of all guns in the world because they cause so much death. Doing so would only cause people to shift to a different weapon.
Are the people in this forum causing a war? Are we hurting others with our view points? Why then are you arguing with us over this? Go to the source of the problem. Should we get rid of the internet because some n00bs use it who really annoy people? No, we should get rid of the n00bs who contaminate it.
But religion appeals to the stupid people who cause the destruction. Stupid people aren't bent on causing destruction, they're just easily manipulated and can't think for themselves. Most major religion teach that people who follow different faiths will be punished by god. People can be persuaded into punishing those of different faith this way.
Also, I'm pretty sure Genocide isn't the answer O_o.
When you have a sharp object that you don't want a small child to swallow, you keep the sharp object away from the child, you don't kill the child. If people are going to take religion and turn it into an excuse to cause destruction, you deal with the problem before it happens and don't teach them religion.
Lol @ Chaos' post.
The object is more like a baseball bat. It can be used to play baseball, or beat the shit out of people.
Quote from: Jake on September 19, 2009, 01:23:33 PM
The object is more like a baseball bat. It can be used to play baseball, or beat the shit out of people.
And when people start to fight over who gets the baseball bat, the baseball bat gets taken away. Not because the baseball bat in itself is being used dangerously, but because it is the source of the fight.
Quote from: Torch on September 19, 2009, 01:35:24 PM
Quote from: Jake on September 19, 2009, 01:23:33 PM
The object is more like a baseball bat. It can be used to play baseball, or beat the shit out of people.
And when people start to fight over who gets the baseball bat, the baseball bat gets taken away. Not because the baseball bat in itself is being used dangerously, but because it is the source of the fight.
It gets taken away by a group of people who think they know whats best for everyone, when they're just as ignorant as the rest of the world.
Atheists sometimes like to put their beliefs on a pedestal higher than religious beliefs. They discredit religious people for imposing their beliefs on others, yet are guilty of it themselves. The fact that you want to get rid of religion means that you're assuming your beliefs to be correct, and cannot accept the fact that you could be wrong, which is one of your greatest weaknesses.
Your idea of getting rid of religion makes you no better than the people who want to convert the entire world to their own religion.
Quote from: Jake on September 19, 2009, 01:53:11 PM
Quote from: Torch on September 19, 2009, 01:35:24 PM
Quote from: Jake on September 19, 2009, 01:23:33 PM
The object is more like a baseball bat. It can be used to play baseball, or beat the shit out of people.
And when people start to fight over who gets the baseball bat, the baseball bat gets taken away. Not because the baseball bat in itself is being used dangerously, but because it is the source of the fight.
It gets taken away by a group of people who think they know whats best for everyone, when they're just as ignorant as the rest of the world.
Atheists sometimes like to put their beliefs on a pedestal higher than religious beliefs. They discredit religious people for imposing their beliefs on others, yet are guilty of it themselves. The fact that you want to get rid of religion means that you're assuming your beliefs to be correct, and cannot accept the fact that you could be wrong, which is one of your greatest weaknesses.
Your idea of getting rid of religion makes you no better than the people who want to convert the entire world to their own religion.
Oh, for God's sake.(It's an expression, I know I don't believe in the guy.) I myself never put my beliefs above others. I might have sounded a little cocky when I was debating, but I usually sound cocky so that's not applicable. I know I can be wrong, as several times I often am. EVERY belief has some people who take it too far. I don't want to get rid of religion in the slightest. There's a lot of good in it. It teaches people morals, helps them to focus on what's important, and gives them hope. There's some good and some bad in everything. Well, ALMOST everything.
Believe in what you want. Hell, even believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I don't see a problem with it. :P
I feel as if this topic is repeating its self now.
The difference is there is generally evidence supporting the scientific approach.
Personally, I have no idea whether I'm right, but I'm certainly more inclined to lean towards the logic and science points towards. :|
Quote from: ARTgames on September 19, 2009, 02:04:25 PM
I feel as if this topic is repeating its self now.
Which is why the discussion should probably stop. There's nothing really being added here.
Quote from: Chaos on September 19, 2009, 02:06:29 PM
The difference is there is generally evidence supporting the scientific approach.
Personally, I have no idea whether I'm right, but I'm certainly more inclined to lean towards the logic and science points towards. :|
Evidence is based upon perception. Millions of Christians have self-evidence for their religion, but atheists don't count it as valid. Saying one has more than the other is different for each person.
Quote from: Jake on September 19, 2009, 02:50:47 PM
Quote from: Chaos on September 19, 2009, 02:06:29 PM
The difference is there is generally evidence supporting the scientific approach.
Personally, I have no idea whether I'm right, but I'm certainly more inclined to lean towards the logic and science points towards. :|
Evidence is based upon perception. Millions of Christians have self-evidence for their religion, but atheists don't count it as valid. Saying one has more than the other is different for each person.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence
Since when did the subject of this topic change to "Bash Christianity"?
People...let me clarify a couple things here. First, PLEASE stop posting: "This topic should be locked, it isn't going anywhere." ...or, "Just let this topic die." Just because you think it isn't going anywhere doesn't mean people aren't getting a kick out if it. You know how you decide if the topic isn't going anywhere? When people stop posting in it. Forums are naturally designed to have things dropped to the bottom. The only time you really lock stuff for topic is when somebody asks a direct, factual question, and it is answer with no more questions from the topic creator. This topic, on the other hand, is an OPEN ENDED QUESTION...so it dies when it dies...and if it gets to the point where it needs to be locked, let a mod decide that. Posting this same shit over and over again is down right annoying. If you have lost interest in a topic, leave.
And @ Notor (the above isn't directed at you btw, I am responding to your comment now:)
The topic didn't change at all. Conversations take weird twists and turns, and whatnot. But it is still very much linked to the topic at hand. Christianity is an argued point right now, because religion is a very common subject when you talk about "after death".
So far I am really enjoying people's views on this matter...
Here's a question I am wondering about people...do you believe in ghosts that still roam THIS EARTH? Just wondering. The even apparently have scientific cameras for it. So hmmm?
Quote from: Mr Pwnage on September 19, 2009, 05:17:39 PM
So far I am really enjoying people's views on this matter...
Here's a question I am wondering about people...do you believe in ghosts that still roam THIS EARTH? Just wondering. The even apparently have scientific cameras for it. So hmmm?
Atheists and Christians alike, for the most part, share the same view point on this. And that viewpoint is NO. (Then again, we really don't know until death either...) I personally do not believe in ghosts, although that may have been influenced by my youth when I knew monsters and such didn't exist. Never believed in the Boogieman, vampires, Pedobear, whatever. I know that's not the same thing as what you're talking about, i just find it as ridiculous. Doubt everyone agrees with me, though.
Quote from: Jake on September 19, 2009, 01:53:11 PM
Quote from: Torch on September 19, 2009, 01:35:24 PM
Quote from: Jake on September 19, 2009, 01:23:33 PM
The object is more like a baseball bat. It can be used to play baseball, or beat the shit out of people.
And when people start to fight over who gets the baseball bat, the baseball bat gets taken away. Not because the baseball bat in itself is being used dangerously, but because it is the source of the fight.
It gets taken away by a group of people who think they know whats best for everyone, when they're just as ignorant as the rest of the world.
Atheists sometimes like to put their beliefs on a pedestal higher than religious beliefs. They discredit religious people for imposing their beliefs on others, yet are guilty of it themselves. The fact that you want to get rid of religion means that you're assuming your beliefs to be correct, and cannot accept the fact that you could be wrong, which is one of your greatest weaknesses.
Your idea of getting rid of religion makes you no better than the people who want to convert the entire world to their own religion.
The difference being that atheists aren't fanatics that terrorize others for their beliefs. The point is that atheists would be happy to leave religion alone if religion wasn't causing so many problems for everyone. Religious people impose their beliefs upon others for no reason other than they believe it is a part of their religion to do so.
You can't ignore that religion causes many problems. The only plausible way to fix these problems that I see is to get rid of religion or at least not teach a person to believe in a specific religion.
The comment about atheists putting themselves on a higher pedestal than others can also be said for any religion. I don't believe that atheists do this any more than Christians or Muslims.
Quote from: Torch on September 19, 2009, 09:48:17 PM
Quote from: Jake on September 19, 2009, 01:53:11 PM
Quote from: Torch on September 19, 2009, 01:35:24 PM
Quote from: Jake on September 19, 2009, 01:23:33 PM
The object is more like a baseball bat. It can be used to play baseball, or beat the shit out of people.
And when people start to fight over who gets the baseball bat, the baseball bat gets taken away. Not because the baseball bat in itself is being used dangerously, but because it is the source of the fight.
It gets taken away by a group of people who think they know whats best for everyone, when they're just as ignorant as the rest of the world.
Atheists sometimes like to put their beliefs on a pedestal higher than religious beliefs. They discredit religious people for imposing their beliefs on others, yet are guilty of it themselves. The fact that you want to get rid of religion means that you're assuming your beliefs to be correct, and cannot accept the fact that you could be wrong, which is one of your greatest weaknesses.
Your idea of getting rid of religion makes you no better than the people who want to convert the entire world to their own religion.
The difference being that atheists aren't fanatics that terrorize others for their beliefs. The point is that atheists would be happy to leave religion alone if religion wasn't causing so many problems for everyone. Religious people impose their beliefs upon others for no reason other than they believe it is a part of their religion to do so.
You can't ignore that religion causes many problems. The only plausible way to fix these problems that I see is to get rid of religion or at least not teach a person to believe in a specific religion.
The comment about atheists putting themselves on a higher pedestal than others can also be said for any religion. I don't believe that atheists do this any more than Christians or Muslims.
It can't be said for any religion. There are many out there where they couldn't care less about others. The problems of religion today are few and far in between - I would say impacts outweigh costs. Getting rid of them, for one, is impossible, and two, there is no reason.
Quote from: Mystery on September 19, 2009, 05:40:47 PM
Quote from: Mr Pwnage on September 19, 2009, 05:17:39 PM
So far I am really enjoying people's views on this matter...
Here's a question I am wondering about people...do you believe in ghosts that still roam THIS EARTH? Just wondering. The even apparently have scientific cameras for it. So hmmm?
Atheists and Christians alike, for the most part, share the same view point on this. And that viewpoint is NO. (Then again, we really don't know until death either...) I personally do not believe in ghosts, although that may have been influenced by my youth when I knew monsters and such didn't exist. Never believed in the Boogieman, vampires, Pedobear, whatever. I know that's not the same thing as what you're talking about, i just find it as ridiculous. Doubt everyone agrees with me, though.
I'm not really talking about superstitions like that...more like ghost like um...haunting more or less. Like if a whole family was brutally murdered in a fire, their ghosts haunted the house they were burned in, etc. And it doesn't even have to be elaborate as that. Like maybe a ghost just goes back to a certain area when he was alive. And whats up with all these cameras that track ghosts? Are they all a big lie that many TV shows use? Are they legit in any way?
QuoteThe difference being that atheists aren't fanatics that terrorize others for their beliefs.
Wrong. Sooo wrong.
QuoteThe point is that atheists would be happy to leave religion alone if religion wasn't causing so many problems for everyone. Religious people impose their beliefs upon others for no reason other than they believe it is a part of their religion to do so.
Not true. Most Christians I know impose their beliefs because they
care... Something I can't say the same about for atheism.
QuoteYou can't ignore that religion causes many problems. The only plausible way to fix these problems that I see is to get rid of religion or at least not teach a person to believe in a specific religion.
Getting rid of religion is the strongest act of imposing one's beliefs that I can think of. You complain about religious people pressing their opinions on others when you're trying to say we should get rid of religion entirely! That is one of the most hypocritical statements I've ever seen.
QuoteThe comment about atheists putting themselves on a higher pedestal than others can also be said for any religion. I don't believe that atheists do this any more than Christians or Muslims.
I agree.
Quote from: NotoriousM4^ on September 19, 2009, 04:04:26 PM
Since when did the subject of this topic change to "Bash Christianity"?
Since you decided to post here and state that as the subject of this topic, I would guess.
Quote from: Chaos on September 20, 2009, 04:22:12 AM
Quote from: NotoriousM4^ on September 19, 2009, 04:04:26 PM
Since when did the subject of this topic change to "Bash Christianity"?
Since you decided to post here and state that as the subject of this topic, I would guess.
Your too good ;)
Quote
Wrong. Sooo wrong.
At least not to the extent that religious extremists do. I'm pretty sure there has never been a war over atheism.
Quote
Not true. Most Christians I know impose their beliefs because they care... Something I can't say the same about for atheism.
But in doing so, they create problems for others.
Quote
Getting rid of religion is the strongest act of imposing one's beliefs that I can think of. You complain about religious people pressing their opinions on others when you're trying to say we should get rid of religion entirely! That is one of the most hypocritical statements I've ever seen.
It's not so much "pressing opinions on others" as it is finding a way to prevent religious war and terrorism. The motive is completely different.
QuoteQuote
Wrong. Sooo wrong.
At least not to the extent that religious extremists do. I'm pretty sure there has never been a war over atheism.
And I would agree with that. The problem is, both groups are becoming increasingly volatile. There is a huge surge of hatred towards religious people that has sprung up in forums almost everywhere. Open mocking of people's beliefs is becoming more prevalent and acceptable. I find it common place to see people making fun of religion, and also the people who believe in that religion. I see much less religious people doing the same thing these days. Sure, you'll get an uncommon wacko that's telling everyone to repent or risk burning in hell, but that's very rare comparatively speaking.
QuoteQuote
Not true. Most Christians I know impose their beliefs because they care... Something I can't say the same about for atheism.
But in doing so, they create problems for others.
Could be argued the other way too. The one difference I see is that many Christians do it because of love for their neighbor, while I see most atheists trying to convert their neighbor out of selfish reasons, including (but not always) hatred. This doesn't happen in every scenario, but it's what I believe to be most common.
QuoteQuote
Getting rid of religion is the strongest act of imposing one's beliefs that I can think of. You complain about religious people pressing their opinions on others when you're trying to say we should get rid of religion entirely! That is one of the most hypocritical statements I've ever seen.
It's not so much "pressing opinions on others" as it is finding a way to prevent religious war and terrorism. The motive is completely different.
Exactly! A religious persons goal isn't to impose their beliefs on you, it's to open your eyes to eternal life. Your arguing points for atheism that go both ways.
Quote from: Jake on September 21, 2009, 01:10:36 AM
Exactly! A religious persons goal isn't to impose their beliefs on you, it's to open your eyes to eternal life. Your arguing points for atheism that go both ways.
Maybe some people don't WANT eternal life. Myself included. Doing anything would get boring eventually, and by that point you'd pretty much want to die and have it end. I know I would, and I certainly wouldn't want to be happy forever if it meant tending to God's every whim... Plus, death can be happy, even if it does end everything. Like it was said earlier here, some people are in constant pain throughout their lives. They aren't selfish enough to commit suicide, so they have to grin and bear it until death.
Quote from: Mystery on September 21, 2009, 08:11:35 PM
Quote from: Jake on September 21, 2009, 01:10:36 AM
Exactly! A religious persons goal isn't to impose their beliefs on you, it's to open your eyes to eternal life. Your arguing points for atheism that go both ways.
Maybe some people don't WANT eternal life. Myself included. Doing anything would get boring eventually, and by that point you'd pretty much want to die and have it end. I know I would, and I certainly wouldn't want to be happy forever if it meant tending to God's every whim... Plus, death can be happy, even if it does end everything. Like it was said earlier here, some people are in constant pain throughout their lives. They aren't selfish enough to commit suicide, so they have to grin and bear it until death.
Then when you get bored, remove yourself? And that is only assuming you can do "anything and everything" in Heaven. The way I see it, it is a place to be eternally happy, and I don't see how you could say you wouldn't want it over just disappearing, because you would "get bored" - because in honesty, if you live to be over 90 years old, thats a REALLY LONG time, and I'm sure throughout that life you would be bored at periods (especially after you are really old), but that isn't reason enough for you to go "Oh meh, I'm bored, I'd rather just disappear."
And it doesn't require tending to "God's every whim".
Quote from: Cactuscat222 on September 21, 2009, 09:23:51 PM
Quote from: Mystery on September 21, 2009, 08:11:35 PM
Quote from: Jake on September 21, 2009, 01:10:36 AM
Exactly! A religious persons goal isn't to impose their beliefs on you, it's to open your eyes to eternal life. Your arguing points for atheism that go both ways.
Maybe some people don't WANT eternal life. Myself included. Doing anything would get boring eventually, and by that point you'd pretty much want to die and have it end. I know I would, and I certainly wouldn't want to be happy forever if it meant tending to God's every whim... Plus, death can be happy, even if it does end everything. Like it was said earlier here, some people are in constant pain throughout their lives. They aren't selfish enough to commit suicide, so they have to grin and bear it until death.
Then when you get bored, remove yourself? And that is only assuming you can do "anything and everything" in Heaven. The way I see it, it is a place to be eternally happy, and I don't see how you could say you wouldn't want it over just disappearing, because you would "get bored" - because in honesty, if you live to be over 90 years old, thats a REALLY LONG time, and I'm sure throughout that life you would be bored at periods (especially after you are really old), but that isn't reason enough for you to go "Oh meh, I'm bored, I'd rather just disappear."
And it doesn't require tending to "God's every whim".
You don't seem to understand just how long an eternity is. 90 years is nothing compared to it. Try multiplying a googleplex by a googleplex googleplex times. That's a ridiculously long number, and STILL nothing compared to an eternity. I guarantee you you'd get bored. I actually don't think you can be removed from Heaven after death if you want to, and if you do, where would you go?
You are both arguing about something you know nothing about. Just opinion of what it is.
Quote from: Mystery on September 21, 2009, 10:12:28 PM
Quote from: Cactuscat222 on September 21, 2009, 09:23:51 PM
Quote from: Mystery on September 21, 2009, 08:11:35 PM
Quote from: Jake on September 21, 2009, 01:10:36 AM
Exactly! A religious persons goal isn't to impose their beliefs on you, it's to open your eyes to eternal life. Your arguing points for atheism that go both ways.
Maybe some people don't WANT eternal life. Myself included. Doing anything would get boring eventually, and by that point you'd pretty much want to die and have it end. I know I would, and I certainly wouldn't want to be happy forever if it meant tending to God's every whim... Plus, death can be happy, even if it does end everything. Like it was said earlier here, some people are in constant pain throughout their lives. They aren't selfish enough to commit suicide, so they have to grin and bear it until death.
Then when you get bored, remove yourself? And that is only assuming you can do "anything and everything" in Heaven. The way I see it, it is a place to be eternally happy, and I don't see how you could say you wouldn't want it over just disappearing, because you would "get bored" - because in honesty, if you live to be over 90 years old, thats a REALLY LONG time, and I'm sure throughout that life you would be bored at periods (especially after you are really old), but that isn't reason enough for you to go "Oh meh, I'm bored, I'd rather just disappear."
And it doesn't require tending to "God's every whim".
You don't seem to understand just how long an eternity is. 90 years is nothing compared to it. Try multiplying a googleplex by a googleplex googleplex times. That's a ridiculously long number, and STILL nothing compared to an eternity. I guarantee you you'd get bored. I actually don't think you can be removed from Heaven after death if you want to, and if you do, where would you go?
For one, you're missing the point I was making. Whether or not someone wants eternal life is negligent to my argument.
Secondly, saying you'd get bored of eternal life is assuming you still carry negative emotions. If you were always happy and always having a good time, you wouldn't think about things like boredom.
Quote from: Jake on September 22, 2009, 12:55:39 AM
Quote from: Mystery on September 21, 2009, 10:12:28 PM
Quote from: Cactuscat222 on September 21, 2009, 09:23:51 PM
Quote from: Mystery on September 21, 2009, 08:11:35 PM
Quote from: Jake on September 21, 2009, 01:10:36 AM
Exactly! A religious persons goal isn't to impose their beliefs on you, it's to open your eyes to eternal life. Your arguing points for atheism that go both ways.
Maybe some people don't WANT eternal life. Myself included. Doing anything would get boring eventually, and by that point you'd pretty much want to die and have it end. I know I would, and I certainly wouldn't want to be happy forever if it meant tending to God's every whim... Plus, death can be happy, even if it does end everything. Like it was said earlier here, some people are in constant pain throughout their lives. They aren't selfish enough to commit suicide, so they have to grin and bear it until death.
Then when you get bored, remove yourself? And that is only assuming you can do "anything and everything" in Heaven. The way I see it, it is a place to be eternally happy, and I don't see how you could say you wouldn't want it over just disappearing, because you would "get bored" - because in honesty, if you live to be over 90 years old, thats a REALLY LONG time, and I'm sure throughout that life you would be bored at periods (especially after you are really old), but that isn't reason enough for you to go "Oh meh, I'm bored, I'd rather just disappear."
And it doesn't require tending to "God's every whim".
You don't seem to understand just how long an eternity is. 90 years is nothing compared to it. Try multiplying a googleplex by a googleplex googleplex times. That's a ridiculously long number, and STILL nothing compared to an eternity. I guarantee you you'd get bored. I actually don't think you can be removed from Heaven after death if you want to, and if you do, where would you go?
For one, you're missing the point I was making. Whether or not someone wants eternal life is negligent to my argument.
Secondly, saying you'd get bored of eternal life is assuming you still carry negative emotions. If you were always happy and always having a good time, you wouldn't think about things like boredom.
Without negative emotions, you wouldn't have positive ones, either.
Quote from: Chaos on September 22, 2009, 01:07:49 AM
Quote from: Jake on September 22, 2009, 12:55:39 AM
Quote from: Mystery on September 21, 2009, 10:12:28 PM
Quote from: Cactuscat222 on September 21, 2009, 09:23:51 PM
Quote from: Mystery on September 21, 2009, 08:11:35 PM
Quote from: Jake on September 21, 2009, 01:10:36 AM
Exactly! A religious persons goal isn't to impose their beliefs on you, it's to open your eyes to eternal life. Your arguing points for atheism that go both ways.
Maybe some people don't WANT eternal life. Myself included. Doing anything would get boring eventually, and by that point you'd pretty much want to die and have it end. I know I would, and I certainly wouldn't want to be happy forever if it meant tending to God's every whim... Plus, death can be happy, even if it does end everything. Like it was said earlier here, some people are in constant pain throughout their lives. They aren't selfish enough to commit suicide, so they have to grin and bear it until death.
Then when you get bored, remove yourself? And that is only assuming you can do "anything and everything" in Heaven. The way I see it, it is a place to be eternally happy, and I don't see how you could say you wouldn't want it over just disappearing, because you would "get bored" - because in honesty, if you live to be over 90 years old, thats a REALLY LONG time, and I'm sure throughout that life you would be bored at periods (especially after you are really old), but that isn't reason enough for you to go "Oh meh, I'm bored, I'd rather just disappear."
And it doesn't require tending to "God's every whim".
You don't seem to understand just how long an eternity is. 90 years is nothing compared to it. Try multiplying a googleplex by a googleplex googleplex times. That's a ridiculously long number, and STILL nothing compared to an eternity. I guarantee you you'd get bored. I actually don't think you can be removed from Heaven after death if you want to, and if you do, where would you go?
For one, you're missing the point I was making. Whether or not someone wants eternal life is negligent to my argument.
Secondly, saying you'd get bored of eternal life is assuming you still carry negative emotions. If you were always happy and always having a good time, you wouldn't think about things like boredom.
Without negative emotions, you wouldn't have positive ones, either.
Why not?
Quote from: Jake on September 22, 2009, 01:12:42 AM
Quote from: Chaos on September 22, 2009, 01:07:49 AM
Quote from: Jake on September 22, 2009, 12:55:39 AM
Quote from: Mystery on September 21, 2009, 10:12:28 PM
Quote from: Cactuscat222 on September 21, 2009, 09:23:51 PM
Quote from: Mystery on September 21, 2009, 08:11:35 PM
Quote from: Jake on September 21, 2009, 01:10:36 AM
Exactly! A religious persons goal isn't to impose their beliefs on you, it's to open your eyes to eternal life. Your arguing points for atheism that go both ways.
Maybe some people don't WANT eternal life. Myself included. Doing anything would get boring eventually, and by that point you'd pretty much want to die and have it end. I know I would, and I certainly wouldn't want to be happy forever if it meant tending to God's every whim... Plus, death can be happy, even if it does end everything. Like it was said earlier here, some people are in constant pain throughout their lives. They aren't selfish enough to commit suicide, so they have to grin and bear it until death.
Then when you get bored, remove yourself? And that is only assuming you can do "anything and everything" in Heaven. The way I see it, it is a place to be eternally happy, and I don't see how you could say you wouldn't want it over just disappearing, because you would "get bored" - because in honesty, if you live to be over 90 years old, thats a REALLY LONG time, and I'm sure throughout that life you would be bored at periods (especially after you are really old), but that isn't reason enough for you to go "Oh meh, I'm bored, I'd rather just disappear."
And it doesn't require tending to "God's every whim".
You don't seem to understand just how long an eternity is. 90 years is nothing compared to it. Try multiplying a googleplex by a googleplex googleplex times. That's a ridiculously long number, and STILL nothing compared to an eternity. I guarantee you you'd get bored. I actually don't think you can be removed from Heaven after death if you want to, and if you do, where would you go?
For one, you're missing the point I was making. Whether or not someone wants eternal life is negligent to my argument.
Secondly, saying you'd get bored of eternal life is assuming you still carry negative emotions. If you were always happy and always having a good time, you wouldn't think about things like boredom.
Without negative emotions, you wouldn't have positive ones, either.
Why not?
Because in order to have positive emotions you need to have negative ones.
Quote from: JoEL on September 22, 2009, 02:20:00 AM
Quote from: Jake on September 22, 2009, 01:12:42 AM
Quote from: Chaos on September 22, 2009, 01:07:49 AM
Quote from: Jake on September 22, 2009, 12:55:39 AM
Quote from: Mystery on September 21, 2009, 10:12:28 PM
Quote from: Cactuscat222 on September 21, 2009, 09:23:51 PM
Quote from: Mystery on September 21, 2009, 08:11:35 PM
Quote from: Jake on September 21, 2009, 01:10:36 AM
Exactly! A religious persons goal isn't to impose their beliefs on you, it's to open your eyes to eternal life. Your arguing points for atheism that go both ways.
Maybe some people don't WANT eternal life. Myself included. Doing anything would get boring eventually, and by that point you'd pretty much want to die and have it end. I know I would, and I certainly wouldn't want to be happy forever if it meant tending to God's every whim... Plus, death can be happy, even if it does end everything. Like it was said earlier here, some people are in constant pain throughout their lives. They aren't selfish enough to commit suicide, so they have to grin and bear it until death.
Then when you get bored, remove yourself? And that is only assuming you can do "anything and everything" in Heaven. The way I see it, it is a place to be eternally happy, and I don't see how you could say you wouldn't want it over just disappearing, because you would "get bored" - because in honesty, if you live to be over 90 years old, thats a REALLY LONG time, and I'm sure throughout that life you would be bored at periods (especially after you are really old), but that isn't reason enough for you to go "Oh meh, I'm bored, I'd rather just disappear."
And it doesn't require tending to "God's every whim".
You don't seem to understand just how long an eternity is. 90 years is nothing compared to it. Try multiplying a googleplex by a googleplex googleplex times. That's a ridiculously long number, and STILL nothing compared to an eternity. I guarantee you you'd get bored. I actually don't think you can be removed from Heaven after death if you want to, and if you do, where would you go?
For one, you're missing the point I was making. Whether or not someone wants eternal life is negligent to my argument.
Secondly, saying you'd get bored of eternal life is assuming you still carry negative emotions. If you were always happy and always having a good time, you wouldn't think about things like boredom.
Without negative emotions, you wouldn't have positive ones, either.
Why not?
Because in order to have positive emotions you need to have negative ones.
Doesn't answer my question. What's stopping God's limitless power from suspending emotions such as negativity? This is all based around the assumption that heaven and God are real, so the idea that you need negativity to have feelings of happiness isn't in the right context. If this were an argument that wasn't using the presupposition that God and heaven were real, I would agree with Chaos. Since this is not the case, I don't.
Quote from: JoEL on September 22, 2009, 02:20:00 AM
Quote from: Jake on September 22, 2009, 01:12:42 AM
Quote from: Chaos on September 22, 2009, 01:07:49 AM
Quote from: Jake on September 22, 2009, 12:55:39 AM
Quote from: Mystery on September 21, 2009, 10:12:28 PM
Quote from: Cactuscat222 on September 21, 2009, 09:23:51 PM
Quote from: Mystery on September 21, 2009, 08:11:35 PM
Quote from: Jake on September 21, 2009, 01:10:36 AM
Exactly! A religious persons goal isn't to impose their beliefs on you, it's to open your eyes to eternal life. Your arguing points for atheism that go both ways.
Maybe some people don't WANT eternal life. Myself included. Doing anything would get boring eventually, and by that point you'd pretty much want to die and have it end. I know I would, and I certainly wouldn't want to be happy forever if it meant tending to God's every whim... Plus, death can be happy, even if it does end everything. Like it was said earlier here, some people are in constant pain throughout their lives. They aren't selfish enough to commit suicide, so they have to grin and bear it until death.
Then when you get bored, remove yourself? And that is only assuming you can do "anything and everything" in Heaven. The way I see it, it is a place to be eternally happy, and I don't see how you could say you wouldn't want it over just disappearing, because you would "get bored" - because in honesty, if you live to be over 90 years old, thats a REALLY LONG time, and I'm sure throughout that life you would be bored at periods (especially after you are really old), but that isn't reason enough for you to go "Oh meh, I'm bored, I'd rather just disappear."
And it doesn't require tending to "God's every whim".
You don't seem to understand just how long an eternity is. 90 years is nothing compared to it. Try multiplying a googleplex by a googleplex googleplex times. That's a ridiculously long number, and STILL nothing compared to an eternity. I guarantee you you'd get bored. I actually don't think you can be removed from Heaven after death if you want to, and if you do, where would you go?
For one, you're missing the point I was making. Whether or not someone wants eternal life is negligent to my argument.
Secondly, saying you'd get bored of eternal life is assuming you still carry negative emotions. If you were always happy and always having a good time, you wouldn't think about things like boredom.
Without negative emotions, you wouldn't have positive ones, either.
Why not?
Because in order to have positive emotions you need to have negative ones.
That is not true at all. While that is a common argument "You must have Chaos to have Order", it is an argument of perception. Basically, in order to establish that the emotions you have are 'positive', you must then have a reference of ones that are 'negative'. Yeah, that is true, but only to perceive what is good and what is bad. You can still only have the good without the bad, you just wouldn't know otherwise.
You pretty much explained my point perfectly, Cactus. Thanks. Without negative emotions, you can't have positive emotions. In essence, you can NEVER be happy all the time. Why? Because if you're happy all the time, then you aren't happy. You're normal. It won't feel 'happy', it'll feel 'normal'.
Let me put this another way. You just got your drivers license. You can now drive. You're all excited, etc, because of these new experience and new found freedom. Driving is fun. And you can drive whenever you want. Eventually, because you can do it ALL the time, it quickly loses its charm, and just becomes...normal.
Or you get a new awesome video game. You play it constantly. I'm sure many of you know that feeling where it suddenly loses it's charm, and you just have to put it down for a while before you can enjoy it again?
Yeah, I think that's enough examples.
Quote from: Chaos on September 22, 2009, 04:20:22 AM
You pretty much explained my point perfectly, Cactus. Thanks. Without negative emotions, you can't have positive emotions. In essence, you can NEVER be happy all the time. Why? Because if you're happy all the time, then you aren't happy. You're normal. It won't feel 'happy', it'll feel 'normal'.
Let me put this another way. You just got your drivers license. You can now drive. You're all excited, etc, because of these new experience and new found freedom. Driving is fun. And you can drive whenever you want. Eventually, because you can do it ALL the time, it quickly loses its charm, and just becomes...normal.
Or you get a new awesome video game. You play it constantly. I'm sure many of you know that feeling where it suddenly loses it's charm, and you just have to put it down for a while before you can enjoy it again?
Yeah, I think that's enough examples.
Here the problem. they call heaven perfect but what perfect means is up to the user in most parts. its like calling something big. well what is big and what is the context.
What im saying is that perfect for you is different. There could be negative emotions if there are emotions at all. or you keep your bad ones for earth for a referents. and it can be something as simple as loosing a game of something there. idk i can make up anything. i have not died yet.
Non of this really matters any was. the idea of heaven is something by its self and opinion.
Quote from: Chaos on September 22, 2009, 04:20:22 AM
You pretty much explained my point perfectly, Cactus. Thanks. Without negative emotions, you can't have positive emotions. In essence, you can NEVER be happy all the time. Why? Because if you're happy all the time, then you aren't happy. You're normal. It won't feel 'happy', it'll feel 'normal'.
Would the person still have feelings of happiness but call them normal? Or would those feelings of happiness lose their charm and become normal because of a lack of negativity? I'm not entirely sure of the stance you take in this first sentence so I'm just wondering if you could clarify.
Quote from: ARTgames on September 22, 2009, 08:25:13 AM
Quote from: Chaos on September 22, 2009, 04:20:22 AM
You pretty much explained my point perfectly, Cactus. Thanks. Without negative emotions, you can't have positive emotions. In essence, you can NEVER be happy all the time. Why? Because if you're happy all the time, then you aren't happy. You're normal. It won't feel 'happy', it'll feel 'normal'.
Let me put this another way. You just got your drivers license. You can now drive. You're all excited, etc, because of these new experience and new found freedom. Driving is fun. And you can drive whenever you want. Eventually, because you can do it ALL the time, it quickly loses its charm, and just becomes...normal.
Or you get a new awesome video game. You play it constantly. I'm sure many of you know that feeling where it suddenly loses it's charm, and you just have to put it down for a while before you can enjoy it again?
Yeah, I think that's enough examples.
Here the problem. they call heaven perfect but what perfect means is up to the user in most parts. its like calling something big. well what is big and what is the context.
What im saying is that perfect for you is different. There could be negative emotions if there are emotions at all. or you keep your bad ones for earth for a referents. and it can be something as simple as loosing a game of something there. idk i can make up anything. i have not died yet.
Non of this really matters any was. the idea of heaven is something by its self and opinion.
Very true. For arguments sake I believe we were going with the Christian view of heaven. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Okay, let me put it this way. In the context of drugs, you know what "tolerance" is, correct? As you take a drug, your "tolerance" for the drug will go up, which means you'd need to take more of the drug just to achieve the same high you were at before. This is somewhat analogous to the happiness thing. If you're happy ALL the time, your 'tolerance', as it were, would move up to the position of where the happiness is, making the happiness not feel GOOD, but NORMAL.
Essentially, a little bit of both, but depending on how you look at it, the first one, as Cactus stated, would mostly just be a matter of perception and semantics. I'm not talking about how you'd CLASSIFY it, I'm talking about how you'd FEEL it.
Quote from: Chaos on September 22, 2009, 01:33:36 PM
Okay, let me put it this way. In the context of drugs, you know what "tolerance" is, correct? As you take a drug, your "tolerance" for the drug will go up, which means you'd need to take more of the drug just to achieve the same high you were at before. This is somewhat analogous to the happiness thing. If you're happy ALL the time, your 'tolerance', as it were, would move up to the position of where the happiness is, making the happiness not feel GOOD, but NORMAL.
Essentially, a little bit of both, but depending on how you look at it, the first one, as Cactus stated, would mostly just be a matter of perception and semantics. I'm not talking about how you'd CLASSIFY it, I'm talking about how you'd FEEL it.
Ok, got it. I thought you might be simply arguing the classification of the word in the first sentence, but wasn't sure. The rest of your post was resoundingly clear from the start.
Anyway, despite how completely legit this logic it is, who's to say it needs to be like this in heaven? If one believes in a God that claims one will be happy forever, the way in which it is accomplished does not matter. Matters of emotion and human nature might not be the same.
Quote from: Jake on September 22, 2009, 01:53:09 PM
who's to say it needs to be like this in heaven?
Jesus. He said so. I asked him about it over a cup of tea and he told me all about it. He's a pretty cool guy. Kicks ass at Guitar Hero, too.
Yeah, we're touching on "unknowable" and "A Wizard Did it (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AWizardDidIt)" territory again.
Quote from: Chaos on September 22, 2009, 02:50:51 PM
Quote from: Jake on September 22, 2009, 01:53:09 PM
who's to say it needs to be like this in heaven?
Jesus. He said so. I asked him about it over a cup of tea and he told me all about it. He's a pretty cool guy. Kicks ass at Guitar Hero, too.
Yeah, we're touching on "unknowable" and "A Wizard Did it (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AWizardDidIt)" territory again.
All of religion is based around "A wizard named God did it". That's why I find it pointless to argue whether he can or cannot do it, because it always ends back at the root question... Is there actually a wizard in the first place?
And I highly doubt Jesus is good at guitar hero. Don't say things like that just to get on his list.
No, really, he can do Through Fire and Flames on Expert. It was pretty impressive.
Random Information That Might Be Helpful in This Topic
By LeGuy
I'm going to use a Greek myth to try to describe what I think heaven would be like.
If I remember correctly, Hera, Zeus's official wife, is jealous at one of Zeus's unofficial earthly wives - I forget her name, let's call her Jenny. (Zeus was quite an unfaithful husband.) So, she takes the form of some old lady and convinces Jenny that Zeus doesn't really love her due to the fact that he has never shown her his godly superform. (To this point, Zeus had just been taking the appearance of a regular human whilst visiting Jenny.) So Jenny, quite upset, visits Zeus and asks for a wish. Zeus swears to wish it. The wish, obviously, is to see his god form. Zeus becomes quite distraught, because no mortal can survive seeing Zeus in all his glory. But Jenny, a particularly stupid individual, still insists on seeing Zeus, and Zeus cannot break his oath. So, Zeus arranges his smallest cloud and least impressive lightning bolt, and shows Jenny his god form. Needless to say, Jenny burst into flames and died instantly.
The point I'm trying to make here is heaven wouldn't be some place similar to earth, except the roads are made out of gold and there are a bunch of jewels everywhere and everybody is happy. I think the Bible describes heaven as that to sort of give an earthly equivalent of how awesome it's going to be just being in God's presence. We all think about heaven, wondering if we'll be able to do the things we like on earth. Quite frankly, I don't even find the view of heaven all that tremendously appealing. Eternity is a mind-boggling amount of time, and sometimes it's a little unpleasant thinking that I'll be existing FOREVER. But assuming that God is an infinitely glorious being, just being in His presence for an eternity shouldn't be boring.
Lol. I wish the Mormon kid (i think his name was GuineaPants or HamsterPants) was around. He'd always try and convert people on S.O., and would get all defensive about topics like these.
Wow. Finally got to the end here. I probably won't be around for another 10 pages to back up anything I'm saying right now, so I'll make concise points that people can use for discussion... but please don't expect me to answer any follow up questions (I might, but don't expect it to be soon.. I'm just not on the forums as often any more).
So, this is going way back to the slavery bit. I really have to point out that several of the bible passages quoted in that EvilBible page were originally from the Torah. Leviticus and Exodus to be specific. I find it interesting that everyone chose to single out Christianity because those books are also considered to be a part of the Christian's Bible Old Testament. In reality, the Torah and other books of the Jewish religion contain a crap load more rules and laws than the New Testament does (at least this is my perception).
As most people know, I am Jewish. As you may not know, I do not follow the religion. I consider myself to be Jewish by ethnicity, and only a little by culture. I relate to the religion almost not at all. It is one of the only religions people can really do that with because the Jewish people separated themselves out of most regions that they moved to. So I would not say that I am part Russian (even though my great grandmother is from Russia) I would say that I am Russian Jewish.
But I digress... the reason I am telling you this is because I couldn't claim to argue for the Jewish religion. I simply don't know enough about it. I have several friends who are orthodox though and they could answer questions like, "Does God, in the Jewish religion, condone slavery?" My thoughts are that they would answer much as what had been posted by someone earlier in this topic. He simply laid out the rules and left it up to us to decide whether it was right or wrong. In terms of ethics, it makes sense that you can have a slave so long as you treat them well. The only reason why slavery in America and most other places is BAD is because the slaves were all treated so horribly. Imagine if all the slaves were put up in 5 star hotels, fed lavishly, bathed in opulence. And all they had to do was work an 8 hour day in the fields. There's people who do more than that now for less pay. Would slavery in that sense be wrong or bad? My opinion is that it would be looked down upon less. Sure, there is still the matter of the slaves not being allowed to choose their own path and what not... but I honestly don't know how the torah deals with that. I don't know if it has further rules about the slaves release. Furthermore, it's also likely that you would get different answers depending on what Rabbi you ask. One might tell you something similar to the above, but they might also add that it is no longer acceptable to have slaves due to the current laws and social perceptions of it. This has nothing to do with the actual passages in the Torah. The Jewish religion, to my understanding has a pretty open view of how to follow God's word, and how to interpret it.
With that said, a lot of things brought up in the link mentioning all of God's laws. A lot of that is from the Jewish religion. And again, it is explained as having been brought about by the culture at the time follow certain guidelines and after many years it was taken to a different level. Such as Kosher; all of the different rules about what is acceptable to eat and what is not. A lot of it comes from very simple statements to the effect of, "You may not boil a calf in its mother's milk." This was taken to the extreme in that someone following Kosher can not eat dairy and meat in the same meal... nor can that allow dishes or appliances to touch both dairy and meat. What this means today? People will have entirely separate dishes and utensils for dairy and meat. Some even have entirely different ovens, refridgerators, dishwashers... just so they are not contaminated. There's all manner of crazy things that orthodox Jewish people do along these lines. It has become more about tradition and culture than anything else.
Anyways, there was a lot to touch on. Maybe I'll come back and touch on some other things.
Quote from: NotoriousM4^ on September 22, 2009, 05:59:17 PM
Lol. I wish the Mormon kid (i think his name was GuineaPants or HamsterPants) was around. He'd always try and convert people on S.O., and would get all defensive about topics like these.
Lol, hi.....
Yeah, that's actually the reason I left, because I was being a total retard, so I needed to take some time off to reflect and I've improved alot. I dont need to worry about converting you guys, I mean, according to my beleifs you'll all probably be converted anyway, wether you're alive or not.
But anyway, i've learned alot, I've become more tolerant, more mature and sympathetic, and if something is bothering me, then I'll leave, instead of "getting all defensive about it".
Anyway though, I do like topics like this, I've never considered them to be depressing though, death just doesnt matter to me, needless to say, it is a difficult thing to witness.
Quote from: HamsterPants on September 29, 2009, 07:11:23 PM
according to my beleifs you'll all probably be converted anyway, wether you're alive or not.
please expand on this. This is an interesting way of thought.
Quote from: ARTgames on September 29, 2009, 07:26:10 PM
Quote from: HamsterPants on September 29, 2009, 07:11:23 PM
according to my beleifs you'll all probably be converted anyway, wether you're alive or not.
please expand on this. This is an interesting way of thought.
Well, the mormons believe, that every human being will have a chance to be saved, for example, there are countless people who have died never knowing about Christ, so it would only be nescessary for there to be convertion in the afterlife, this is why we practice baptism for the dead in our temples. We also beleive, that before judgement day, everyone will have a full knowledge of which choice is the right one, and that most people will be saved, and the number of people who will be "thrust into outer darkness" can be counted with a single hand.
We beleive in three levels of heaven, as it states in the Bible, "Three Degrees of Glory", from highest to lowest:
Celestial Kingdom
Terestrial Kingdom
Telestial Kingdom
Most people will go the the lowest level, it's not bad, it's actually a much better place than this planet, but Christ only comes to visit once in a while.
We also beleive that there are three levels within each kingdom, and that the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom is the most desired.
It is described that each kingdom is equal in glory to the brightness of the Cosmoz: Sun=Celestial, Moon=Terestial, and Stars=Telestial.
So basically, if mormonism turns out to be true, consider yourself lucky.
Well your beliefs are noted and ill respected them. Are you still in practice now?
A little off topic. What is your sig?
Quote from: ARTgames on September 29, 2009, 07:40:24 PM
Well your beliefs are noted and ill respected them. Are you still in practice now?
A little off topic. What is your sig?
I don't know what practice you are talking about. Unless you mean baptism for the dead.
My sig literally says "hamstirpantirs" with Anglo-Saxon Runes, that's as close as I can get.
Quote from: HamsterPants on September 29, 2009, 07:31:49 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on September 29, 2009, 07:26:10 PM
Quote from: HamsterPants on September 29, 2009, 07:11:23 PM
according to my beleifs you'll all probably be converted anyway, wether you're alive or not.
please expand on this. This is an interesting way of thought.
Most people will go the the lowest level, it's not bad, it's actually a much better place than this planet, but Christ only comes to visit once in a while.
I Lol'd for some reason at that last quote.
Anyways, Do Mormons really believe that black people are the descendants of Cain?
Quote from: HamsterPants on September 29, 2009, 07:55:12 PM
I don't know what practice you are talking about. Unless you mean baptism for the dead.
My bad i meant practice. And by practice i mean do you go to church and follow the customs and such.
Quote from: ARTgames on September 29, 2009, 08:55:55 PM
Quote from: HamsterPants on September 29, 2009, 07:55:12 PM
I don't know what practice you are talking about. Unless you mean baptism for the dead.
My bad i meant practice. And by practice i mean do you go to church and follow the customs and such.
Yes, I am an active member of the Church.
Quote from: NotoriousM4^ on September 29, 2009, 08:09:34 PM
Quote from: HamsterPants on September 29, 2009, 07:31:49 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on September 29, 2009, 07:26:10 PM
Quote from: HamsterPants on September 29, 2009, 07:11:23 PM
according to my beleifs you'll all probably be converted anyway, wether you're alive or not.
please expand on this. This is an interesting way of thought.
Most people will go the the lowest level, it's not bad, it's actually a much better place than this planet, but Christ only comes to visit once in a while.
I Lol'd for some reason at that last quote.
Anyways, Do Mormons really believe that black people are the descendants of Cain?
Not all black people are descentants of Cain, but we do beleive it to be a curse because of the wickedness of their ancestors, however we do not consider color to be a problem in any way. In the past, we could not allow black people to practice preisthood ordinances, but it wasnt our choice to make, we were waiting for God to give us permission. I know that sounds kinda rediculous be we beleive that God governs our church through the Prophet, just like in the bible.
Just a little fun fact, we also beleive that Cain is still alive, as a curse, so that he will witness the misery that he brought upon the world, but he cannot hurt us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFZ1jVO3-OE&feature=related
That video contains all you need to know about Mormonism, including what they think about the blacks. I was actually wondering how accurate that video/cartoon is. My friend who is Mormon most of it is true except for the crazy weird thinks which are false...What do you think of it Hamster?
I believe that no matter what faith (if any) you are, who you believe in (if anyone), or how you should act in this life (or in future lives), as long as you live your life to the fullest and treat others compassionately, good will come of it (whether it be union with God, Allah, Brahman, a higher caste when reincarnated, elimination of karma from previous lives, etc.).
About what happens after death, I don't think it's just one religious sect that's right, while the rest is wrong. My family is fascinated with religion, and although we ourselves are not religious, we take the strong points out of certain religious philosophies and apply them to our lives, and omit certain things that do not pertain. Just like how one set of clothing does not fit everyone, one set of religious doctrines does not necessarily fit everyone. If my family and I decide a certain principle does not benefit our existence, we discard it, and if it does, we keep it until further notice.
I suppose we will never know (on a personal level) what happens after death until we ourselves are dead. Until then, we can put that mystery on hold. Luckily it's one of the mysteries of the world guaranteed to be revealed to every living being, whether they like it or not. ;)
Quote from: Petro on September 29, 2009, 09:23:06 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFZ1jVO3-OE&feature=related
That video contains all you need to know about Mormonism, including what they think about the blacks. I was actually wondering how accurate that video/cartoon is. My friend who is Mormon most of it is true except for the crazy weird thinks which are false...What do you think of it Hamster?
Upon studying this video, most of the things that are mentioned, are true, to list some things that are not, the most important would probably be that God did not have sex with the Virgin Mary, we do not beleive that, we beleive that she became pregenant by the power of God, but Heavenly Father committing adultery doesnt make any sense. We do not beleive that Heavenly Father has more than one wife, in fact, we are not supposed to speak about him having any wife at all, simply out of respect, that is why we dont like to talk about it, it's not a secret it's just sacred. We do not beleive that Jesus had more than one wife, we do beleive that he had to marry someone, as it is a commandment of God, and Christ had to follow every commandment in order to set an example for us. Again, the reason why it is not talked about clearly in the bible is out of respect, because it is a very sacred thing. We do not beleive in poligamy, it is something that people have hated us for, we did not want to do it, we did not enjoy it, but we had no choice at the time, it was actually something that caused many members to fall away, which is exactly why it happened. In the Bible, poligamy was a prominent practice, it is not against the laws of God to marry more than one wife, but we still dont like to do it.
On a final note, most of the things which are talked about, such as deep doctrine, are completely useless to our salvation, which is why we dont care to talk about them, they are not very important.
All in all, this video feels very hateful, they say everything in a way that makes you want to be upset. That is my view on this cartoon.
Edit: I forgot to mention that I laughed when i saw how ugly they depicted Lucifer. We actually beleive him to be a very beautiful and charming man, that is how he was able to persuade so many to his ends, and how he is able to tempt us.
With deepest respect for your beliefs, why is it that you follow Mormonism? I'm only asking this because I am deeply interested in the reason for one's beliefs regarding religion (especially ones that I know little about).
What are your thoughts on Joseph Smith? Is it true that Mormons consider him a saint? What are your thoughts on accusations calling him a liar and a fraud?
Quote from: Jake on September 29, 2009, 09:55:17 PM
With deepest respect for your beliefs, why is it that you follow Mormonism? I'm only asking this because I am deeply interested in the reason for one's beliefs regarding religion (especially ones that I know little about).
I follow it because I beleive that it will lead me to salvation, I have been happy as long as I've done the things which I beleive are right, even if it's challenging and I can't be perfect, I'm happy, that is something that cannot be described, happiness is what we all, as human beings want, and I know that I have it. It's a feeling that strengthens your faith, the Holy Spirit, he confirms the truth in a way that you can rely on. I've studied the scriptures, and I ask God if they are true, and I have received an answer every time, and that is the only thing we encourage other people to do. We want to bring souls unto Christ.
And the reason I follow mormonism is because I want to return to Christ, with all my loved ones, and be happy for the rest of eternity. All that is required of me is to work with as much effort as I can expend until the end of my days, and though this may seem like alot, it is the least we can do for what Christ suffered for us. We have a fullness of the Gospel, while other Christian churches are incomplete, and they hate us, we are despised by the world, and we endure their persecution, and that makes us stronger.
I have a testimony that these things are true, because they are my life, they are all that I know, and I hope that you will find it useful.
man your a fine example to back up what i said. Now i know for sure this all boils down to opinion and what its popularity is amongst groups of people.
Quote from: HamsterPants on September 29, 2009, 10:07:10 PM
Quote from: Jake on September 29, 2009, 09:55:17 PM
With deepest respect for your beliefs, why is it that you follow Mormonism? I'm only asking this because I am deeply interested in the reason for one's beliefs regarding religion (especially ones that I know little about).
I follow it because I beleive that it will lead me to salvation, I have been happy as long as I've done the things which I beleive are right, even if it's challenging and I can't be perfect, I'm happy, that is something that cannot be described, happiness is what we all, as human beings want, and I know that I have it. It's a feeling that strengthens your faith, the Holy Spirit, he confirms the truth in a way that you can rely on. I've studied the scriptures, and I ask God if they are true, and I have received an answer every time, and that is the only thing we encourage other people to do. We want to bring souls unto Christ.
And the reason I follow mormonism is because I want to return to Christ, with all my loved ones, and be happy for the rest of eternity. All that is required of me is to work with as much effort as I can expend until the end of my days, and though this may seem like alot, it is the least we can do for what Christ suffered for us. We have a fullness of the Gospel, while other Christian churches are incomplete, and they hate us, we are despised by the world, and we endure their persecution, and that makes us stronger.
I have a testimony that these things are true, because they are my life, they are all that I know, and I hope that you will find it useful.
Well, according to you, can't you do all that without still being mormon if everybody is going to be saved anyways?
And, exactly what "wickedness" did these black ancestors supposedly commit. And if your God is so forgiving why is it right for him to punish them because of something their ancestors had done? And if they are black because of what their ancestors did doesn't that make the actual ancestors who committed these acts white? I also don't see how having skin of color is a "curse".
Quote from: NotoriousM4^ on September 29, 2009, 10:51:42 PM
Quote from: HamsterPants on September 29, 2009, 10:07:10 PM
Quote from: Jake on September 29, 2009, 09:55:17 PM
With deepest respect for your beliefs, why is it that you follow Mormonism? I'm only asking this because I am deeply interested in the reason for one's beliefs regarding religion (especially ones that I know little about).
I follow it because I beleive that it will lead me to salvation, I have been happy as long as I've done the things which I beleive are right, even if it's challenging and I can't be perfect, I'm happy, that is something that cannot be described, happiness is what we all, as human beings want, and I know that I have it. It's a feeling that strengthens your faith, the Holy Spirit, he confirms the truth in a way that you can rely on. I've studied the scriptures, and I ask God if they are true, and I have received an answer every time, and that is the only thing we encourage other people to do. We want to bring souls unto Christ.
And the reason I follow mormonism is because I want to return to Christ, with all my loved ones, and be happy for the rest of eternity. All that is required of me is to work with as much effort as I can expend until the end of my days, and though this may seem like alot, it is the least we can do for what Christ suffered for us. We have a fullness of the Gospel, while other Christian churches are incomplete, and they hate us, we are despised by the world, and we endure their persecution, and that makes us stronger.
I have a testimony that these things are true, because they are my life, they are all that I know, and I hope that you will find it useful.
Well, according to you, can't you do all that without still being mormon if everybody is going to be saved anyways?
And, exactly what "wickedness" did these black ancestors supposedly commit. And if your God is so forgiving why is it right for him to punish them because of something their ancestors had done? And if they are black because of what their ancestors did doesn't that make the actual ancestors who committed these acts white? I also don't see how having skin of color is a "curse".
I don't know a whole lot about the matter of color, but I do know that being cursed is a good thing, because it means that you are a strong character that needs greater challanges in order to be equal to all other human beings. And you are not being punished for their mistakes, but your curse is their punishment, because they will look upon their their seed, and feel terrible guilt for what they caused for their descendants, causing them to turn inward on themselves in sorrow, that is the equivalent of hell, it is as much as you knowingly put on yourself witout trying to fix the problem.
But I honestly don't know much about the things which you have asked me, I will have to ask you to allow me some time to study and reflect until I have the answers to your questions.
Quote from: HamsterPants on September 29, 2009, 10:07:10 PM
Quote from: Jake on September 29, 2009, 09:55:17 PM
With deepest respect for your beliefs, why is it that you follow Mormonism? I'm only asking this because I am deeply interested in the reason for one's beliefs regarding religion (especially ones that I know little about).
I follow it because I beleive that it will lead me to salvation, I have been happy as long as I've done the things which I beleive are right, even if it's challenging and I can't be perfect, I'm happy, that is something that cannot be described, happiness is what we all, as human beings want, and I know that I have it. It's a feeling that strengthens your faith, the Holy Spirit, he confirms the truth in a way that you can rely on. I've studied the scriptures, and I ask God if they are true, and I have received an answer every time, and that is the only thing we encourage other people to do. We want to bring souls unto Christ.
And the reason I follow mormonism is because I want to return to Christ, with all my loved ones, and be happy for the rest of eternity. All that is required of me is to work with as much effort as I can expend until the end of my days, and though this may seem like alot, it is the least we can do for what Christ suffered for us. We have a fullness of the Gospel, while other Christian churches are incomplete, and they hate us, we are despised by the world, and we endure their persecution, and that makes us stronger.
I have a testimony that these things are true, because they are my life, they are all that I know, and I hope that you will find it useful.
I envy your faith, because believing in something that gives such comfort (whether right or wrong), is pure bliss. That being said, do you not find it hard to commit your life to the assumption that Joseph Smith wasn't lying? Your entire religion is based on one mans word (who was convicted of fraudulent charges and lying). What puts Mormonism ahead of religions such as Islam, Christianity, and Judaism in terms of being the right choice?
, he
Quote from: Jake on September 29, 2009, 11:29:01 PM
Quote from: HamsterPants on September 29, 2009, 10:07:10 PM
Quote from: Jake on September 29, 2009, 09:55:17 PM
With deepest respect for your beliefs, why is it that you follow Mormonism? I'm only asking this because I am deeply interested in the reason for one's beliefs regarding religion (especially ones that I know little about).
I follow it because I beleive that it will lead me to salvation, I have been happy as long as I've done the things which I beleive are right, even if it's challenging and I can't be perfect, I'm happy, that is something that cannot be described, happiness is what we all, as human beings want, and I know that I have it. It's a feeling that strengthens your faith, the Holy Spirit, he confirms the truth in a way that you can rely on. I've studied the scriptures, and I ask God if they are true, and I have received an answer every time, and that is the only thing we encourage other people to do. We want to bring souls unto Christ.
And the reason I follow mormonism is because I want to return to Christ, with all my loved ones, and be happy for the rest of eternity. All that is required of me is to work with as much effort as I can expend until the end of my days, and though this may seem like alot, it is the least we can do for what Christ suffered for us. We have a fullness of the Gospel, while other Christian churches are incomplete, and they hate us, we are despised by the world, and we endure their persecution, and that makes us stronger.
I have a testimony that these things are true, because they are my life, they are all that I know, and I hope that you will find it useful.
I envy your faith, because believing in something that gives such comfort (whether right or wrong), is pure bliss. That being said, do you not find it hard to commit your life to the assumption that Joseph Smith wasn't lying? Your entire religion is based on one mans word (who was convicted of fraudulent charges and lying). What puts Mormonism ahead of religions such as Islam, Christianity, and Judaism in terms of being the right choice?
These are questions that I like to be asked, you guys are really helping me grow.
For the first question, I do not find it difficult to commit my life to the beleif that Joseph Smith was not lying, I have studied things that people have done to him, and things that he has done, and what he has said thorughout his life. For one thing(and this is something that I always use towards people who say that he wrote the Book of Mormon), he had a second grade education, if you read the Book of Mormon you will realize that he couldnt have written it with such a poor education. The Book of mormon, if not true, is certainly a masterpeice of a book to have fooled millions of people into beleiving in it for the past 200 years. Asking me if I find it difficult to beleive in Joseph Smith is like asking me if I find it difficult to beleive that I am breathing. That is why, though this is just me, I find it difficult to beleive that so many people can despise him, and my only explanation would be that he was a good person, because if he was really as evil and power hungry as people say he was, then why are his followers so loving and Christ-like?
Now for the second question, the thing that would put mormonism ahead of other religions is that you can have a knowledge that it's true, God governs the church, we all comunicate with him to a certain extent, to what extent however is between the individual and the Lord. We have something more than other religions, if you havent noticed, most religions seem pretty incomplete, and alot of Christian churches are full of people who are extreme, that is, when I think of my grandfather, and about a thousand other people i've met who are exactly the same as him. Latter-Day Saints are happy people, that is what makes us stand out, we are different because we love all human beings, and we comfort and support eachother, we also stand out because we are hated so much, people try to argue by saying that musilims were persecuted as much as we are so that isnt proof of anything, but have you noticed how strong they became in their faith? When Hitler was killing the Jews, did they give up on their faith? No, they held their heads high in the pride of their beleif, even until the moment of death, pain makes us stronger in what we beleive in, and that is a firm part of our religion, suffering and self-sacrifices that ultimately lead to eternal happiness, and insomuch as we dont make self-sacrifices, we will not be fully rewarded.
Quote from: Jake on September 29, 2009, 11:29:01 PM
Quote from: HamsterPants on September 29, 2009, 10:07:10 PM
Quote from: Jake on September 29, 2009, 09:55:17 PM
With deepest respect for your beliefs, why is it that you follow Mormonism? I'm only asking this because I am deeply interested in the reason for one's beliefs regarding religion (especially ones that I know little about).
I follow it because I beleive that it will lead me to salvation, I have been happy as long as I've done the things which I beleive are right, even if it's challenging and I can't be perfect, I'm happy, that is something that cannot be described, happiness is what we all, as human beings want, and I know that I have it. It's a feeling that strengthens your faith, the Holy Spirit, he confirms the truth in a way that you can rely on. I've studied the scriptures, and I ask God if they are true, and I have received an answer every time, and that is the only thing we encourage other people to do. We want to bring souls unto Christ.
And the reason I follow mormonism is because I want to return to Christ, with all my loved ones, and be happy for the rest of eternity. All that is required of me is to work with as much effort as I can expend until the end of my days, and though this may seem like alot, it is the least we can do for what Christ suffered for us. We have a fullness of the Gospel, while other Christian churches are incomplete, and they hate us, we are despised by the world, and we endure their persecution, and that makes us stronger.
I have a testimony that these things are true, because they are my life, they are all that I know, and I hope that you will find it useful.
I envy your faith, because believing in something that gives such comfort (whether right or wrong), is pure bliss. That being said, do you not find it hard to commit your life to the assumption that Joseph Smith wasn't lying? Your entire religion is based on one mans word (who was convicted of fraudulent charges and lying). What puts Mormonism ahead of religions such as Islam, Christianity, and Judaism in terms of being the right choice?
Christianity is based on the assumption that Jesus wasn't lying.
Quote from: Torch on September 30, 2009, 08:06:33 AM
Quote from: Jake on September 29, 2009, 11:29:01 PM
Quote from: HamsterPants on September 29, 2009, 10:07:10 PM
Quote from: Jake on September 29, 2009, 09:55:17 PM
With deepest respect for your beliefs, why is it that you follow Mormonism? I'm only asking this because I am deeply interested in the reason for one's beliefs regarding religion (especially ones that I know little about).
I follow it because I beleive that it will lead me to salvation, I have been happy as long as I've done the things which I beleive are right, even if it's challenging and I can't be perfect, I'm happy, that is something that cannot be described, happiness is what we all, as human beings want, and I know that I have it. It's a feeling that strengthens your faith, the Holy Spirit, he confirms the truth in a way that you can rely on. I've studied the scriptures, and I ask God if they are true, and I have received an answer every time, and that is the only thing we encourage other people to do. We want to bring souls unto Christ.
And the reason I follow mormonism is because I want to return to Christ, with all my loved ones, and be happy for the rest of eternity. All that is required of me is to work with as much effort as I can expend until the end of my days, and though this may seem like alot, it is the least we can do for what Christ suffered for us. We have a fullness of the Gospel, while other Christian churches are incomplete, and they hate us, we are despised by the world, and we endure their persecution, and that makes us stronger.
I have a testimony that these things are true, because they are my life, they are all that I know, and I hope that you will find it useful.
I envy your faith, because believing in something that gives such comfort (whether right or wrong), is pure bliss. That being said, do you not find it hard to commit your life to the assumption that Joseph Smith wasn't lying? Your entire religion is based on one mans word (who was convicted of fraudulent charges and lying). What puts Mormonism ahead of religions such as Islam, Christianity, and Judaism in terms of being the right choice?
Christianity is based on the assumption that Jesus wasn't lying.
That's a fair point to make, but actually other Christian Churches have decided that mormons dont beleive in the same God, however, we insist that we do beleive in the same God, and that they are only doing that so that they can accuse of of worshipping false gods.
We beleive in Christ, first and foremost, Joseph Smith was just a prophet, like any other in the Bible, except he was destined to restore the Church, the same one that is centered in the Bible, and this concept offends many people to the point of anger and hatred, to the extent that they would assault us in mobs, rape and murder us, and steal everything we have, and yet we remain, thusfar, steadfast.
Quote from: Torch on September 30, 2009, 08:06:33 AM
Quote from: Jake on September 29, 2009, 11:29:01 PM
Quote from: HamsterPants on September 29, 2009, 10:07:10 PM
Quote from: Jake on September 29, 2009, 09:55:17 PM
With deepest respect for your beliefs, why is it that you follow Mormonism? I'm only asking this because I am deeply interested in the reason for one's beliefs regarding religion (especially ones that I know little about).
I follow it because I beleive that it will lead me to salvation, I have been happy as long as I've done the things which I beleive are right, even if it's challenging and I can't be perfect, I'm happy, that is something that cannot be described, happiness is what we all, as human beings want, and I know that I have it. It's a feeling that strengthens your faith, the Holy Spirit, he confirms the truth in a way that you can rely on. I've studied the scriptures, and I ask God if they are true, and I have received an answer every time, and that is the only thing we encourage other people to do. We want to bring souls unto Christ.
And the reason I follow mormonism is because I want to return to Christ, with all my loved ones, and be happy for the rest of eternity. All that is required of me is to work with as much effort as I can expend until the end of my days, and though this may seem like alot, it is the least we can do for what Christ suffered for us. We have a fullness of the Gospel, while other Christian churches are incomplete, and they hate us, we are despised by the world, and we endure their persecution, and that makes us stronger.
I have a testimony that these things are true, because they are my life, they are all that I know, and I hope that you will find it useful.
I envy your faith, because believing in something that gives such comfort (whether right or wrong), is pure bliss. That being said, do you not find it hard to commit your life to the assumption that Joseph Smith wasn't lying? Your entire religion is based on one mans word (who was convicted of fraudulent charges and lying). What puts Mormonism ahead of religions such as Islam, Christianity, and Judaism in terms of being the right choice?
Christianity is based on the assumption that Jesus wasn't lying.
Atheism is based on the assumption that you're not living in one big dream world. Any belief (or lack of one) is based off assumptions. It's the
credibility of those assumptions that's important.
Quote from: HamsterPants on September 30, 2009, 08:14:47 AM
That's a fair point to make, but actually other Christian Churches have decided that mormons dont beleive in the same God, however, we insist that we do beleive in the same God, and that they are only doing that so that they can accuse of of worshipping false gods.
We beleive in Christ, first and foremost, Joseph Smith was just a prophet, like any other in the Bible, except he was destined to restore the Church, the same one that is centered in the Bible, and this concept offends many people to the point of anger and hatred, to the extent that they would assault us in mobs, rape and murder us, and steal everything we have, and yet we remain, thusfar, steadfast.
If you look at Christian denominations, they all try to follow the bible as it was written from day one (whether or not they are doing so is moot). I think they generally believe that because of the alterations Mormons have made to the bible (which they believe to be the entire core of Christianity), it refutes your religion of holding the name of Christianity. This is actually kind of ironic, because Joseph Smith held the belief that the Bible was corrupted through translation and changes, meaning both Mormons and Christians accuse each other of altering the bible (correct me if I'm wrong on this one). Technically, Mormons are Christians simply because they are followers of Christ, but because of the social taboo that goes along with changing the bible so drastically, current denominations of the Christian religion want to separate themselves from Mormons, and would hate to think that Mormons could be apart of what they believe to be Christianity.
Quote from: Jake on September 30, 2009, 02:15:28 PM
Quote from: HamsterPants on September 30, 2009, 08:14:47 AM
That's a fair point to make, but actually other Christian Churches have decided that mormons dont beleive in the same God, however, we insist that we do beleive in the same God, and that they are only doing that so that they can accuse of of worshipping false gods.
We beleive in Christ, first and foremost, Joseph Smith was just a prophet, like any other in the Bible, except he was destined to restore the Church, the same one that is centered in the Bible, and this concept offends many people to the point of anger and hatred, to the extent that they would assault us in mobs, rape and murder us, and steal everything we have, and yet we remain, thusfar, steadfast.
If you look at Christian denominations, they all try to follow the bible as it was written from day one (whether or not they are doing so is moot). I think they generally believe that because of the alterations Mormons have made to the bible (which they believe to be the entire core of Christianity), it refutes your religion of holding the name of Christianity. This is actually kind of ironic, because Joseph Smith held the belief that the Bible was corrupted through translation and changes, meaning both Mormons and Christians accuse each other of altering the bible (correct me if I'm wrong on this one). Technically, Mormons are Christians simply because they are followers of Christ, but because of the social taboo that goes along with changing the bible so drastically, current denominations of the Christian religion want to separate themselves from Mormons, and would hate to think that Mormons could be apart of what they believe to be Christianity.
You are correct, however, we do not beleive that we altered the bible, we beleive that we restored some of the scripture to it's original state. For example, "The Gospel of John", actually used to be called, "The Testimony of John", ofcourse, actually knowing this would be impossible without divine influences, and if you dont beleive that, then that's where the arguments are born. But you are most correct, we are accused of altering the bible, and we defend by calling them hypocrates.
I just want to thank you guys for the respectful dialogue, I really appreciate it.
QuoteI just want to thank you guys for the respectful dialogue, I really appreciate it.
That's exactly what this topic is for. I mean, originally, it was just a discussion about what might happen after death. Now it has evolved into so much more, and I'm glad that it has remained a respectful, knowledge-based discussion.
I just want to take a moment to thank everyone that has offered their insight into this topic thus far, while remaining civil all the while.
I think it's kind of silly to argue between faiths. It's all a matter of he said/she said. No one can ever prove that their religion is "right". It is simply right for them. I say live and let live. Be Mormon, Christian, Muslim, Jewish... whatever. So long as you don't tell other people that what they believe is wrong.
I mean, you're saying that the Mormon religion is accused of altering the Bible when in reality the Christian religion altered or appended the Jewish religious scriptures. It's really not fair for anyone to say they hold the rights to any of that. Sure, they are sacred texts, but over the many many centuries that have past, things have been altered just through translation error alone. If someone came along and says, "You know what, I want to change some of this around, maybe add on a bit here and there... anyone who agrees with me can join me..." So what? Go right ahead. Anyone should have the right to do that if they want. And anyone has the right to agree with them or not. If they disagree it doesn't mean they have to persecute the person though. Let them make their changes and believe what they want to believe. Even if it's that those changes were ordered by God. There's no way to prove that it wasn't.
PS-I would also like to point out that this is by far the most civil topic on religion I've ever seen.
Quote from: Jake on September 30, 2009, 02:15:28 PM
Quote from: Torch on September 30, 2009, 08:06:33 AM
Christianity is based on the assumption that Jesus wasn't lying.
Atheism is based on the assumption that you're not living in one big dream world. Any belief (or lack of one) is based off assumptions. It's the credibility of those assumptions that's important..
"do you not find it hard to commit your life to the assumption that Joseph Smith wasn't lying? Your entire religion is based on one mans word"
My point was that Christianity works the same way. I don't see how Jesus has more credibility than Joseph Smith.
Quote from: Torch on September 30, 2009, 03:32:12 PM
Quote from: Jake on September 30, 2009, 02:15:28 PM
Quote from: Torch on September 30, 2009, 08:06:33 AM
Christianity is based on the assumption that Jesus wasn't lying.
Atheism is based on the assumption that you're not living in one big dream world. Any belief (or lack of one) is based off assumptions. It's the credibility of those assumptions that's important..
"do you not find it hard to commit your life to the assumption that Joseph Smith wasn't lying? Your entire religion is based on one mans word"
My point was that Christianity works the same way. I don't see how Jesus has more credibility than Joseph Smith.
Is the credibility of either determined by themselves, or by your personal opinion? If you dont want the beleive that they worked miracles and were destined for great things, then you will not beleive, not even if you see it happen before your very eyes; if you go to arrest Jesus, and you get your ear cut off, and he picks it back up and heals it, it wouldnt mean anything to you if you didnt want it to. So what do you personally consider credible?
Hamsterpants, that's a bold assumption. Saying that because someone doesn't take someone elses word for something that they won't believe something when they see it taking place is not necessarily true. I personally don't believe in miracles, but I would have a hard time logically explaning someone being healed as in your example if I first hand experienced it.
Quote from: Lingus on September 30, 2009, 03:27:38 PM
I think it's kind of silly to argue between faiths. It's all a matter of he said/she said. No one can ever prove that their religion is "right". It is simply right for them. I say live and let live. Be Mormon, Christian, Muslim, Jewish... whatever. So long as you don't tell other people that what they believe is wrong.
Well its more than right or wrong to anyone. its also personal preference. MAC vs PC comes to mind.
Quote from: Torch on September 30, 2009, 03:32:12 PM
Quote from: Jake on September 30, 2009, 02:15:28 PM
Quote from: Torch on September 30, 2009, 08:06:33 AM
Christianity is based on the assumption that Jesus wasn't lying.
Atheism is based on the assumption that you're not living in one big dream world. Any belief (or lack of one) is based off assumptions. It's the credibility of those assumptions that's important..
"do you not find it hard to commit your life to the assumption that Joseph Smith wasn't lying? Your entire religion is based on one mans word"
My point was that Christianity works the same way. I don't see how Jesus has more credibility than Joseph Smith.
Yes, I got your point. You never mentioned your beliefs on the credibility of Jesus compared to Joseph in your original post, and although I could have deducted what you were thinking, I preferred to act on the content of the post and not your beliefs. Doing the latter could have evoked a response from you regarding my ignorance and assumptions, and I didn't feel like leaving myself open for a nut shot.
Quote from: Lingus on September 30, 2009, 03:27:38 PM
I think it's kind of silly to argue between faiths. It's all a matter of he said/she said. No one can ever prove that their religion is "right". It is simply right for them. I say live and let live. Be Mormon, Christian, Muslim, Jewish... whatever. So long as you don't tell other people that what they believe is wrong.
Right, I completely agree. Sadly, some of the anti-theists in this topic wouldn't agree with you. I've seen way too many open insults towards religion and anyone who follows it. It's become common to tell people that they're religion is wrong and I've even heard statements of banishing all religion. Then the same people go ahead and complain about religion imposing their beliefs on others. Banishing the free will to believe what you want to believe is about the worst way to obtain peace, and accepting other people's beliefs is the necessary step that we must take.
QuoteI mean, you're saying that the Mormon religion is accused of altering the Bible when in reality the Christian religion altered or appended the Jewish religious scriptures. It's really not fair for anyone to say they hold the rights to any of that. Sure, they are sacred texts, but over the many many centuries that have past, things have been altered just through translation error alone. If someone came along and says, "You know what, I want to change some of this around, maybe add on a bit here and there... anyone who agrees with me can join me..." So what? Go right ahead. Anyone should have the right to do that if they want. And anyone has the right to agree with them or not. If they disagree it doesn't mean they have to persecute the person though. Let them make their changes and believe what they want to believe. Even if it's that those changes were ordered by God. There's no way to prove that it wasn't.
PS-I would also like to point out that this is by far the most civil topic on religion I've ever seen.
Was this post directed towards me or Hamster? I would agree that Christians are much like Mormons in terms of altering the bible, but there are some very important differences between the two. Mormons have made direct revisions to restore it, while the Christians (apart from translations) have added on the new testament because of Jesus death, while still attempting to keep the old testament in it's original text. I think it's important to consider the reasons for altering the bible though, to help determine whether or not it's possible that the revisions could still be considered the word of God. The dead sea scrolls have always been a foundation for Christians (and probably Jews, although I cannot vouch) to show evidence that their bible is being translated directly from the original texts. It helps dispel some evidence that claims the word of God to be badly damaged and changed through time.
Quote from: Jake on September 30, 2009, 05:46:47 PM
Right, I completely agree. Sadly, some of the anti-theists in this topic wouldn't agree with you. I've seen way too many open insults towards religion and anyone who follows it. It's become common to tell people that they're religion is wrong and I've even heard statements of banishing all religion. Then the same people go ahead and complain about religion imposing their beliefs on others. Banishing the free will to believe what you want to believe is about the worst way to obtain peace, and accepting other people's beliefs is the necessary step that we must take.
hey this is the only reason why there is beliefs. Its kind of like 2 + 2 = 4. If some one else says 2 + 2 = 5 your most likely going to say they are wrong. Same thing here but instead of the question being 2 + 2 its does god exists or what is the meaning of life or whats after death. And people feel so passionate about there 2 + 2 = 4 or 5 or what ever that they call the other person wrong because to them it looks so clear.
when really we "dont know" as a whole.
Now the thing that makes math and this different is that's its really difficult for some one to have the same outcome as some one else. Mainly because its not as simple as taking 2 rocks and 2 rocks and putting it together and calling it four. You half to understand there culture, history, commonly accepted behaviors, ect. When they add all that up they get something different from what you do. Almost ever person get a different answer.
And you cant say any of them are right because that's an opinion made by that person and to them its true. its like arguing who some one is. Now that does not mean you cant influence a person into thinking something close to your results. It happens all the time. The problem has variables in it and they can be changed.
Now weather or not you bleave in randomness we are all different and will most likely will never get the same results exactly. And there going to still people who see that and think it needs too be the same when really the answer its self....
ill finish later. im not sure what the answer is. my mind is tired.
Quote from: ARTgames on September 30, 2009, 06:50:58 PM
Quote from: Jake on September 30, 2009, 05:46:47 PM
Right, I completely agree. Sadly, some of the anti-theists in this topic wouldn't agree with you. I've seen way too many open insults towards religion and anyone who follows it. It's become common to tell people that they're religion is wrong and I've even heard statements of banishing all religion. Then the same people go ahead and complain about religion imposing their beliefs on others. Banishing the free will to believe what you want to believe is about the worst way to obtain peace, and accepting other people's beliefs is the necessary step that we must take.
hey this is the only reason why there is beliefs. Its kind of like 2 + 2 = 4. If some one else says 2 + 2 = 5 your most likely going to say they are wrong. Same thing here but instead of the question being 2 + 2 its does god exists or what is the meaning of life or whats after death. And people feel so passionate about there 2 + 2 = 4 or 5 or what ever that they call the other person wrong because to them it looks so clear.
It isn't like that. It's more like some people acknowledging that we don't know and not making assumptions, while others are blinded by the belief that they do know. Atheists are the people that see it as an unknown and use what they do know to try and figure it out. Religious people don't have the will to find out, so instead they just put their faith in whatever prophet or book attempts to give them the answer.
Quote from: Jake on September 30, 2009, 05:46:47 PM
Quote from: Lingus on September 30, 2009, 03:27:38 PM
I think it's kind of silly to argue between faiths. It's all a matter of he said/she said. No one can ever prove that their religion is "right". It is simply right for them. I say live and let live. Be Mormon, Christian, Muslim, Jewish... whatever. So long as you don't tell other people that what they believe is wrong.
Right, I completely agree. Sadly, some of the anti-theists in this topic wouldn't agree with you. I've seen way too many open insults towards religion and anyone who follows it. It's become common to tell people that they're religion is wrong and I've even heard statements of banishing all religion. Then the same people go ahead and complain about religion imposing their beliefs on others. Banishing the free will to believe what you want to believe is about the worst way to obtain peace, and accepting other people's beliefs is the necessary step that we must take.
To be honest, I don't think it's fair to point out any one group when talking about this. Every group is guilty of it to some extent. It depends on the person. There are extremists in any group, and inevitably because of the extent of their belief in their personal point of view, they are going to lash out against people who believe something different. It doesn't matter what they believe in. That's my point.
Quote from: Jake on September 30, 2009, 05:46:47 PM
QuoteI mean, you're saying that the Mormon religion is accused of altering the Bible when in reality the Christian religion altered or appended the Jewish religious scriptures. It's really not fair for anyone to say they hold the rights to any of that. Sure, they are sacred texts, but over the many many centuries that have past, things have been altered just through translation error alone. If someone came along and says, "You know what, I want to change some of this around, maybe add on a bit here and there... anyone who agrees with me can join me..." So what? Go right ahead. Anyone should have the right to do that if they want. And anyone has the right to agree with them or not. If they disagree it doesn't mean they have to persecute the person though. Let them make their changes and believe what they want to believe. Even if it's that those changes were ordered by God. There's no way to prove that it wasn't.
PS-I would also like to point out that this is by far the most civil topic on religion I've ever seen.
Was this post directed towards me or Hamster? I would agree that Christians are much like Mormons in terms of altering the bible, but there are some very important differences between the two. Mormons have made direct revisions to restore it, while the Christians (apart from translations) have added on the new testament because of Jesus death, while still attempting to keep the old testament in it's original text. I think it's important to consider the reasons for altering the bible though, to help determine whether or not it's possible that the revisions could still be considered the word of God. The dead sea scrolls have always been a foundation for Christians (and probably Jews, although I cannot vouch) to show evidence that their bible is being translated directly from the original texts. It helps dispel some evidence that claims the word of God to be badly damaged and changed through time.
Not directed at anyone in particular. Just a general response to what was being discussed. I agree that there are differences to what the Christians did and what the Mormons did with the bible. But my general point is that they should be able to do what they did without another group getting pissed off. It's not like anyone is forcing anyone else to believe in the changes that they made. They made the changes because they believe in them. Anyone who agrees should be able to, and anyone who doesn't should also be able to respectfully disagree.
Quote from: Torch on September 30, 2009, 07:23:01 PM
It isn't like that. It's more like some people acknowledging that we don't know and not making assumptions, while others are blinded by the belief that they do know. Atheists are the people that see it as an unknown and use what they do know to try and figure it out. Religious people don't have the will to find out, so instead they just put their faith in whatever prophet or book attempts to give them the answer.
"what they do know" is just a commend shard opinion on what they proceeds the world as. now "what they do know" about the big questions is something "when really we "dont know" as a whole." But to them like Religious people they "call the other person wrong because to them it looks so clear."
And why it looks so clear to one person and not the other is the 2ed part of my post you did not quote. And "making assumptions" and "while others are blinded by the belief " is something that makes up that person and is why "Almost ever person get a different answer" to who they are and do.
but you can "influence a person into thinking something close to your results."
Try asking your own questions with my post before posting. because most of the time i answered what people said. My post did not say whether religion or Atheists is the way to go but why they do exists.
Quote from: Lingus on September 30, 2009, 07:26:42 PM
Quote from: Jake on September 30, 2009, 05:46:47 PM
Quote from: Lingus on September 30, 2009, 03:27:38 PM
I think it's kind of silly to argue between faiths. It's all a matter of he said/she said. No one can ever prove that their religion is "right". It is simply right for them. I say live and let live. Be Mormon, Christian, Muslim, Jewish... whatever. So long as you don't tell other people that what they believe is wrong.
Right, I completely agree. Sadly, some of the anti-theists in this topic wouldn't agree with you. I've seen way too many open insults towards religion and anyone who follows it. It's become common to tell people that they're religion is wrong and I've even heard statements of banishing all religion. Then the same people go ahead and complain about religion imposing their beliefs on others. Banishing the free will to believe what you want to believe is about the worst way to obtain peace, and accepting other people's beliefs is the necessary step that we must take.
To be honest, I don't think it's fair to point out any one group when talking about this. Every group is guilty of it to some extent. It depends on the person. There are extremists in any group, and inevitably because of the extent of their belief in their personal point of view, they are going to lash out against people who believe something different. It doesn't matter what they believe in. That's my point.
I was talking about this topic when I singled out anti-theists. I would, of course, agree that it goes both ways in life.
Quote from: Jake on September 30, 2009, 05:46:47 PM
QuoteQuoteI mean, you're saying that the Mormon religion is accused of altering the Bible when in reality the Christian religion altered or appended the Jewish religious scriptures. It's really not fair for anyone to say they hold the rights to any of that. Sure, they are sacred texts, but over the many many centuries that have past, things have been altered just through translation error alone. If someone came along and says, "You know what, I want to change some of this around, maybe add on a bit here and there... anyone who agrees with me can join me..." So what? Go right ahead. Anyone should have the right to do that if they want. And anyone has the right to agree with them or not. If they disagree it doesn't mean they have to persecute the person though. Let them make their changes and believe what they want to believe. Even if it's that those changes were ordered by God. There's no way to prove that it wasn't.
PS-I would also like to point out that this is by far the most civil topic on religion I've ever seen.
Was this post directed towards me or Hamster? I would agree that Christians are much like Mormons in terms of altering the bible, but there are some very important differences between the two. Mormons have made direct revisions to restore it, while the Christians (apart from translations) have added on the new testament because of Jesus death, while still attempting to keep the old testament in it's original text. I think it's important to consider the reasons for altering the bible though, to help determine whether or not it's possible that the revisions could still be considered the word of God. The dead sea scrolls have always been a foundation for Christians (and probably Jews, although I cannot vouch) to show evidence that their bible is being translated directly from the original texts. It helps dispel some evidence that claims the word of God to be badly damaged and changed through time.
Not directed at anyone in particular. Just a general response to what was being discussed. I agree that there are differences to what the Christians did and what the Mormons did with the bible. But my general point is that they should be able to do what they did without another group getting pissed off. It's not like anyone is forcing anyone else to believe in the changes that they made. They made the changes because they believe in them. Anyone who agrees should be able to, and anyone who doesn't should also be able to respectfully disagree.
Yeah, exactly. Sorry if I didn't address your point directly, I often get off-topic with my posts. Your point is absolutely correct. I personally have not seen that much anger regarding this, but rather sympathy. Christians I know would feel bad for Mormons for not seeing the supposed truth, and I'm sure it goes the other way too. I think this is a much bigger issue in middle-eastern countries where differences in the translation of the Qur'an have led to thousands of deaths, and even Ireland, where the Protestants and Catholics go at it. It's really sickening. I'm sure your post was regarding all of that too, but I felt I should mention it.
QuoteThey made the changes because they believe in them. Anyone who agrees should be able to, and anyone who doesn't should also be able to respectfully disagree.
what is the differences in respectfully disagreeing and disagreeing? Maybe what is respectfully to one culture is not to another. Sorry im getting off your point. :P
Quote from: Jake on September 30, 2009, 05:46:47 PM
Right, I completely agree. Sadly, some of the anti-theists in this topic wouldn't agree with you. I've seen way too many open insults towards religion and anyone who follows it. It's become common to tell people that they're religion is wrong and I've even heard statements of banishing all religion. Then the same people go ahead and complain about religion imposing their beliefs on others. Banishing the free will to believe what you want to believe is about the worst way to obtain peace, and accepting other people's beliefs is the necessary step that we must take.
I hope that wasn't directed at me.
I never would want to banish religion. That's not the answer. The only problem with religion are the people who use religion as a front and extremists. This does happen with atheism, too, but less often. Take for example, the priests(or whatever they're called)in the Middle East. They openly take advantage of poor Muslims there EVERY DAY. Why do you think there are so many suicide bombers? Yes, Osama Bin Laden helped with that and so did other terrorist groups, I realize. But the 'priests' tell them to do it. The poor Muslims gladly do it, because they think this will direct them to a better life, since they have nothing. They're so desperate, they'll trust ANYONE. All for endless tables of food, wine, and 77 virgins to a man. (Seriously, some people in particular, don't be like your normal selves and say 'OMG 77 VIRGINS FOREVER IN BED I'D KILL MYSELF IT'S WORTH IT LOLOLOL. It's not funny. And I honestly don't give a [Censor] if you would.)THAT'S why they're killing so many people. Because it would be better than their current life to them. The 'priests' are just doing this so they get whatever possessions the poor people have left and their money as well. They don't care about the people. It's sickening. I do realize there are legitimate priests there, though. That's what I applaud. (I wasn't making fun of Islam, just using it as an example)
And atheism, in general, I have seen insulted much more than religion. A good 4/5 of the world believes in a God or reincarnation or an afterlife or multiple gods or SOMETHING. I have been asked 'why in the world I'm an atheist' too many times to count. I am very tolerant, but when I debate, I do tend to sound harsh.
Religion has MANY, MANY more good things to it than bad. Don't get me wrong.
I'm sorry if I did seem harsh, but I am in no way an 'anti-theist.'
And my apologies if it wasn't directed at me.
Art, I get what you're saying... it would be different if anyone experienced something different than what we can all physically experience. Everyone understands 2+2=4. No one would argue against it. It would also be different if everyone understood that God exists. But that's not the case. The two things are fundamentally different. Believing in something you can see and touch is nothing like believing in something you have no evidence of (ie faith that God exists etc etc). I'm not saying they're wrong, I'm saying they are two entirely different things. It's not fair to compare them. It is true that it's possible that what we experience to be an illusion... but believing that would require MORE faith than accepting that what we see and feel is real. Not to mention, the logical end result in believing that everything is an illusion is to go completely insane.
PS-Respectfully disagree in my opinion is to not shove it in their face or say they are "wrong".
But why is there "Believing in something you can see and touch is nothing like believing in something you have no evidence of (ie faith that God exists etc etc). " i answered that in my post.
They do because we don't have what we considered evidence.
"when really we "dont know" as a whole."
"You half to understand there culture, history, commonly accepted behaviors, ect. " This is how anyone answer the belife in something "have no evidence of".
what you are = who you are
if "what you are" is some one who bleaves in god that's because of "who you are". and who you are is made of "what you are" which is made up of a lot of things like "culture, history, commonly accepted behaviors, ect." ( i think, its up to you acceding to my post)
but what makes you "what you are" is also something we dont know everything about. It would involve the meaning of life.
QuotePS-Respectfully disagree in my opinion is to not shove it in their face or say they are "wrong".
oh thats just rude. or what a lot of people would think to be. i do. :P
Quote from: Mystery on September 30, 2009, 07:59:47 PM
Quote from: Jake on September 30, 2009, 05:46:47 PM
Right, I completely agree. Sadly, some of the anti-theists in this topic wouldn't agree with you. I've seen way too many open insults towards religion and anyone who follows it. It's become common to tell people that they're religion is wrong and I've even heard statements of banishing all religion. Then the same people go ahead and complain about religion imposing their beliefs on others. Banishing the free will to believe what you want to believe is about the worst way to obtain peace, and accepting other people's beliefs is the necessary step that we must take.
I hope that wasn't directed at me.
I never would want to banish religion. That's not the answer. The only problem with religion are the people who use religion as a front and extremists. This does happen with atheism, too, but less often. Take for example, the priests(or whatever they're called)in the Middle East. They openly take advantage of poor Muslims there EVERY DAY. Why do you think there are so many suicide bombers? Yes, Osama Bin Laden helped with that and so did other terrorist groups, I realize. But the 'priests' tell them to do it. The poor Muslims gladly do it, because they think this will direct them to a better life, since they have nothing. They're so desperate, they'll trust ANYONE. All for endless tables of food, wine, and 77 virgins to a man. (Seriously, some people in particular, don't be like your normal selves and say 'OMG 77 VIRGINS FOREVER IN BED I'D KILL MYSELF IT'S WORTH IT LOLOLOL. It's not funny. And I honestly don't give a [Censor] if you would.)THAT'S why they're killing so many people. Because it would be better than their current life to them. The 'priests' are just doing this so they get whatever possessions the poor people have left and their money as well. They don't care about the people. It's sickening. I do realize there are legitimate priests there, though. That's what I applaud. (I wasn't making fun of Islam, just using it as an example)
And atheism, in general, I have seen insulted much more than religion. A good 4/5 of the world believes in a God or reincarnation or an afterlife or multiple gods or SOMETHING. I have been asked 'why in the world I'm an atheist' too many times to count. I am very tolerant, but when I debate, I do tend to sound harsh.
Religion has MANY, MANY more good things to it than bad. Don't get me wrong.
I'm sorry if I did seem harsh, but I am in no way an 'anti-theist.'
And my apologies if it wasn't directed at me.
I'm feeling a little too sick to express my view points anymore tonight, but I pretty much agree 110% with this post. I have never considered you to be anti-theist, and I apologize if you felt that way.
Quote from: HamsterPants on September 29, 2009, 11:19:04 PM
Quote from: NotoriousM4^ on September 29, 2009, 10:51:42 PM
Quote from: HamsterPants on September 29, 2009, 10:07:10 PM
Quote from: Jake on September 29, 2009, 09:55:17 PM
With deepest respect for your beliefs, why is it that you follow Mormonism? I'm only asking this because I am deeply interested in the reason for one's beliefs regarding religion (especially ones that I know little about).
I follow it because I beleive that it will lead me to salvation, I have been happy as long as I've done the things which I beleive are right, even if it's challenging and I can't be perfect, I'm happy, that is something that cannot be described, happiness is what we all, as human beings want, and I know that I have it. It's a feeling that strengthens your faith, the Holy Spirit, he confirms the truth in a way that you can rely on. I've studied the scriptures, and I ask God if they are true, and I have received an answer every time, and that is the only thing we encourage other people to do. We want to bring souls unto Christ.
And the reason I follow mormonism is because I want to return to Christ, with all my loved ones, and be happy for the rest of eternity. All that is required of me is to work with as much effort as I can expend until the end of my days, and though this may seem like alot, it is the least we can do for what Christ suffered for us. We have a fullness of the Gospel, while other Christian churches are incomplete, and they hate us, we are despised by the world, and we endure their persecution, and that makes us stronger.
I have a testimony that these things are true, because they are my life, they are all that I know, and I hope that you will find it useful.
Well, according to you, can't you do all that without still being mormon if everybody is going to be saved anyways?
And, exactly what "wickedness" did these black ancestors supposedly commit. And if your God is so forgiving why is it right for him to punish them because of something their ancestors had done? And if they are black because of what their ancestors did doesn't that make the actual ancestors who committed these acts white? I also don't see how having skin of color is a "curse".
I don't know a whole lot about the matter of color, but I do know that being cursed is a good thing, because it means that you are a strong character that needs greater challanges in order to be equal to all other human beings. And you are not being punished for their mistakes, but your curse is their punishment, because they will look upon their their seed, and feel terrible guilt for what they caused for their descendants, causing them to turn inward on themselves in sorrow, that is the equivalent of hell, it is as much as you knowingly put on yourself witout trying to fix the problem.
But I honestly don't know much about the things which you have asked me, I will have to ask you to allow me some time to study and reflect until I have the answers to your questions.
So your saying black people aren't equal with other human beings?
:-\ That sounds a tad bit... racist?
Quote from: Mystery on September 30, 2009, 07:59:47 PM
I hope that wasn't directed at me.
I never would want to banish religion. That's not the answer. The only problem with religion are the people who use religion as a front and extremists.
The rest of your post form what i skimmed over i have a similar opinion of. One of the biggest first talks i had about religion we came to extremists as something that's the main problem most of the time. You can always have too much of something.
But what makes an extremists? They feels what they are doing is right but most of the people (me included) don't. A lot of are morels are based off life and death pain and happy. The main thing is that what this all means to us dose not always mean the same to them.
And i don't think we will ever share the same opinion 100% about anything because "Now weather or not you bleave in randomness we are all different and will most likely will never get the same results exactly."
I'd personally like to applaud all who have remained civil in this discussion, as Chaos did earlier. To explain how impressed I am with this, I use the following example: I am part of a gaming guild / family who love being together and being so close together with everyone. We go camping together, we game together, we drink together, yet we have to have an entirely different forum installation for political and religious discussion because a group averaging around the age of late 20's to early 30's get extremely offensive / defensive in conversations much more moot than this one. To see an open community with the average age of much less be able to take in everyone of all religions and remain civil in a discussion regarding things that a lot of us hold near and dear to us (faith) is utterly amazing.
Well done!
And to add a bit of comic relief, I have a funny story.
Some years ago we had some Mormon girls come round to our barracks rooms trying to do their recruiting. They were wearing the typical attire that Mormon school-girls wear. The main girl talking was meh as far as appearances, but her friend was drop dead gorgeous. One was talking, but my attention was fixed on the other. Fixed so much that I don't even really recall what they were saying. When I finally snapped to after an abrupt "Excuse me..." I looked back at the girl talking and replied with something along the lines of "Oh, I'm sorry, no thank you, have a nice day." They smiled and I went to shut the door as they turned to go to the next room, but then something clicked. I swung the door back open and said "Oh, excuse me, I was curious..." They turned back around and faced me and I said "Aren't I allowed to marry both of you and all your friends if I convert?" The girl who did all the talking retorted back with something how that isn't allowed anymore, yadayadayada, but her cute friend was standing their smiling. I almost took them up on their offer!
Now that I probably offended Hamsterpants with that (and for that, please understand that was sarcasm, meant for a good laugh, which others found it to be aftewards), I am going to go eat some num-nums!
Quote from: Scotty on September 30, 2009, 09:11:02 PM
I'd personally like to applaud all who have remained civil in this discussion, as Chaos did earlier. To explain how impressed I am with this, I use the following example: I am part of a gaming guild / family who love being together and being so close together with everyone. We go camping together, we game together, we drink together, yet we have to have an entirely different forum installation for political and religious discussion because a group averaging around the age of late 20's to early 30's get extremely offensive / defensive in conversations much more moot than this one. To see an open community with the average age of much less be able to take in everyone of all religions and remain civil in a discussion regarding things that a lot of us hold near and dear to us (faith) is utterly amazing.
If theres anything to learn from this topic its this. Im also vary glad how this has turned out.
off topic:
256 post on this account! WOOOOT! 8 bits down!
Oh... in a Theory of Knowledge class I attended the other day, we had a huge discussion on 'Knowing', and the 'Ways of Knowing' and all that and relativity...
We even came to the conclusion 2+2 does not always equal 4. D:
Quote from: Cactuscat222 on September 30, 2009, 09:34:21 PM
Oh... in a Theory of Knowledge class I attended the other day, we had a huge discussion on 'Knowing', and the 'Ways of Knowing' and all that and relativity...
We even came to the conclusion 2+2 does not always equal 4. D:
Things like that are possible in certain ways of viewing it. Heck, 2+2=pumpkin is possible.
Quote from: Jake on September 30, 2009, 08:33:13 PM
I'm feeling a little too sick to express my view points anymore tonight, but I pretty much agree 110% with this post. I have never considered you to be anti-theist, and I apologize if you felt that way.
Ah. That's fine. Glad to see someone agrees.
Quote from: Scotty on September 30, 2009, 09:11:02 PM
I'd personally like to applaud all who have remained civil in this discussion, as Chaos did earlier. To explain how impressed I am with this, I use the following example: I am part of a gaming guild / family who love being together and being so close together with everyone. We go camping together, we game together, we drink together, yet we have to have an entirely different forum installation for political and religious discussion because a group averaging around the age of late 20's to early 30's get extremely offensive / defensive in conversations much more moot than this one. To see an open community with the average age of much less be able to take in everyone of all religions and remain civil in a discussion regarding things that a lot of us hold near and dear to us (faith) is utterly amazing.
Well done!
You'd be surprised. People can be very civil when they want to. ;)
Quote from: ARTgames on September 30, 2009, 07:48:54 PM
Quote from: Torch on September 30, 2009, 07:23:01 PM
It isn't like that. It's more like some people acknowledging that we don't know and not making assumptions, while others are blinded by the belief that they do know. Atheists are the people that see it as an unknown and use what they do know to try and figure it out. Religious people don't have the will to find out, so instead they just put their faith in whatever prophet or book attempts to give them the answer.
"what they do know" is just a commend shard opinion on what they proceeds the world as. now "what they do know" about the big questions is something "when really we "dont know" as a whole." But to them like Religious people they "call the other person wrong because to them it looks so clear."
And why it looks so clear to one person and not the other is the 2ed part of my post you did not quote. And "making assumptions" and "while others are blinded by the belief " is something that makes up that person and is why "Almost ever person get a different answer" to who they are and do.
but you can "influence a person into thinking something close to your results."
Try asking your own questions with my post before posting. because most of the time i answered what people said. My post did not say whether religion or Atheists is the way to go but why they do exists.
My point was that they haven''t figured out anything. They believe it for no reason other than that noone else has completely figured it out. If you don't accept that you don't know, you'll never find out the real answer.
Quote from: Torch on September 30, 2009, 09:49:14 PM
My point was that they haven''t figured out anything. They believe it for no reason other than that noone else has completely figured it out. If you don't accept that you don't know, you'll never find out the real answer.
My point is why do you think they think that? Is not about there philosophy for say but way dose it even exists. And why i think people are who they are is what said on the last page.
Quote from: ARTgames on September 30, 2009, 10:28:08 PM
Quote from: Torch on September 30, 2009, 09:49:14 PM
My point was that they haven''t figured out anything. They believe it for no reason other than that noone else has completely figured it out. If you don't accept that you don't know, you'll never find out the real answer.
My point is why do you think they think that?
Because under the right circumstances, human's will believe whatever they're told. As a child, your brain is trying to learn and will pick up on anything that you hear, whether it is true or not.
I couldn't understand the rest of your post, too much was lost in the translation.
Yes that can be a factor. Also what do you not understand?
Quote from: ARTgames on September 30, 2009, 11:03:16 PM
Yes that can be a factor. Also what do you not understand?
This part: "Is not about there philosophy for say but way dose it even exists. And why i think people are who they are is what said on the last page."
ok ty. Why do they believe what they do?
Quote from: ARTgames on September 30, 2009, 11:11:08 PM
ok ty. Why do they believe what they do?
Quote from: Torch
Because under the right circumstances, human's will believe whatever they're told. As a child, your brain is trying to learn and will pick up on anything that you hear, whether it is true or not.
Quote from: Torch on September 30, 2009, 11:20:07 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on September 30, 2009, 11:11:08 PM
ok ty. Why do they believe what they do?
Quote from: Torch
Because under the right circumstances, human's will believe whatever they're told. As a child, your brain is trying to learn and will pick up on anything that you hear, whether it is true or not.
QuoteYes that can be a factor.
Ill stop here.
Quote from: Torch on September 30, 2009, 10:53:22 PM
As a child, your brain is trying to learn and will pick up on anything that you hear, whether it is true or not.
I was thinking this exact thing as I was reading over previous posts from the last couple of days. The thing is, how many of you have defended your faiths, all the while, that faith that you are backing is the only faith you have ever followed? I am one of those being a Catholic. I know that what I believe (while corrupted and jacked at times, thank you perverted priests) is right because that is what I was brought up to believe. My entire family (at least on my father's side, to include Meiun's father) was brought up Catholic as children, so we naturally lean towards that direction in faith. I don't care to convert to Judaism, Islam, Baptist, etc... Because I have been brought up to believe that Catholicism is the correct route to go. Regardless, I am curious how many have since converted to a different religion from what they were brought up as (if any). Is there anyone? I'd be interested to hear their story as to why, as that is always a good story to listen to!
I am somewhat similar to Lingus as he previously described. I am Catholic by descent. I haven't been faithful enough to keep up with my religion, and can't tell you how God would handle specific situations. It's always intrigued me, as have all religions, but I am not strong enough in my faith to withstand a bombardment of questions. My overall theory is: As long as I live a life free of regret, free of those moments where you sit there and say to yourself: "I shouldn't have done that", then my afterlife will be rewarding with endless booze and gratuitous triple-D breasts bathing me on command with all my friends and family there to cheer me on!
Quote from: Scotty on October 01, 2009, 04:49:37 AM
I haven't been faithful enough to keep up with my religion, and can't tell you how God would handle specific situations. It's always intrigued me, as have all religions, but I am not strong enough in my faith to withstand a bombardment of questions.
I think there is a lot of people like that. Some of the people here and a lot of people at my school are the same way. I think more and more this will happen.
Quote from: NotoriousM4^ on September 30, 2009, 08:39:42 PM
Quote from: HamsterPants on September 29, 2009, 11:19:04 PM
Quote from: NotoriousM4^ on September 29, 2009, 10:51:42 PM
Quote from: HamsterPants on September 29, 2009, 10:07:10 PM
Quote from: Jake on September 29, 2009, 09:55:17 PM
With deepest respect for your beliefs, why is it that you follow Mormonism? I'm only asking this because I am deeply interested in the reason for one's beliefs regarding religion (especially ones that I know little about).
I follow it because I beleive that it will lead me to salvation, I have been happy as long as I've done the things which I beleive are right, even if it's challenging and I can't be perfect, I'm happy, that is something that cannot be described, happiness is what we all, as human beings want, and I know that I have it. It's a feeling that strengthens your faith, the Holy Spirit, he confirms the truth in a way that you can rely on. I've studied the scriptures, and I ask God if they are true, and I have received an answer every time, and that is the only thing we encourage other people to do. We want to bring souls unto Christ.
And the reason I follow mormonism is because I want to return to Christ, with all my loved ones, and be happy for the rest of eternity. All that is required of me is to work with as much effort as I can expend until the end of my days, and though this may seem like alot, it is the least we can do for what Christ suffered for us. We have a fullness of the Gospel, while other Christian churches are incomplete, and they hate us, we are despised by the world, and we endure their persecution, and that makes us stronger.
I have a testimony that these things are true, because they are my life, they are all that I know, and I hope that you will find it useful.
Well, according to you, can't you do all that without still being mormon if everybody is going to be saved anyways?
And, exactly what "wickedness" did these black ancestors supposedly commit. And if your God is so forgiving why is it right for him to punish them because of something their ancestors had done? And if they are black because of what their ancestors did doesn't that make the actual ancestors who committed these acts white? I also don't see how having skin of color is a "curse".
I don't know a whole lot about the matter of color, but I do know that being cursed is a good thing, because it means that you are a strong character that needs greater challanges in order to be equal to all other human beings. And you are not being punished for their mistakes, but your curse is their punishment, because they will look upon their their seed, and feel terrible guilt for what they caused for their descendants, causing them to turn inward on themselves in sorrow, that is the equivalent of hell, it is as much as you knowingly put on yourself witout trying to fix the problem.
But I honestly don't know much about the things which you have asked me, I will have to ask you to allow me some time to study and reflect until I have the answers to your questions.
So your saying black people aren't equal with other human beings?
:-\ That sounds a tad bit... racist?
I had to quote this, because it seems you misunderstood what I said. What I was saying was that, before we are born, as spirits, there are no colored people, there is only a greater amount of righteousness, what I was saying is that you are a more valiant spirit than I am, so you require greater challenges in life to be brought down to my level. Spiritually, race does not matter at all, and the reason why I don't know much about it is because I care so little about color that I never really talk about it. I've never met anyone in my releigion than does care about color, and there are plenty of colored people within the religion.
Quote from: Scotty on September 30, 2009, 09:11:02 PM
I'd personally like to applaud all who have remained civil in this discussion, as Chaos did earlier. To explain how impressed I am with this, I use the following example: I am part of a gaming guild / family who love being together and being so close together with everyone. We go camping together, we game together, we drink together, yet we have to have an entirely different forum installation for political and religious discussion because a group averaging around the age of late 20's to early 30's get extremely offensive / defensive in conversations much more moot than this one. To see an open community with the average age of much less be able to take in everyone of all religions and remain civil in a discussion regarding things that a lot of us hold near and dear to us (faith) is utterly amazing.
Well done!
And to add a bit of comic relief, I have a funny story.
Some years ago we had some Mormon girls come round to our barracks rooms trying to do their recruiting. They were wearing the typical attire that Mormon school-girls wear. The main girl talking was meh as far as appearances, but her friend was drop dead gorgeous. One was talking, but my attention was fixed on the other. Fixed so much that I don't even really recall what they were saying. When I finally snapped to after an abrupt "Excuse me..." I looked back at the girl talking and replied with something along the lines of "Oh, I'm sorry, no thank you, have a nice day." They smiled and I went to shut the door as they turned to go to the next room, but then something clicked. I swung the door back open and said "Oh, excuse me, I was curious..." They turned back around and faced me and I said "Aren't I allowed to marry both of you and all your friends if I convert?" The girl who did all the talking retorted back with something how that isn't allowed anymore, yadayadayada, but her cute friend was standing their smiling. I almost took them up on their offer!
Now that I probably offended Hamsterpants with that (and for that, please understand that was sarcasm, meant for a good laugh, which others found it to be aftewards), I am going to go eat some num-nums!
You didn't offend me, for the record, I dont get offended, ever. I actually thought that was a rather hilarious story, but I will confirm the fact that we do not beleive in poligamy, there is that one church that broke off from us because they do, and I feel sorry for those people.
Quote from: Scotty on October 01, 2009, 04:49:37 AM
Quote from: Torch on September 30, 2009, 10:53:22 PM
As a child, your brain is trying to learn and will pick up on anything that you hear, whether it is true or not.
...I am curious how many have since converted to a different religion from what they were brought up as (if any). Is there anyone? I'd be interested to hear their story as to why, as that is always a good story to listen to!
I've heard of plenty of people converting to different religions... Most of the time it is to convert to their significant other's religion, not necessarily because they believe in it. But I'm sure there are plenty who do that as well.
To continue with Arts discussion about the difference between faith in God and first hand experience of physical evidence, I'll quote this:
Quote from: Cactuscat222 on September 30, 2009, 09:34:21 PM
Oh... in a Theory of Knowledge class I attended the other day, we had a huge discussion on 'Knowing', and the 'Ways of Knowing' and all that and relativity...
We even came to the conclusion 2+2 does not always equal 4. D:
I understand that it's possible that everything we know about our Universe could all be an illusion, but even if it is we still have to operate within the bounds of this physical Universe. So it is the same thing as it being real.
On the other hand, we have no evidence whatsoever of God. Being able to see, touch, feel, smell, etc an object in our Universe is completely different than having a "feeling" that God loves you (or w/e). You can say that that feeling is imagined... you can also say that your senses of the object is imagined as well, but there are much more real ramifications of that. If you are hit over the head with that object, is the pain imagined? If you bleed to death because of it, doesn't that change things?
Do you see how there is a clear difference?
Im basically saying that ever one is different and this is why people bleave in all these different things.
Quote from: Lingus on October 01, 2009, 03:27:34 PM
I've heard of plenty of people converting to different religions... Most of the time it is to convert to their significant other's religion, not necessarily because they believe in it. But I'm sure there are plenty who do that as well.
Yeah, I didn't really clarify that enough. What I was getting at was those who converted for the reasons of believing more in a different religion, not necessarily because they feel obligated to, such as with marriage (as my mother did).
Quote from: HamsterPants on October 01, 2009, 01:41:25 PM
You didn't offend me, for the record, I dont get offended, ever. I actually thought that was a rather hilarious story, but I will confirm the fact that we do not beleive in poligamy, there is that one church that broke off from us because they do, and I feel sorry for those people.
May I ask why not? Why should societies' limited view of right and wrong influence your religions view on polygamy? It seems that the taboo's of American culture have made a pretty profound impact on your beliefs. According to Mormonism, Jesus was a polygamist, Joseph Smith was a polygamist, etc. So why do so many Mormons not believe in polygamy? Even worse, Mormons caught practicing polygamy today are ex-communicated for it! This to me is completely absurd. If you believe whole-heartedly in a religion, then why pick and choose your beliefs based on what society thinks is proper? Please enlighten me on this, because I feel disappointed that Mormons would conform to something like this so easily.
Anyway, to answer
Scotty's question, I was brought up Christian. Although, I would not consider myself a Christian anymore. The best way to really describe myself is to say that I am an Agnostic/Theist/Christian/Atheist. I find it hard to pick just one, because I see strong evidence for all of them. Being agnostic would be the best way to probably label my beliefs, but I wouldn't agree that it's necessarily what I am. Many of the people I have debated with in this topic would probably immediately write me down as a Christian, but they would be assuming, because I am only a Christian sometimes. Other times, I am an Atheist. I believe that there is no God, and it's quite a long shot to think that our minds (made of matter), will continue to exist after death. Other times, and this is probably what I exist as the largest amount of time, I am a Theist. I believe that our intelligent design is influenced by a more complex intelligent design. I believe the emotions we feel can not ever be expressed in terms of science, because they exist in another realm from it. Explaining the paths of neurons and how they interact with the synapses of my brain will never convince me that that's why I am sad, or happy. I hold the belief that consciousness cannot be attained simply through complexity. Computers will never experience the feelings that we feel because there is no substance to the 1's and 0's that comprise their brains. I hold the belief that laws of the universe don't exist because they exist. That matter is a substance that holds to these laws, and therefore cannot exist by itself.
But... That's only what I believe some of the time. The truth is, I don't know what I believe, but I am constantly looking for the answer.
Quote from: Lingus on October 01, 2009, 03:27:34 PM
On the other hand, we have no evidence whatsoever of God. Being able to see, touch, feel, smell, etc an object in our Universe is completely different than having a "feeling" that God loves you (or w/e). You can say that that feeling is imagined... you can also say that your senses of the object is imagined as well, but there are much more real ramifications of that. If you are hit over the head with that object, is the pain imagined? If you bleed to death because of it, doesn't that change things?
Do you see how there is a clear difference?
The definition of evidence has a much more broad meaning than that. "Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion" -Wikipedia. If I simply have a feeling that God exists, that alone can be evidence that God exists, even if it is only self applicable. No one else will probably believe me, but they can not denounce my view point, because they did not have the feeling that I had. They can try to explain it through medical conditions, or simply how the brain works, but this only seems more plausible to them. To the person who has the feeling, the plausibility that the feeling is from a higher source makes much more sense. Are they simply being narrow-minded? One can not say. That is why I get confused when people say there is no evidence for God. There is simply no evidence that you see as applicable.
I like your comparison of senses to the feeling of God. It's crazy fun to think about stuff like that, but it usually leads me to a dead end of "Well there's no point in believing in anything because I don't know what's real and what isn't."
How many of you think deductive reasoning would be the best way to solve a problem? just would like to know to help me make better post.
Quote from: ARTgames on October 01, 2009, 05:42:27 PM
Im basically saying that ever one is different and this is why people bleave in all these different things.
That captures the essence of the whole topic. Although people are becoming more and more influenced by others these days, as most people nowadays have blended beliefs. I myself am not 100% atheist, more like 55%. I guess you could call me an agnostic atheist druid. (Yes, Druidism IS a religion. I don't believe in many parts of it, but some of it I agree with wholeheartedly.)
EDIT: 55% atheist, 25% agnostic, 10% druid, 10% still questioning everything to be exact.
Quote from: Mystery on October 01, 2009, 08:36:21 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on October 01, 2009, 05:42:27 PM
Im basically saying that ever one is different and this is why people bleave in all these different things.
That captures the essence of the whole topic.
I need to wright things better. I right these longer post and it seems to be like 50% chance some one will understand it the way i meant it to be due to my bad wording. I should keep it shorter.
Quote from: Jake on October 01, 2009, 08:27:59 PM
Quote from: HamsterPants on October 01, 2009, 01:41:25 PM
You didn't offend me, for the record, I dont get offended, ever. I actually thought that was a rather hilarious story, but I will confirm the fact that we do not beleive in poligamy, there is that one church that broke off from us because they do, and I feel sorry for those people.
May I ask why not? Why should societies' limited view of right and wrong influence your religions view on polygamy? It seems that the taboo's of American culture have made a pretty profound impact on your beliefs. According to Mormonism, Jesus was a polygamist, Joseph Smith was a polygamist, etc. So why do so many Mormons not believe in polygamy? Even worse, Mormons caught practicing polygamy today are ex-communicated for it! This to me is completely absurd. If you believe whole-heartedly in a religion, then why pick and choose your beliefs based on what society thinks is proper? Please enlighten me on this, because I feel disappointed that Mormons would conform to something like this so easily.
Taking offense is a stupid thing to do, atleast according to Mormonism, we are tolerant people, but we have our limits, we beleive that it is nescessary to act upon a matter if it is an explicit threat to our freedom to say and beleive in what we want to, and to our families. Those are nescessary motives to go to war or any other form of battle, nothing else. Also, we do not beleive that Jesus was a polygamist, I don't know who made that up, but it's nonsense, we beleive that he had to marry someone, but there's not need for more than one wife, and it's honestly a difficult thing to do these days unless you're a pervert.
Quote from: Jake on October 01, 2009, 08:27:59 PM
Quote from: HamsterPants on October 01, 2009, 01:41:25 PM
You didn't offend me, for the record, I dont get offended, ever. I actually thought that was a rather hilarious story, but I will confirm the fact that we do not beleive in poligamy, there is that one church that broke off from us because they do, and I feel sorry for those people.
May I ask why not? Why should societies' limited view of right and wrong influence your religions view on polygamy? It seems that the taboo's of American culture have made a pretty profound impact on your beliefs. According to Mormonism, Jesus was a polygamist, Joseph Smith was a polygamist, etc. So why do so many Mormons not believe in polygamy? Even worse, Mormons caught practicing polygamy today are ex-communicated for it! This to me is completely absurd. If you believe whole-heartedly in a religion, then why pick and choose your beliefs based on what society thinks is proper? Please enlighten me on this, because I feel disappointed that Mormons would conform to something like this so easily.
A religion that goes against society's view of right and wrong is a religion that probably won't last very long. All religions have to adapt to survive.
Quote from: HamsterPants on October 01, 2009, 09:00:27 PM
Taking offense is a stupid thing to do, atleast according to Mormonism, we are tolerant people, but we have our limits, we beleive that it is nescessary to act upon a matter if it is an explicit threat to our freedom to say and beleive in what we want to, and to our families. Those are nescessary motives to go to war or any other form of battle, nothing else.
I think in today age this is vary common. But its when things like choices that effect many people, life or death situations, and extremist is when peoples beliefs become something that start's a problem.
QuoteAll religions have to adapt to survive.
All religions have everything hast to adapt to survive.
Quote from: Torch on October 01, 2009, 09:15:50 PM
Quote from: Jake on October 01, 2009, 08:27:59 PM
Quote from: HamsterPants on October 01, 2009, 01:41:25 PM
You didn't offend me, for the record, I dont get offended, ever. I actually thought that was a rather hilarious story, but I will confirm the fact that we do not beleive in poligamy, there is that one church that broke off from us because they do, and I feel sorry for those people.
May I ask why not? Why should societies' limited view of right and wrong influence your religions view on polygamy? It seems that the taboo's of American culture have made a pretty profound impact on your beliefs. According to Mormonism, Jesus was a polygamist, Joseph Smith was a polygamist, etc. So why do so many Mormons not believe in polygamy? Even worse, Mormons caught practicing polygamy today are ex-communicated for it! This to me is completely absurd. If you believe whole-heartedly in a religion, then why pick and choose your beliefs based on what society thinks is proper? Please enlighten me on this, because I feel disappointed that Mormons would conform to something like this so easily.
A religion that goes against society's view of right and wrong is a religion that probably won't last very long. All religions have to adapt to survive.
I did forget to emphasize that the mormons who still practice poligamy are a different church, they have a different prophet, and different beleifs, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints do not practice poligamy.
Quote from: ARTgames on October 01, 2009, 09:17:32 PM
Quote from: HamsterPants on October 01, 2009, 09:00:27 PM
Taking offense is a stupid thing to do, atleast according to Mormonism, we are tolerant people, but we have our limits, we beleive that it is nescessary to act upon a matter if it is an explicit threat to our freedom to say and beleive in what we want to, and to our families. Those are nescessary motives to go to war or any other form of battle, nothing else.
I think in today age this is vary common. But its when things like choices that effect many people, life or death situations, and extremist is when peoples beliefs become something that start's a problem.
QuoteAll religions have to adapt to survive.
All religions have everything hast to adapt to survive.
Yes, but it makes a difference who starts the fight, if passive people start beleiving in something and it becomes rapidly popular, alot of people will feel threatened by it, throughout the history of our Church, we have been assaulted by angry citizens, and even the military, simply because of the outrage our presence has caused, so we had to travel to the middle of nowhere just to live in peace, and that was no easy trek, mind you.
There was a point when we formed a militia but we never used it.
@HamsterPants,
what do you think of some one who is not a Mormon?
Quote from: ARTgames on October 01, 2009, 09:23:41 PM
@HamsterPants,
what do you think of some one who is not a Mormon?
Someone who is not a Mormon, is someone who has not been baptized into the Church by the power and authority of God, or has been baptized, but has not continued to live righteously.
I did not ask what makes some one not a Mormon. I asked what do you think of some one who is not a Mormon.
Quote from: ARTgames on October 01, 2009, 09:33:08 PM
I did not ask what makes some one not a Mormon. I asked what do you think of some one who is not a Mormon.
Oh, My apologies, I misread you question.
What do I think of someone who is not a mormon? I have no opinion, I do not judge people.
So what is the reason to be a Mormon if you never thought about how it would be if you were not one? I think to be fair you need to give all view points a try. Agree? If not why so? And if you answer this question you have just judged.
Quote from: ARTgames on October 01, 2009, 09:42:11 PM
So what is the reason to be a Mormon if you never thought about how it would be if you were not one? I think to be fair you need to give all view points a try. Agree? If not why so? And if you answer this question you have just judged.
Ok, so.... You ask me a question and then point out that I shouldnt answer? why did you even ask me?
No i pointed out what will happen. When or not you answer it is up to you. I never said don't answer it. unless you can point that out.
Why do feel as if you don't need to think out side of Mormonism? Is it because you think that is the truth and there's not need to go feather? If so that must mean non Mormon is false? Explain please.
ARTgames, I'm kinda curious......you've been active throughout this discussion, so what do you believe in? I don't think you've said yet.
Woops, i replied to someone elses question, wasnt paying attention, i need to get some sleep....
I think the fact that I do not attend church distorts my belief on afterlife. Perhaps I would actually believe in a christ if I were to be surrounded by people who agree in one which is done by going to church..
Has anyone ever thought of how this all had started? I mean, everything rather then just how human life evolved.
@ HP
Ok good. I know how you feel about it. But do you think other people should do the same?
QuoteHas anyone ever thought of how this all had started? I mean, everything rather then just how human life evolved.
yeah. I have. but i would like to know what other people think.
@Mystery
its wip and i think it will always be. Also what i posted a little in past posts. I would haft to think about it. Im kind of just flowing my personalty.
Quote from: Delicious on October 01, 2009, 10:06:48 PM
I think the fact that I do not attend church distorts my belief on afterlife. Perhaps I would actually believe in a christ if I were to be surrounded by people who agree in one which is done by going to church..
Has anyone ever thought of how this all had started? I mean, everything rather then just how human life evolved.
People are naturally curious and look for explanations to everything. It's that simple.
Quote from: Delicious on October 01, 2009, 10:06:48 PM
I think the fact that I do not attend church distorts my belief on afterlife. Perhaps I would actually believe in a christ if I were to be surrounded by people who agree in one which is done by going to church..
Has anyone ever thought of how this all had started? I mean, everything rather then just how human life evolved.
Well I think the whole "what happens to me after I die?" is an instinctive thought for all humans...it is just interpreted and believed many different ways. So I think pretty much every religion started with this same idea...and somebody came up with some sort of story to teach morals and whatnot...I guess to incorperate character values/karma in the whole matter...than that brought upon a great list of rules...and everybody kind of differed on the takes on the matter there.
I have a question though...assuming there is a God of some sort...let me ask you...who Made God? Who made the Maker of god? Who made the maker of maker of god? See where I am going here? Even God might not know everything...The point is the whole subject is wayyy to phenomenon for anybody, maybe even God, to understand just how we came about. The reason I don't go to church is because I don't want to waste hours of my life doing something I am not certain is beneficial to me. I just want to live my life to the fullest...and let death be a surprise, good or bad.
Quote from: Mr Pwnage on October 01, 2009, 10:27:38 PM
I have a question though...assuming there is a God of some sort...let me ask you...who Made God? Who made the Maker of god? Who made the maker of maker of god? See where I am going here? Even God might not know everything...The point is the whole subject is wayyy to phenomenon for anybody, maybe even God, to understand just how we came about. The reason I don't go to church is because I don't want to waste hours of my life doing something I am not certain is beneficial to me. I just want to live my life to the fullest...and let death be a surprise, good or bad.
a lot of people share this mind set today. im not saying its wrong or right. just going to point that out.
Here my question to you Mr Pwnage. In church you do get to have a social experience and they do donate stuff and run community programs ect. Would you like to be part of something like that but without the part with the god and the teaching ect?
Quote from: MysteryARTgames, I'm kinda curious......you've been active throughout this discussion, so what do you believe in? I don't think you've said yet.
*ahem*
Quote from: HamsterPants on October 01, 2009, 09:00:27 PM
Quote from: Jake on October 01, 2009, 08:27:59 PM
Quote from: HamsterPants on October 01, 2009, 01:41:25 PM
You didn't offend me, for the record, I dont get offended, ever. I actually thought that was a rather hilarious story, but I will confirm the fact that we do not beleive in poligamy, there is that one church that broke off from us because they do, and I feel sorry for those people.
May I ask why not? Why should societies' limited view of right and wrong influence your religions view on polygamy? It seems that the taboo's of American culture have made a pretty profound impact on your beliefs. According to Mormonism, Jesus was a polygamist, Joseph Smith was a polygamist, etc. So why do so many Mormons not believe in polygamy? Even worse, Mormons caught practicing polygamy today are ex-communicated for it! This to me is completely absurd. If you believe whole-heartedly in a religion, then why pick and choose your beliefs based on what society thinks is proper? Please enlighten me on this, because I feel disappointed that Mormons would conform to something like this so easily.
Taking offense is a stupid thing to do, atleast according to Mormonism, we are tolerant people, but we have our limits, we beleive that it is nescessary to act upon a matter if it is an explicit threat to our freedom to say and beleive in what we want to, and to our families. Those are nescessary motives to go to war or any other form of battle, nothing else. Also, we do not beleive that Jesus was a polygamist, I don't know who made that up, but it's nonsense, we beleive that he had to marry someone, but there's not need for more than one wife, and it's honestly a difficult thing to do these days unless you're a pervert.
So do you believe polygamy is wrong? It seems to me that Mormons didn't just stop practicing polygamy, but they took an unnecessary step to make it seem horrible. Ex-communication of members who practice polygamy? Seems pretty harsh when Joseph Smith himself practiced it. Or do you not believe that he practiced it? I'm reading quotes and readings that tell two different stories on the life of Joseph Smith, so it's hard to find what he truly believed.
As for my comment about Jesus being a polygamist, my source must have been wrong. It seems that the correct answer is that it's open to interpretation.
Quote from: Mr Pwnage on October 01, 2009, 10:27:38 PM
Quote from: Delicious on October 01, 2009, 10:06:48 PM
I think the fact that I do not attend church distorts my belief on afterlife. Perhaps I would actually believe in a christ if I were to be surrounded by people who agree in one which is done by going to church..
Has anyone ever thought of how this all had started? I mean, everything rather then just how human life evolved.
Well I think the whole "what happens to me after I die?" is an instinctive thought for all humans...it is just interpreted and believed many different ways. So I think pretty much every religion started with this same idea...and somebody came up with some sort of story to teach morals and whatnot...I guess to incorperate character values/karma in the whole matter...than that brought upon a great list of rules...and everybody kind of differed on the takes on the matter there.
I have a question though...assuming there is a God of some sort...let me ask you...who Made God? Who made the Maker of god? Who made the maker of maker of god? See where I am going here? Even God might not know everything...The point is the whole subject is wayyy to phenomenon for anybody, maybe even God, to understand just how we came about. The reason I don't go to church is because I don't want to waste hours of my life doing something I am not certain is beneficial to me. I just want to live my life to the fullest...and let death be a surprise, good or bad.
The entire point of God is that nobody made Him. Assuming some force would have the ability to create a universe, that thing would have to be infinite - that is, infinite in time and space. So some people ask, "Who made God?" The answer to that is, "No one." God has always existed, God exists now, and God will always exist. If things were any different, then God wouldn't be God, would He?
In any case, that's the best answer I can provide at the moment.
Quote from: Mystery on October 01, 2009, 10:40:16 PM
Quote from: MysteryARTgames, I'm kinda curious......you've been active throughout this discussion, so what do you believe in? I don't think you've said yet.
*ahem*
Quote@Mystery
its wip and i think it will always be. Also what i posted a little in past posts. I would haft to think about it. Im kind of just flowing my personalty.
In response to the "Who made God?" question, I have to point something out. It's funny because it doesn't really prove that God exists, but it looks like it is in favor of it in this context (even though it's a scientific explanation. In any case, the theory is that the Big Bang caused space and time to exist. "Before" that, there was no space or time. Time is where we get the concept of Cause and Effect, or causality. The idea that if something exists, something had to happen to make it exist. Without the flow of time, causality doesn't exist. So, if God really did create the Universe, being that it would be a force outside of space-time, using this model of causality, nothing had to create God.
Just a few thoughts on Jake's comments
Quote from: Jake on October 01, 2009, 08:27:59 PM
I believe the emotions we feel can not ever be expressed in terms of science, because they exist in another realm from it. Explaining the paths of neurons and how they interact with the synapses of my brain will never convince me that that's why I am sad, or happy.
In fact, emotions are caused by chemicals in the brain. How happy or sad you are is determined by how much serotonin is being produced. You can take a pill that causes your brain to produce more artificially causing you to be happy regardless of exterior stimulous. Speaking from first hand experience, taking a pill can make you happy. But, at the same time, I understand your point. This explains HOW we feel emotions, not WHY. That's a much more complex topic relating to psychology.
Quote from: Jake on October 01, 2009, 08:27:59 PM
I hold the belief that consciousness cannot be attained simply through complexity. Computers will never experience the feelings that we feel because there is no substance to the 1's and 0's that comprise their brains.
Really, it's the same thing. 1's and 0's are different voltages of electricity... Our brain uses tiny charges of electricity to send signals between neurons. One is man made, and the other is organic. There's nothing stopping us from creating an artificial brain that works similar to our organic one. Does that mean it will become conscious? Will it have a soul? These are not questions we can answer.
Quote from: Jake on October 01, 2009, 08:27:59 PM
Quote from: Lingus on October 01, 2009, 03:27:34 PM
On the other hand, we have no evidence whatsoever of God. Being able to see, touch, feel, smell, etc an object in our Universe is completely different than having a "feeling" that God loves you (or w/e). You can say that that feeling is imagined... you can also say that your senses of the object is imagined as well, but there are much more real ramifications of that. If you are hit over the head with that object, is the pain imagined? If you bleed to death because of it, doesn't that change things?
Do you see how there is a clear difference?
The definition of evidence has a much more broad meaning than that. "Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion" -Wikipedia. If I simply have a feeling that God exists, that alone can be evidence that God exists, even if it is only self applicable. No one else will probably believe me, but they can not denounce my view point, because they did not have the feeling that I had. They can try to explain it through medical conditions, or simply how the brain works, but this only seems more plausible to them. To the person who has the feeling, the plausibility that the feeling is from a higher source makes much more sense. Are they simply being narrow-minded? One can not say. That is why I get confused when people say there is no evidence for God. There is simply no evidence that you see as applicable.
I like your comparison of senses to the feeling of God. It's crazy fun to think about stuff like that, but it usually leads me to a dead end of "Well there's no point in believing in anything because I don't know what's real and what isn't."
I'll just point out that there are different types of evidence or knowledge. In the same wiki article: "An important distinction in the field of evidence is that between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence, or evidence that suggests truth as opposed to evidence that directly proves truth. Many have seen this line to be less-than-clear and significant arguments have arisen over the difference." This is exactly what we're talking about. This is the difference I'm referring to. One's "feeling" of God is circumstancial evidence, it suggests a truth. Whereas being able to touch, see, or feel (in the literal sense) an object would be direct evidence.
I recognize that there is a fine line there, but it's significant enough. And I would like to point out that even using the direct evidence we all can see, I would still be willing to alter my opinions were that direct evidence proven false later. If I saw an object, I would at first take it for granted that something is there, with the assumption that it is possible my eyes are playing tricks on me. At that point I would go up to the object and try to touch it (if I'm trying to test its existance). If, at this point my hand passes through the object or something similar, I would have to reassess my opinion. Maybe it's an elaborate illusion of some sort. I would then have to test that theory. If, on the other hand, I can touch it, I would have stronger evidence that the object is real. This process can continue on...
The point is, I see how even direct evidence can be misleading, but at the same time it is how we perceive the things around us. It is our physical world that we have to live in and survive in. If we don't follow our perceptions, we can't survive. On the other hand, the topic of God et al is meta-physical. We can choose what we want to believe and it won't make much difference to our survival. It might make a difference to our mental state, but that's up to us to decide. If we can get by believing that the world was created by a giant elephant that sneezed out the stars and planets out of its trunk, then we're good. It makes little difference to our physical world.
Quote from: Delicious on October 01, 2009, 10:06:48 PM
Has anyone ever thought of how this all had started? I mean, everything rather then just how human life evolved.
I'm of the theory that it never 'started'. It has never 'ended', either. You know the saying about how history repeats itself? Think of that on a grand scale. We reach the end of the universe, some cataclysmic event, we all are destroyed...and then everything starts over. Life starts all over again. Makes the face of a clock fairly ironic, too.
How the hell do i play the game ?? :-\
Quote from: Skeet0 on October 02, 2009, 05:09:01 PM
How the hell do i play the game ?? :-\
You gotta be [Censor]ing kidding me. This is like, the 7th time someone was too lazy to LOOK AT THE TOP OF THE FORUM you can't miss and see the topic about donating. And yet you still saw this topic clearly not about the game and posted here.
*sigh*
This should answer everything.
Quote from: MeiunDue to the enthusiasm of many of our fans, and our desire to thank those who have donated and helped support us over the years, I have decided to bring back the official Stick Online server for our most dedicated of fans! It has been our intention all along to reward the players who have helped keep the server up and support us over the games lifespan, but due to a number of circumstances we were never able to do so to the extent we had originally hoped before development on the old version stopped. Ever since it went down, I have had people trying to contact me left and right asking about both development status on the new version, as well as whether or not they will ever be able to play the most recent build of the game again. Because of this enthusiasm, I have relaunched an official server of the most recent Stick Online, and have even added a number of new things to the game. However, because I am hoping to devote the vast majority of my time towards Stick Online on the remake and not managing and securing the old one, access will only be granted to the donors who have made this all possible (both past and future). I have put a lot of thought into this decision, and this is the most I am willing to offer from a practical level at this time. Ultimately, think of the donor server as a thank you to people who have supported Stick Online over the years. It is our full intention to continue offering Stick Online as a fully free to play game with the new version (V3).
While hosting the donor server is not quite as expensive as our former high end server, it still costs money to host. Therefore, we will require a minimum of $10 (USD) to have an account made/reinstated. Simply keep records of your donation information (amount, name used, email used, etc.), and once the donation is made send an email to (past donations are included) with the following information:
* Contributor Name (aka name of the person who actually performed the donation, as it appears in your donation verification email)
* Email used for donation
* Donation Amount
* Donation Confirmation Number (see your verification email or PayPal account info)
* Name of the game account(s)/character name you wish to be restored or created for you (please specify. Include your requested password if it is a new account. Player names are limited to 12 characters in length.)
We will email you back once your account has been activated with a link for the game download (it may take a day or two, please be patient.
Anyone who wishes to make a donation please use the following link:
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=506233
Is there any one here with Asian oriented beliefs? I feel as if we have been on western culture for too long now.
QuoteIn response to the "Who made God?" question, I have to point something out. It's funny because it doesn't really prove that God exists, but it looks like it is in favor of it in this context (even though it's a scientific explanation. In any case, the theory is that the Big Bang caused space and time to exist. "Before" that, there was no space or time. Time is where we get the concept of Cause and Effect, or causality. The idea that if something exists, something had to happen to make it exist. Without the flow of time, causality doesn't exist. So, if God really did create the Universe, being that it would be a force outside of space-time, using this model of causality, nothing had to create God.
Well, that logic is somewhat flawed. If space and time did not exist before the Big Bang (and, for the record, I do believe in the Big Bang - I just know what caused it.) then obviously there could have been no matter or energy. And since matter and energy are the only two components of the physical universe, then what you're saying is that before the Big Bang there was absolutely nothing.
And like you just said, Cause and Effect is an important part of making logical decisions. So - the effect is what we're living in right now - the universe. But what was the effect? Hmm?
Quote from: LeGuy on October 02, 2009, 05:25:39 PM...then what you're saying is that before the Big Bang there was absolutely nothing.
Yes. That is the theory exactly.
To go further, I'll point out that our Universe is not made up of matter and energy (in fact, there's a theory that there is something called dark matter, which is more abundant than normal matter, and cannot be detected except for its effects on gravity... but that's besides the point). The Universe is actually made up of space-time. Before the Big Bang, space-time did not exist. At the moment of the Big Bang, space-time expanded and was filled with nothing but massive amounts of energy. As space expanded, the energy was eventually converted to mass... etc etc.
Quote from: LeGuy on October 02, 2009, 05:25:39 PM
And like you just said, Cause and Effect is an important part of making logical decisions. So - the effect is what we're living in right now - the universe. But what was the effect? Hmm?
The effect? Of what? The idea is that the Big Bang was the very first Cause, at least in terms of our Universe's frame of referrence. Everything in the Universe is an effect of that root cause. Before that, nothing. Why? Because there was no such thing as time, and an effect can't be caused without time flow.
Quote from: ARTgames on October 02, 2009, 05:21:36 PM
Is there any one here with Asian oriented beliefs? I feel as if we have been on western culture for too long now.
Does it matter? Most Asian oriented religions are based on polytheism anyway. It's either the country's central beliefs, Buddhism, or it's some kind of Western religion.
Quote from: Lucifer on August 01, 2009, 02:42:31 PM
Oh pitiful Humans...
If only you knew.
I'm not reading 300 posts to get to the end, and I found this post Lucifer did was Lolworthy so I stopped here :) ...About the topic...I like to think that...*Sigh*...We should all try to live or lifes without regret, we should try to make the best out of things, and, for the believers of Heaven and Hell, we will heed the words of the bible and the everlasting revelations we have held within our minds for so long, that when we die, we go into a state as if we were sleeping, and as some of you may know, usually the last thought inside your head that you have is usually what your more likely to dream about, and if you know that you've lived a consecrated life, and you feel worthy of such a fate, you will dream of being in a Shangri-La,(Heaven)...So yeah, my ideas may be far fetched, but !@#$ you...I'll try not to regret saying that lol...And for you athiests..."I hope when you die your body turns to fertilizer and you grow into a tree. The a lumberjack can come chop you down, and make you into paper. Then I hope some people print the !@#$ing Bible on you." - Dane Cook.....It may not be an exact quote but I can't remember it from the top of my head OK?!
Quote from: Syco on October 03, 2009, 11:02:32 PM
Quote from: Lucifer on August 01, 2009, 02:42:31 PM
Oh pitiful Humans...
If only you knew.
I'm not reading 300 posts to get to the end, and I found this post Lucifer did was Lolworthy so I stopped here :) ...About the topic...I like to think that...*Sigh*...We should all try to live or lifes without regret, we should try to make the best out of things, and, for the believers of Heaven and Hell, we will heed the words of the bible and the everlasting revelations we have held within our minds for so long, that when we die, we go into a state as if we were sleeping, and as some of you may know, usually the last thought inside your head that you have is usually what your more likely to dream about, and if you know that you've lived a consecrated life, and you feel worthy of such a fate, you will dream of being in a Shangri-La,(Heaven)...So yeah, my ideas may be far fetched, but !@#$ you...I'll try not to regret saying that lol...And for you athiests..."I hope when you die your body turns to fertilizer and you grow into a tree. The a lumberjack can come chop you down, and make you into paper. Then I hope some people print the !@#$ing Bible on you." - Dane Cook.....It may not be an exact quote but I can't remember it from the top of my head OK?!
Noone likes a troll.
Noone likes a troll.
[/quote]
Shut the !@#$ up Torch...
I'll be damned if this perfectly civil discussion will be ruined now. Cease all douchery this instant.
Quick! Launch the nukes, its the only way to make everything peaceful!
Quote from: Chaos on October 04, 2009, 12:46:51 AM
I'll be damned if this perfectly civil discussion will be ruined now. Cease all douchery this instant.
I concur.
Quote from: Syco on October 03, 2009, 11:02:32 PM
Quote from: Lucifer on August 01, 2009, 02:42:31 PM
Oh pitiful Humans...
If only you knew.
I'm not reading 300 posts to get to the end, and I found this post Lucifer did was Lolworthy so I stopped here :) ...About the topic...I like to think that...*Sigh*...We should all try to live or lifes without regret, we should try to make the best out of things, and, for the believers of Heaven and Hell, we will heed the words of the bible and the everlasting revelations we have held within our minds for so long, that when we die, we go into a state as if we were sleeping, and as some of you may know, usually the last thought inside your head that you have is usually what your more likely to dream about, and if you know that you've lived a consecrated life, and you feel worthy of such a fate, you will dream of being in a Shangri-La,(Heaven)...So yeah, my ideas may be far fetched, but !@#$ you...I'll try not to regret saying that lol...And for you athiests..."I hope when you die your body turns to fertilizer and you grow into a tree. The a lumberjack can come chop you down, and make you into paper. Then I hope some people print the !@#$ing Bible on you." - Dane Cook.....It may not be an exact quote but I can't remember it from the top of my head OK?!
I would like to respectfully point out that that tree joke is
only funny when Dane Cook says it. And uhh, I respect your beliefs and stuff.
Quote from: Syco on October 03, 2009, 11:02:32 PM
Quote from: Lucifer on August 01, 2009, 02:42:31 PM
Oh pitiful Humans...
If only you knew.
I'm not reading 300 posts to get to the end, and I found this post Lucifer did was Lolworthy so I stopped here :) ...About the topic...I like to think that...*Sigh*...We should all try to live or lifes without regret, we should try to make the best out of things, and, for the believers of Heaven and Hell, we will heed the words of the bible and the everlasting revelations we have held within our minds for so long, that when we die, we go into a state as if we were sleeping, and as some of you may know, usually the last thought inside your head that you have is usually what your more likely to dream about, and if you know that you've lived a consecrated life, and you feel worthy of such a fate, you will dream of being in a Shangri-La,(Heaven)...So yeah, my ideas may be far fetched, but !@#$ you...I'll try not to regret saying that lol...And for you athiests..."I hope when you die your body turns to fertilizer and you grow into a tree. The a lumberjack can come chop you down, and make you into paper. Then I hope some people print the !@#$ing Bible on you." - Dane Cook.....It may not be an exact quote but I can't remember it from the top of my head OK?!
Isn't this the same kid who stole Venuse's sprites and claimed them his own? Is this the same kid who can't type a post without cursing like a sailor? If so, than his integrity is already out of the question...just ignore this disrespectful garbage.
On a completely new note...I want to pose something for discussion:
Anyone here believe in reincarnation? I actually used to believe this for some time...not exactly sure why. For those of you who don't know what it is...it's when you come back to life in a different form/body. Like I come back to life as a chicken after i die, etc.
Reincarnation is a Hindu belief. In Hinduism, what animal you come back as is based on karma. If you follow the Hindu moral code well, you will come back as a human, if you do not, you will come back as an unpleasant animal or something like that.
If that worked there wouldn't be many humans around.
Quote from: Torch on October 04, 2009, 09:44:53 AM
Reincarnation is a Hindu belief. In Hinduism, what animal you come back as is based on karma. If you follow the Hindu moral code well, you will come back as a human, if you do not, you will come back as an unpleasant animal or something like that.
Form what i learned from school was the main idea of Hinduism was to achieve nirvana. And to do that you haft to work your way up the cast system. And how you move on the system is based on your life's karma when you die. Then you are ether moved up or down when you are reborn. And you can come back as an animal. But i believe that's one of the lower levels like the untouchables.
Quote from: Mr Pwnage on October 04, 2009, 03:53:24 AM
Quote from: Syco on October 03, 2009, 11:02:32 PM
Quote from: Lucifer on August 01, 2009, 02:42:31 PM
Oh pitiful Humans...
If only you knew.
I'm not reading 300 posts to get to the end, and I found this post Lucifer did was Lolworthy so I stopped here :) ...About the topic...I like to think that...*Sigh*...We should all try to live or lifes without regret, we should try to make the best out of things, and, for the believers of Heaven and Hell, we will heed the words of the bible and the everlasting revelations we have held within our minds for so long, that when we die, we go into a state as if we were sleeping, and as some of you may know, usually the last thought inside your head that you have is usually what your more likely to dream about, and if you know that you've lived a consecrated life, and you feel worthy of such a fate, you will dream of being in a Shangri-La,(Heaven)...So yeah, my ideas may be far fetched, but !@#$ you...I'll try not to regret saying that lol...And for you athiests..."I hope when you die your body turns to fertilizer and you grow into a tree. The a lumberjack can come chop you down, and make you into paper. Then I hope some people print the !@#$ing Bible on you." - Dane Cook.....It may not be an exact quote but I can't remember it from the top of my head OK?!
Isn't this the same kid who stole Venuse's sprites and claimed them his own? Is this the same kid who can't type a post without cursing like a sailor? If so, than his integrity is already out of the question...just ignore this disrespectful garbage.
On a completely new note...I want to pose something for discussion:
Anyone here believe in reincarnation? I actually used to believe this for some time...not exactly sure why. For those of you who don't know what it is...it's when you come back to life in a different form/body. Like I come back to life as a chicken after i die, etc.
Yeah like Pat said, if we all reincarnated into different beings then how would the global population be increasing? That would mean for each birth, there would have to be a death to accomodate. That's how I see it.
Quote from: Mr Pwnage on October 04, 2009, 03:53:24 AM
Isn't this the same kid who stole Venuse's sprites and claimed them his own? Is this the same kid who can't type a post without cursing like a sailor? If so, than his integrity is already out of the question...just ignore this disrespectful garbage.
On a completely new note...I want to pose something for discussion:
Anyone here believe in reincarnation? I actually used to believe this for some time...not exactly sure why. For those of you who don't know what it is...it's when you come back to life in a different form/body. Like I come back to life as a chicken after i die, etc.
1st off...Your being a dick, just stop now...
2nd...My grandma (Who died of really bad diabetes 2 years ago) use to talk about reincarnation alot with me, like I'd ask her what happens after we die, and she would say that we would be reborn as a whole new person but will have no memmory of anything in our past life, if we were worthy...But if not then, well, we go to hell...and she had been Christian here whole life and so am I...Are Christians even suppose to believe in reincarnation ftw lol...Anywho she had been going to church pretty much every single day of her life, or whenever she could...Sooo, I took her words of wisdom in consideration...
3rd...I hope you do get reincarnated as a chicken...
Quote from: Syco on October 04, 2009, 12:06:47 PM
Quote from: Mr Pwnage on October 04, 2009, 03:53:24 AM
Isn't this the same kid who stole Venuse's sprites and claimed them his own? Is this the same kid who can't type a post without cursing like a sailor? If so, than his integrity is already out of the question...just ignore this disrespectful garbage.
On a completely new note...I want to pose something for discussion:
Anyone here believe in reincarnation? I actually used to believe this for some time...not exactly sure why. For those of you who don't know what it is...it's when you come back to life in a different form/body. Like I come back to life as a chicken after i die, etc.
1st off...Your being a dick, just stop now...
3rd...I hope you do get reincarnated as a chicken...
Just stop insulting already. This discussion was perfectly civil until you came. And in my opinion, that Dane Cook joke is not funny at all. I do like most of his, though.
Quote from: ARTgames on October 04, 2009, 10:24:32 AM
Quote from: Torch on October 04, 2009, 09:44:53 AM
Reincarnation is a Hindu belief. In Hinduism, what animal you come back as is based on karma. If you follow the Hindu moral code well, you will come back as a human, if you do not, you will come back as an unpleasant animal or something like that.
Form what i learned from school was the main idea of Hinduism was to achieve nirvana. And to do that you haft to work your way up the cast system. And how you move on the system is based on your life's karma when you die. Then you are ether moved up or down when you are reborn. And you can come back as an animal. But i believe that's one of the lower levels like the untouchables.
Hinduism is extremely similar to Buddhism. Same goal, similar beliefs. The only difference is some of their rules and the fact Hindus believe in 3 gods while Buddhists don't.
Quote from: EpicPhailure on October 04, 2009, 11:06:09 AM
Quote from: Mr Pwnage on October 04, 2009, 03:53:24 AM
Quote from: Syco on October 03, 2009, 11:02:32 PM
Quote from: Lucifer on August 01, 2009, 02:42:31 PM
Oh pitiful Humans...
If only you knew.
I'm not reading 300 posts to get to the end, and I found this post Lucifer did was Lolworthy so I stopped here :) ...About the topic...I like to think that...*Sigh*...We should all try to live or lifes without regret, we should try to make the best out of things, and, for the believers of Heaven and Hell, we will heed the words of the bible and the everlasting revelations we have held within our minds for so long, that when we die, we go into a state as if we were sleeping, and as some of you may know, usually the last thought inside your head that you have is usually what your more likely to dream about, and if you know that you've lived a consecrated life, and you feel worthy of such a fate, you will dream of being in a Shangri-La,(Heaven)...So yeah, my ideas may be far fetched, but !@#$ you...I'll try not to regret saying that lol...And for you athiests..."I hope when you die your body turns to fertilizer and you grow into a tree. The a lumberjack can come chop you down, and make you into paper. Then I hope some people print the !@#$ing Bible on you." - Dane Cook.....It may not be an exact quote but I can't remember it from the top of my head OK?!
Isn't this the same kid who stole Venuse's sprites and claimed them his own? Is this the same kid who can't type a post without cursing like a sailor? If so, than his integrity is already out of the question...just ignore this disrespectful garbage.
On a completely new note...I want to pose something for discussion:
Anyone here believe in reincarnation? I actually used to believe this for some time...not exactly sure why. For those of you who don't know what it is...it's when you come back to life in a different form/body. Like I come back to life as a chicken after i die, etc.
Yeah like Pat said, if we all reincarnated into different beings then how would the global population be increasing? That would mean for each birth, there would have to be a death to accomodate. That's how I see it.
Reincarnation is interspecies. A human could be reborn as a giraffe or something. You'd have to take into account the global population of all organisms, not just humans.
Even so, isn't it possible that the religions that believe in reincarnation also believe that some spirits are new? That they have never lived in a body before? I'm not sure if that's the case, but there has to be fluctuations in the total population of living organisms over the span of the Earth. Especially considering at one point there were none. Of course, you could include potential alien populations... but the same case could be said about that. At some point there were no living organisms in the Universe.
Anyways, my thoughts on reincarnation is that, while possible, I don't believe it exists in the sense that some people will have vague memories of their past life. My early posts will explain why I think this. There would no method for transferring those memories from one brain to another. If it exists, the soul would not contain memories... at least not in the sense that we would think of them. With that said, if the soul exists and it is a persistant object, there's no reason why it couldn't go on to inhabit the body of another organism.
The thing is, a lot of this assumes that the soul is a real thing. I think a lot of people nowadays tend to take that for granted. I'm curious how many people believe that we have a soul. I personally reserve judgement. My opinion on it, like a lot of things in this topic, is that it's possible, but there's no way for us to know for certain. I can't tell if I have a soul or if my thoughts and feelings are merely the result of brain activity. The deeper I dig into myself, the more ambiguous it becomes. Has anyone else had similar experience? For those that believe in the soul, do animals have them or just humans?
Quote from: Lingus on October 04, 2009, 01:52:08 PM
Even so, isn't it possible that the religions that believe in reincarnation also believe that some spirits are new? That they have never lived in a body before? I'm not sure if that's the case, but there has to be fluctuations in the total population of living organisms over the span of the Earth. Especially considering at one point there were none. Of course, you could include potential alien populations... but the same case could be said about that. At some point there were no living organisms in the Universe.
Anyways, my thoughts on reincarnation is that, while possible, I don't believe it exists in the sense that some people will have vague memories of their past life. My early posts will explain why I think this. There would no method for transferring those memories from one brain to another. If it exists, the soul would not contain memories... at least not in the sense that we would think of them. With that said, if the soul exists and it is a persistant object, there's no reason why it couldn't go on to inhabit the body of another organism.
The thing is, a lot of this assumes that the soul is a real thing. I think a lot of people nowadays tend to take that for granted. I'm curious how many people believe that we have a soul. I personally reserve judgement. My opinion on it, like a lot of things in this topic, is that it's possible, but there's no way for us to know for certain. I can't tell if I have a soul or if my thoughts and feelings are merely the result of brain activity. The deeper I dig into myself, the more ambiguous it becomes. Has anyone else had similar experience? For those that believe in the soul, do animals have them or just humans?
Some religions say only humans have souls, while ones believing in reincarnation say all living things have one. I personally don't believe in that, but I believe in essence of things, which is my Druid side.(You know, we're all made up of 'essence', atoms, we are made of carbon, iron, and oxygen with other things while so are some inanimate objects, all the same matter mixed to make different things, and some of the mixtures can physically support life.)
That's kind of a cryptic response. So you believe we're made up of atoms. Is that what the "essense" is, or is that something less tangible? If so what is the difference between "essense" and a soul? I think it's important to define these things. It may just be semantics, but at the same time I think people throw terms like "soul" around too easily. What one person or group sees the soul as might be different for another person or group. One group's view might be so different that they have come up with a different term for it. Though, it's also likely that the difference in term is due to the language of origin.
Quote from: Syco on October 04, 2009, 12:06:47 PM
Quote from: Mr Pwnage on October 04, 2009, 03:53:24 AM
Isn't this the same kid who stole Venuse's sprites and claimed them his own? Is this the same kid who can't type a post without cursing like a sailor? If so, than his integrity is already out of the question...just ignore this disrespectful garbage.
On a completely new note...I want to pose something for discussion:
Anyone here believe in reincarnation? I actually used to believe this for some time...not exactly sure why. For those of you who don't know what it is...it's when you come back to life in a different form/body. Like I come back to life as a chicken after i die, etc.
1st off...Your being a dick, just stop now...
2nd...My grandma (Who died of really bad diabetes 2 years ago) use to talk about reincarnation alot with me, like I'd ask her what happens after we die, and she would say that we would be reborn as a whole new person but will have no memmory of anything in our past life, if we were worthy...But if not then, well, we go to hell...and she had been Christian here whole life and so am I...Are Christians even suppose to believe in reincarnation ftw lol...Anywho she had been going to church pretty much every single day of her life, or whenever she could...Sooo, I took her words of wisdom in consideration...
3rd...I hope you do get reincarnated as a chicken...
If you cannot maintain civilized conversation, then I kindly ask you to leave now. Next time will not be so kindly, and it WILL include a report to a moderator. Once again:
QuoteI'll be damned if this perfectly civil discussion will be ruined now. Cease all douchery this instant.
Quote from: Lingus on October 04, 2009, 10:49:34 PM
That's kind of a cryptic response. So you believe we're made up of atoms. Is that what the "essense" is, or is that something less tangible? If so what is the difference between "essense" and a soul? I think it's important to define these things. It may just be semantics, but at the same time I think people throw terms like "soul" around too easily. What one person or group sees the soul as might be different for another person or group. One group's view might be so different that they have come up with a different term for it. Though, it's also likely that the difference in term is due to the language of origin.
Actually, it wasn't cryptic at all. It was literal. Pretty much:
Essence= Atoms
Everything is made up of atoms, we are made of the same elements as air and some rocks and other things, but mixed differently and we can physically support life.
Quote from: Mystery on October 05, 2009, 04:44:38 PM
Quote from: Lingus on October 04, 2009, 10:49:34 PM
That's kind of a cryptic response. So you believe we're made up of atoms. Is that what the "essense" is, or is that something less tangible? If so what is the difference between "essense" and a soul? I think it's important to define these things. It may just be semantics, but at the same time I think people throw terms like "soul" around too easily. What one person or group sees the soul as might be different for another person or group. One group's view might be so different that they have come up with a different term for it. Though, it's also likely that the difference in term is due to the language of origin.
Actually, it wasn't cryptic at all. It was literal. Pretty much:
Essence= Atoms
Everything is made up of atoms, we are made of the same elements as air and some rocks and other things, but mixed differently and we can physically support life.
Oh... So that's kinda... really has nothing to do with a soul or similar concept does it? That's really a very hardcore scientific viewpoint. We're made up of organic material. Period.
Quote from: Lingus on October 05, 2009, 07:33:10 PM
Quote from: Mystery on October 05, 2009, 04:44:38 PM
Quote from: Lingus on October 04, 2009, 10:49:34 PM
That's kind of a cryptic response. So you believe we're made up of atoms. Is that what the "essense" is, or is that something less tangible? If so what is the difference between "essense" and a soul? I think it's important to define these things. It may just be semantics, but at the same time I think people throw terms like "soul" around too easily. What one person or group sees the soul as might be different for another person or group. One group's view might be so different that they have come up with a different term for it. Though, it's also likely that the difference in term is due to the language of origin.
Actually, it wasn't cryptic at all. It was literal. Pretty much:
Essence= Atoms
Everything is made up of atoms, we are made of the same elements as air and some rocks and other things, but mixed differently and we can physically support life.
Oh... So that's kinda... really has nothing to do with a soul or similar concept does it? That's really a very hardcore scientific viewpoint. We're made up of organic material. Period.
If you want to be blunt, yes. That's exactly it. But I've always found peace and truth in nature, and I tend to use 'essence' and such more often as terms. Hence my slight druidness.
http://awesome.good.is/transparency/web/0910/what-we-believe/flat.html
Interesting.
Quote from: ARTgames on October 10, 2009, 11:01:52 AM
http://awesome.good.is/transparency/web/0910/what-we-believe/flat.html
Interesting.
I can agree with that. I see that same trend in my friend's beliefs. It isn't necessarily a bad thing. People are taking advantage to believe what they want and not what a group of people are forcing them too. Big improvement from 200 years ago. Heh.
Makes sense. In my own personal experience when two people marry from differen faith, their children tend to not be religious. Since it is more acceptable now for people to do that, it will happen more often.
Quote from: Lingus on October 12, 2009, 06:12:11 PM
Makes sense. In my own personal experience when two people marry from differen faith, their children tend to not be religious. Since it is more acceptable now for people to do that, it will happen more often.
I'd say that it is more due to immigration in general than inter-religious marriage. When people are only exposed to a single belief, they'll assume it to be true. When they're exposed to many beliefs, they have doubts about all of them.
Well yes. But a combination of both. Because there are a lot of people immigrating and there is a large mixture of cultures, there are going to be more inter-religious marriages, and their children are going to not only not going to have a single faith within their family, but they will also be able to see a wide variety of life styles and religions.
Immigration itself does not necessarily cause this. I'm sure many families from other countries will keep their religion, and teach it to their children. Their children will follow it because it is a tie to their culture. They will get to see many other religions, but they will not necessarily choose them or choose to stop following their religion because it is not the tradition that their family follows.
Of course, that's in a general sense. I'm sure there are people of mixed faith families who choose to follow one or both relgions, and people of single faith families with strongly religious parents who choose to stop following their religion.
What's this? This topic again?!
Yep, well, I got on the internet and was brought to my homepage, MSN.com, and I saw this article, and I thought I'd link it, since it actually is RELEVANT! :O
http://www.newsweek.com/id/220296?GT1=43002
EDIT: Incidentally, I'm not presenting this as evidence as supporting any argument, because it really doesn't. I just thought some people might be interested to read it.
WHY DID YOU BUMP IT!? NOOOOOOOO
Quote from: God-I-Suck on November 02, 2009, 06:47:53 PM
WHY DID YOU BUMP IT!? NOOOOOOOO
Yeah like that helped a lot.
Anyways chaos that article seems really interesting.
Which reminds me of something my english class disscused last year. Our teacher told us that no matter what we do it has no effect on the universe. Like if you kill a family,from a cosmic stand point its neither good, nor evil. It just is. Thought it was an interesting way of seeing everything.
Titan - technically, from a cosmic point of view, you never said that. So we might as well dismiss it and continue acting as if there is good and evil.
Well, not really. I was making a point -- I mean, you did say that. We all saw the post. And just like you did just post on the Stick Online forums, if someone murders a family, they still murdered a family. Even if the earth exploded, or a black hole swallows the Milky Way, or a hundred thousand galaxies all explode for no reason, in the cosmic sense, it really wouldn't matter. But nonetheless, it still happened in one sense or another. The big picture is just a picture, not the picture.
Quote from: Chaos on November 02, 2009, 02:42:00 PM
What's this? This topic again?!
Yep, well, I got on the internet and was brought to my homepage, MSN.com, and I saw this article, and I thought I'd link it, since it actually is RELEVANT! :O
http://www.newsweek.com/id/220296?GT1=43002
EDIT: Incidentally, I'm not presenting this as evidence as supporting any argument, because it really doesn't. I just thought some people might be interested to read it.
This article says everything I believe in about the afterlife for the most part. I relate to the skeptical attitude, and I agree with the arguments against the book being reviewed. Thanks for linking this Chaos. I think I can effectively end discussion on this topic and point anyone curious about my opinion to the link.
I especially like the part at the end about faith/religion not being able to console someone who is grieving. It's true, if someone tries to tell you the friend/family member you have lost has "gone to a better place" and that you should be happy about that... they don't understand what it means to have lost someone close. That notion just does not help you get past the immense pain and loss that you feel.
Quote from: Lingus on November 02, 2009, 08:57:44 PM
I especially like the part at the end about faith/religion not being able to console someone who is grieving. It's true, if someone tries to tell you the friend/family member you have lost has "gone to a better place" and that you should be happy about that... they don't understand what it means to have lost someone close. That notion just does not help you get past the immense pain and loss that you feel.
I think it completely depends on if that person believes in the after-life or not. I mean, if someone believes in life after death, then a simple reminder that their loved one went to a better place could really help. It's the job of the comforter to know when or when not to use the "after-life" card to help someone who's grieving.
Quote from: Titan on November 02, 2009, 07:45:48 PM
Quote from: God-I-Suck on November 02, 2009, 06:47:53 PM
WHY DID YOU BUMP IT!? NOOOOOOOO
Yeah like that helped a lot.
Anyways chaos that article seems really interesting.
Which reminds me of something my english class disscused last year. Our teacher told us that no matter what we do it has no effect on the universe
No offence kid, but your teacher doesn't know jack.
Quote from: JoEL on November 03, 2009, 07:21:12 AM
Quote from: Titan on November 02, 2009, 07:45:48 PM
Quote from: God-I-Suck on November 02, 2009, 06:47:53 PM
WHY DID YOU BUMP IT!? NOOOOOOOO
Yeah like that helped a lot.
Anyways chaos that article seems really interesting.
Which reminds me of something my english class disscused last year. Our teacher told us that no matter what we do it has no effect on the universe
No offence kid, but your teacher doesn't know jack.
No offence kid, but you don't know jack. This topic is purely for voicing opinions, and inspiring thought. Don't shit on someone's comment just because you don't agree with it.
Quote from: Lucifer on November 03, 2009, 01:36:34 PM
Quote from: JoEL on November 03, 2009, 07:21:12 AM
Quote from: Titan on November 02, 2009, 07:45:48 PM
Quote from: God-I-Suck on November 02, 2009, 06:47:53 PM
WHY DID YOU BUMP IT!? NOOOOOOOO
Yeah like that helped a lot.
Anyways chaos that article seems really interesting.
Which reminds me of something my english class disscused last year. Our teacher told us that no matter what we do it has no effect on the universe
No offence kid, but your teacher doesn't know jack.
No offence kid, but you don't know jack. This topic is purely for voicing opinions, and inspiring thought. Don't shit on someone's comment just because you don't agree with it.
Quoted for truth.
By that, he meant no HUGE impact on the universe, not nothing at all.
Yeah, that is a nihilist view - when we humans all die, everything we have ever done will be forgotten, and have no impact on the rest of the universe. We will just disappear, without a sigh in the wind from anything else.
And quite honestly, unless we start galactic traveling or other such things, it is very true; What you do today won't matter in a million years, if not a 1000 or even a hundred.
Quote from: Jake on November 03, 2009, 12:29:13 AM
Quote from: Lingus on November 02, 2009, 08:57:44 PM
I especially like the part at the end about faith/religion not being able to console someone who is grieving. It's true, if someone tries to tell you the friend/family member you have lost has "gone to a better place" and that you should be happy about that... they don't understand what it means to have lost someone close. That notion just does not help you get past the immense pain and loss that you feel.
I think it completely depends on if that person believes in the after-life or not. I mean, if someone believes in life after death, then a simple reminder that their loved one went to a better place could really help. It's the job of the comforter to know when or when not to use the "after-life" card to help someone who's grieving.
I guess I can't say if that's true or not since I don't really believe in an after-life. I don't know if it would comfort me were I to truly believe in it. My thoughts are that even for someone who does, it only comforts a small part of the pain. It only touches on one aspect of the grief. Yes, you are definitely worried about where that person has gone and how they now feel. Being told that they are in heaven and are safe and with God or whatever belief system you follow says is a good afterlife will make that person feel better about those worries. But a major portion of what almost everyone grieves over is what will happen to themselves. People grieve because they have lost someone. Knowing where they are doesn't bring the person back.
Quote from: Lingus on November 05, 2009, 12:30:40 PM
Quote from: Jake on November 03, 2009, 12:29:13 AM
Quote from: Lingus on November 02, 2009, 08:57:44 PM
I especially like the part at the end about faith/religion not being able to console someone who is grieving. It's true, if someone tries to tell you the friend/family member you have lost has "gone to a better place" and that you should be happy about that... they don't understand what it means to have lost someone close. That notion just does not help you get past the immense pain and loss that you feel.
I think it completely depends on if that person believes in the after-life or not. I mean, if someone believes in life after death, then a simple reminder that their loved one went to a better place could really help. It's the job of the comforter to know when or when not to use the "after-life" card to help someone who's grieving.
I guess I can't say if that's true or not since I don't really believe in an after-life. I don't know if it would comfort me were I to truly believe in it. My thoughts are that even for someone who does, it only comforts a small part of the pain. It only touches on one aspect of the grief. Yes, you are definitely worried about where that person has gone and how they now feel. Being told that they are in heaven and are safe and with God or whatever belief system you follow says is a good afterlife will make that person feel better about those worries. But a major portion of what almost everyone grieves over is what will happen to themselves. People grieve because they have lost someone. Knowing where they are doesn't bring the person back.
Im not sure if it's more of the fact that you'd know they're okay... But I think part of it is believing you'll be able to see them again someday when you pass on too.
I think I can liven this topic up a bit.
So lately, I've been associating myself with paranormal activity more than normal. I don't believe in ghosts or anything that consciously exists with no physical form... Except for maybe God. But even then I have doubts. Anyway, last night I had been discussing being possessed with my friend, and generally just talking about demons and ghosts and whatnot. It's always been my goal to taunt a spirit enough to have it show itself, because I could then at least have some circumstantial evidence that they exist. Later that night, I go home, research paranormal shit online, talk to Chaos, then go to bed. At about 5:15 in the morning, I'm about to fall asleep when I hear a knock on the door outside my room and the door swings open slightly. I was like "oh noes" and ran down the stairs (my bedroom is upstairs).
Annnnyway, I didn't think much of it. My mom asked me what happened, and I was all like "Oh just got startled by the door making noises lol ttyl". It wasn't really that big of a deal. I mean, I was just about to pass it off as a weird coincidence... Although it was a strange one simply because a knock on the bedroom door doesn't really equate to something falling or anything that could really tangibly happen as far as I'm concerned. I'm the only one upstairs, and have no pets. So anyway, my sister calls me up and she's like "Mom says that you got scared of a ghost or something last night" I'm like "yeah it was slightly weird... Happened at 5 in the morning when I was trying to sleep", and then she's like "Really? Because at 5 in the morning I was praying for you. I know you've been straying from God lately so I asked him to knock on your door (she meant this metaphorically)". At that point I was like "yeah !@#$ing right!".
To sum it up, I hear a loud strange knock about fifteen minutes after my sister is praying for God to "knock on my door". She doesn't even live in the same house as me. Coincidence? probably. Strange? Oh yeah. If God does exist, this is at least evidence that he doesn't have a keen ability to detect metaphors. Never-the-less, it gives me something to talk about at parties. Girls love shit like that.
that's fricken crazy lol.. sometimes i hear knocks on my front door and there's absolutely NOTHING around at first i thought it was the wreath we had on our door, but even after my mom took it down, it still happened...and no it's not someone knocking then running away because i looked outside once after it happened like a second later and looked all around and saw nobody... its creepy
On the other hand, she could have said that BECAUSE she knew you heard a knock on your door. You have to wonder why she would be up at 5 am, and if she was for a reason, you'd think her mind would be on the reason she's up (getting ready for work, or whatever. Not sure which sister this is), not randomly "Jake is straying from god, lol".
I dunno, it just all sounds strangely fishy to me. <_<
Quote from: Chaos on November 08, 2009, 03:02:08 PM
On the other hand, she could have said that BECAUSE she knew you heard a knock on your door. You have to wonder why she would be up at 5 am, and if she was for a reason, you'd think her mind would be on the reason she's up (getting ready for work, or whatever. Not sure which sister this is), not randomly "Jake is straying from god, lol".
I dunno, it just all sounds strangely fishy to me. <_<
Realize that I didn't tell ANYONE about the knock on the door. Only told my mom after running down stairs that the door opened a little bit and that it freaked me out. Anyway, she was up because she had been talking to her friend on the phone, and felt like she randomly needed to pray for me. But yeah, unless she's straight out lying to me about what happened and was able to guess that something had actually knocked on my door, it's at least a strange occurrence.
Anyway, she's not the type of person to lie about stuff. She was freaked out when I told her that something literally knocked on my door, which was AFTER she had told me about asking God to metaphorically "knock on my door".
Quote from: Jake on November 08, 2009, 03:22:15 PM
Quote from: Chaos on November 08, 2009, 03:02:08 PM
On the other hand, she could have said that BECAUSE she knew you heard a knock on your door. You have to wonder why she would be up at 5 am, and if she was for a reason, you'd think her mind would be on the reason she's up (getting ready for work, or whatever. Not sure which sister this is), not randomly "Jake is straying from god, lol".
I dunno, it just all sounds strangely fishy to me. <_<
Realize that I didn't tell ANYONE about the knock on the door. Only told my mom after running down stairs that the door opened a little bit and that it freaked me out. Anyway, she was up because she had been talking to her friend on the phone, and felt like she randomly needed to pray for me. But yeah, unless she's straight out lying to me about what happened and was able to guess that something had actually knocked on my door, it's at least a strange occurrence.
Anyway, she's not the type of person to lie about stuff. She was freaked out when I told her that something literally knocked on my door, which was AFTER she had told me about asking God to metaphorically "knock on my door".
Yeah dude...I'm pretty sure your sister's just pulling your leg. Sister's love doing stuff like that, at least mine does. While they aren't generally physically strong, they are mentally...which accounts for a significant amount of "mind-!@#$". But hey, it's fun to believe in paranormal stuff from time to time so interpret it how you want to. :)
Quote from: Mr Pwnage on November 08, 2009, 03:29:35 PM
Quote from: Jake on November 08, 2009, 03:22:15 PM
Quote from: Chaos on November 08, 2009, 03:02:08 PM
On the other hand, she could have said that BECAUSE she knew you heard a knock on your door. You have to wonder why she would be up at 5 am, and if she was for a reason, you'd think her mind would be on the reason she's up (getting ready for work, or whatever. Not sure which sister this is), not randomly "Jake is straying from god, lol".
I dunno, it just all sounds strangely fishy to me. <_<
Realize that I didn't tell ANYONE about the knock on the door. Only told my mom after running down stairs that the door opened a little bit and that it freaked me out. Anyway, she was up because she had been talking to her friend on the phone, and felt like she randomly needed to pray for me. But yeah, unless she's straight out lying to me about what happened and was able to guess that something had actually knocked on my door, it's at least a strange occurrence.
Anyway, she's not the type of person to lie about stuff. She was freaked out when I told her that something literally knocked on my door, which was AFTER she had told me about asking God to metaphorically "knock on my door".
Yeah dude...I'm pretty sure your sister's just pulling your leg. Sister's love doing stuff like that, at least mine does. While they aren't generally physically strong, they are mentally...which accounts for a significant amount of "mind-!@#$". But hey, it's fun to believe in paranormal stuff from time to time so interpret it how you want to. :)
As of right now, my sister is the one who is convinced that it was a sign from God. She wanted to take me to church and get a reading from people there about what God wants to tell me. I guess this is an elaborate joke of hers... Even though she's not smart enough or willing enough to pull jokes like these. Not to mention anything that has to do with god is extremely important to her, and even the idea that she's lying is hilarious to me because of how seriously she takes the paranormal. My conclusion is that the loud knock was a coincidence and the fact that she prayed about the occurrence that happened 15 minutes before in a completely separate house is an even bigger coincidence.
Quote from: Jake on November 08, 2009, 03:33:18 PM
Quote from: Mr Pwnage on November 08, 2009, 03:29:35 PM
Quote from: Jake on November 08, 2009, 03:22:15 PM
Quote from: Chaos on November 08, 2009, 03:02:08 PM
On the other hand, she could have said that BECAUSE she knew you heard a knock on your door. You have to wonder why she would be up at 5 am, and if she was for a reason, you'd think her mind would be on the reason she's up (getting ready for work, or whatever. Not sure which sister this is), not randomly "Jake is straying from god, lol".
I dunno, it just all sounds strangely fishy to me. <_<
Realize that I didn't tell ANYONE about the knock on the door. Only told my mom after running down stairs that the door opened a little bit and that it freaked me out. Anyway, she was up because she had been talking to her friend on the phone, and felt like she randomly needed to pray for me. But yeah, unless she's straight out lying to me about what happened and was able to guess that something had actually knocked on my door, it's at least a strange occurrence.
Anyway, she's not the type of person to lie about stuff. She was freaked out when I told her that something literally knocked on my door, which was AFTER she had told me about asking God to metaphorically "knock on my door".
Yeah dude...I'm pretty sure your sister's just pulling your leg. Sister's love doing stuff like that, at least mine does. While they aren't generally physically strong, they are mentally...which accounts for a significant amount of "mind-!@#$". But hey, it's fun to believe in paranormal stuff from time to time so interpret it how you want to. :)
As of right now, my sister is the one who is convinced that it was a sign from God. She wanted to take me to church and get a reading from people there about what God wants to tell me. I guess this is an elaborate joke of hers... Even though she's not smart enough or willing enough to pull jokes like these. Not to mention anything that has to do with god is extremely important to her, and even the idea that she's lying is hilarious to me because of how seriously she takes the paranormal. My conclusion is that the loud knock was a coincidence and the fact that she prayed about the occurrence that happened 15 minutes before in a completely separate house is an even bigger coincidence.
Well from what you just said, I'd be even more convinced that she made it up seeing how religious she is. It seems like she wants you to partake in her beliefs to and this is her little way of persuading you into them. And the fact she said that and that it was in a completely different house probably had to do with your mom telling her. It wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing if she was tricking you, it's rather clever actually...but that's just my speculation.
Quote from: Mr Pwnage on November 08, 2009, 05:42:30 PM
Quote from: Jake on November 08, 2009, 03:33:18 PM
Quote from: Mr Pwnage on November 08, 2009, 03:29:35 PM
Quote from: Jake on November 08, 2009, 03:22:15 PM
Quote from: Chaos on November 08, 2009, 03:02:08 PM
On the other hand, she could have said that BECAUSE she knew you heard a knock on your door. You have to wonder why she would be up at 5 am, and if she was for a reason, you'd think her mind would be on the reason she's up (getting ready for work, or whatever. Not sure which sister this is), not randomly "Jake is straying from god, lol".
I dunno, it just all sounds strangely fishy to me. <_<
Realize that I didn't tell ANYONE about the knock on the door. Only told my mom after running down stairs that the door opened a little bit and that it freaked me out. Anyway, she was up because she had been talking to her friend on the phone, and felt like she randomly needed to pray for me. But yeah, unless she's straight out lying to me about what happened and was able to guess that something had actually knocked on my door, it's at least a strange occurrence.
Anyway, she's not the type of person to lie about stuff. She was freaked out when I told her that something literally knocked on my door, which was AFTER she had told me about asking God to metaphorically "knock on my door".
Yeah dude...I'm pretty sure your sister's just pulling your leg. Sister's love doing stuff like that, at least mine does. While they aren't generally physically strong, they are mentally...which accounts for a significant amount of "mind-!@#$". But hey, it's fun to believe in paranormal stuff from time to time so interpret it how you want to. :)
As of right now, my sister is the one who is convinced that it was a sign from God. She wanted to take me to church and get a reading from people there about what God wants to tell me. I guess this is an elaborate joke of hers... Even though she's not smart enough or willing enough to pull jokes like these. Not to mention anything that has to do with god is extremely important to her, and even the idea that she's lying is hilarious to me because of how seriously she takes the paranormal. My conclusion is that the loud knock was a coincidence and the fact that she prayed about the occurrence that happened 15 minutes before in a completely separate house is an even bigger coincidence.
Well from what you just said, I'd be even more convinced that she made it up seeing how religious she is. It seems like she wants you to partake in her beliefs to and this is her little way of persuading you into them. And the fact she said that and that it was in a completely different house probably had to do with your mom telling her. It wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing if she was tricking you, it's rather clever actually...but that's just my speculation.
The second you used the word "clever" to describe my sisters actions, I lost faith in what you were saying. My family would never want me to become more religious if it meant lying to do so, which reveals another problem with your theory. You assume my sisters personality based on your limited scope of her actions. She's the type of person that would never lie when it came to faith or religion or paranormal activity. She's got two kids, and she's 20 years old. Could she exaggerate? That's much more of a possibility. But the idea that she is completely lying to me to get me to be more religious is simply out of the question. Hell, she doesn't even care that much, because she assumes that I'm in a phase. Take it from someone who's known my sister for 18 years... I think I'm slightly more qualified to interpret her actions.
I'm not trying to falsely add plausibility to the incident last night. I'm convinced that it was a strong coincidence. But I'm positive that you're looking in the wrong area to actually try and explain what happened.
Well I'm sure you'd know your sister better than I do...therefore your interpretation on it is probably correct. I guess I was just basing it more on how my family acts. Assuming this did happen, play around with it...make it happen again. You'd like to think that if a spirit took the time to knock on your door it might be lurking for another way to show itself to you in a future occurrence. :)
Tell her to pray for god to knock on your door and tell you you've won a million dollars next time...
Quote from: Lucifer on November 09, 2009, 01:51:08 AM
Tell her to pray for god to knock on your door and tell you you've won a million dollars next time...
That would scare the shit out of me if it actually happened. Imagine a deep rumbling voice saying "JAKEEEE. YOU HAVE WON A MILLION DOLLARS, BOW BEFORE ME".
Quote from: Jake on November 09, 2009, 02:07:16 AM
Quote from: Lucifer on November 09, 2009, 01:51:08 AM
Tell her to pray for god to knock on your door and tell you you've won a million dollars next time...
That would scare the shit out of me if it actually happened. Imagine a deep rumbling voice saying "JAKEEEE. YOU HAVE WON A MILLION DOLLARS, BOW BEFORE ME".
Why would God demand to be worshiped?
Quote from: Red October on November 09, 2009, 02:57:55 AM
Quote from: Jake on November 09, 2009, 02:07:16 AM
Quote from: Lucifer on November 09, 2009, 01:51:08 AM
Tell her to pray for god to knock on your door and tell you you've won a million dollars next time...
That would scare the shit out of me if it actually happened. Imagine a deep rumbling voice saying "JAKEEEE. YOU HAVE WON A MILLION DOLLARS, BOW BEFORE ME".
Why would God demand to be worshiped?
Oh, sorry. I should have taken into account the different beliefs and ideas of an omnipotent being before making such a close-minded attempt at a joke.
Quote from: Jake on November 09, 2009, 03:10:19 AM
Quote from: Red October on November 09, 2009, 02:57:55 AM
Quote from: Jake on November 09, 2009, 02:07:16 AM
Quote from: Lucifer on November 09, 2009, 01:51:08 AM
Tell her to pray for god to knock on your door and tell you you've won a million dollars next time...
That would scare the shit out of me if it actually happened. Imagine a deep rumbling voice saying "JAKEEEE. YOU HAVE WON A MILLION DOLLARS, BOW BEFORE ME".
Why would God demand to be worshiped?
Oh, sorry. I should have taken into account the different beliefs and ideas of an omnipotent being before making such a close-minded attempt at a joke.
Yes, thank you for you sarcastic comment. I full well knew that your posts was meant to be humorous.
Quote from: Red October on November 09, 2009, 02:57:55 AM
Quote from: Jake on November 09, 2009, 02:07:16 AM
Quote from: Lucifer on November 09, 2009, 01:51:08 AM
Tell her to pray for god to knock on your door and tell you you've won a million dollars next time...
That would scare the shit out of me if it actually happened. Imagine a deep rumbling voice saying "JAKEEEE. YOU HAVE WON A MILLION DOLLARS, BOW BEFORE ME".
Why would God demand to be worshiped?
If it's any consolation, I could be the biggest atheist on planet earth...I would still bow before any God or being for a million dollars.
People tend to take things they experience and attempt to understand them. People are weird like that. Of course, the key word there is "attempt". I think that people's understanding of events are quite often skewed by their state of mind. If someone is thinking about ghosts, they will see ghosts everywhere. Something as simple as a change in temperature or a slight breeze will be a "sign" from a spirit. There's no reason to think that unless you really are trying to see the evidence of a ghost. If you weren't thinking of ghosts at all, you wouldn't give these things a second thought. A knock on the door from a "ghost" becomes someone banging around in the other room or down stairs. Breezes are simply air moving around. Coincidences are just that; no other meaning behind them.
Our view on life all depends on our interpretation of it.
hm death, well considering i dont follow the local religions i basically made up my own beliefs about what happens after, sorry i have no religion only a set of beliefs which i change if i find them to conceptually wrong or illogical in my own mind :P anyways first ill say that i believe peoples memories are stuck in their brains and dont carry over into their souls, to me the soul is more like a composite of the person's emotions and thinking patterns. so in my belief system i believe that when a person dies one of a few things happen, if that person isnt at peace when he or she dies the soul either wonders around trying to figure out how to attain peace or attaches itself to a new host if you want to call it that. if the person was at peace the soul moves on to the after life,what ever that is lets say heaven, or choose to be reincarnated. now if a person, in my eyes, commits suicide to me it is the act of stealing one's own life for a lack of better words and that soul must give a life in return but since a soul cant poses a life, that soul becomes cursed by the act of suicide and then becomes stuck to a another person's soul and must live that life in peace inorder to move on or to become uncursed. however, that person must also bare the burden of that cursed soul. as for truly evil people like murders and rapist well thats hard to say, i do believe in a hell but i dont think of it as a lake of fire or imps with pitch forks, rather i see it as an existence in which that soul must indure the guilt, shame and self disgust of the said actions. on a side note i dont believe a soul is either good or evil, the living choose to be good or evil the soul is just along for the ride.
there is more to my belief system but there isnt any need to say more. also these are only my beliefs and i know some of it sounds alittle silly but ohwell.
Not trying to be rude, just making a comment about my observations of your post. I find it interesting that you don't really follow a religion and have come up with these beliefs on your own. It's good, I like it, I just have some comments about it. I agree with memory being "stuck" in the brain. But, I also think emotions and thought patterns are products of the brain as well. Using a logical process, you would not be able to pick out any one thing that could make up the soul. Everything we know about what makes a person who they are could logically be explained by some process. With that in mind, if the soul exists, it would be something intangible. Something you couldn't really explain about a person. Something that if you took all the composite behaviors, thoughts, or emotions would be missing.
As far as the set of rules for what happens when someone dies, I see know evidence to believe that anything different will happen to someone's "soul" depending on their actions in life. And, if something different does happen, such as one person going to "Hell" and another "Heavan", I don't see how we would have any idea as to what that would actually be. I think it is flawed logic to take our culture's ideas of justice and inject them into the metaphysical world. Just because we think something is wrong or bad doesn't mean the Universe thinks the same way. In fact, even within our own world certain cultures will vary widely on what they view as right and wrong. And as far as "unrestfull spirits" I can see a sort of logic in it. If in life you hung on to something, your soul must hang onto it in the afterlife. But again, there's no evidence to show it will actually happen that way. And in truth, the reason why something is "unfinished" is ussually a physical problem, not metaphysical. Not telling someone you loved them before you died will not be a problem after you die.
Anyways, I know these are just your opinions and beliefs. I just wanted to throw this out there since it sounds like you were saying you used a logical process to come up with this stuff. It's really just food for thought. Take it for what it's worth. If you find logic in anything I have said and can use it to alter your views then that's cool, but if not then that's cool too. I don't need everyone to think the way I do.
well actually i didnt really say logic as other people see it but logic in my own mind and my own way of viewing it. mostly my beliefs are about trying to balance things out and karma. ya i know that stuff comes from other religions like Buddhism and probably others but different parts of different religions just kinda click with me while others dont so i take tidbits from each, or make my own parts, that click and incorporate them into my beliefs system. further more i try to incorporate the spiritual, scientific and evolutionary into one way of thinking. however that doesnt mean i have everything thought out because most of the time i dont think about it, i just go with the flow of the feelings of it, if that makes any since. mostly just putting my own feelings into what i believe, be it wrong or right.
also i do have a reason for the whole cursed souls and stuff but i would prefer not to say because it would sound silly.
also as for the thought patterns and emotions bit i kinda agree that the body does contribute to it although i see it as more as the emotions of the physical body altering or overriding the emotions of the spirit or soul, the soul has its own core emotions and patterns. im probably not explaining my thoughts well, its kinda hard to express a feeling into words. kinda wish i would of wrote all my beliefs down so i could go back and reference them hahaha :P
I see. Well works for me. I say your point of view is just as valid as some of the major religions. If they can make up their own rules why can't you?
Quote from: Lingus on December 14, 2009, 08:41:29 PM
I see. Well works for me. I say your point of view is just as valid as some of the major religions. If they can make up their own rules why can't you?
Psh, those rules are sent to them by God! Go ahead, prove me wrong! Do it!
That's what I thought 8)
I can't prove you wrong, but you can't prove you're right either. <== That, my friends, is my entire philosophy on life.
why base owr beliefs of stuff we can never prove when we can do so with things we can prove?
If you want to live in your own world go ahead. I cant stop you. But my personal prefrents would be to believe it something that i can work with and change and grow as we discover. That's just me thoe.
I think the difference is with things that no one knows. You can't base your beliefs on facts if there are none. Your belief can be that you don't know... which is okay (that's what I do). But some people aren't okay with that. They are either afraid of the unknown, or something... but they choose to believe in something even when there are no facts. My personal opinion is that's okay to do also. Most people don't agree with that. They either feel that you can't do that at all, or they feel that everyone who does that and comes up with something different than them have it wrong. That's the one type of belief I am not okay with, especially when it leads them to speak out and/or attempt to force others into their own way of thought. Of course, that's a generalization. There's a lot of people who are okay with other people having different beliefs.
QuoteI think the difference is with things that no one knows. You can't base your beliefs on facts if there are none.
which is my point.
Quotewhy base owr beliefs of stuff we can never prove
But to clear up something else, i am open to theory of the unknown. That is part of the discovery. You try and find out about it and that will lead you to some kind of discovery. Even if that discovery is that its impossible for you to find out. Make it a fact that you don't know. And if you do find out then change it.
Yea. I think we both agree. I think that is part of the flaw in choosing to believe in something that has no basis in fact. Because even if facts turn up that contradict your beliefs, you will be less likely to accept those truths and attempt to hold on to your belief system even though it is flawed. Of course, not everyone does this. Some people can continue with their religion or belief system while accepting that things might alter that view.
I would also like the point out by what i meant with the line "And if you do find out then change it. "
I mean change what you knew about if from the past. Don't change what you found out. >_< my bad.
Quote from: ARTgames on December 15, 2009, 05:52:34 PM
why base owr beliefs of stuff we can never prove when we can do so with things we can prove?
If you want to live in your own world go ahead. I cant stop you. But my personal prefrents would be to believe it something that i can work with and change and grow as we discover. That's just me thoe.
I'm feeling kind of lazy, so I'm not going to address the other points that came up after this post, suffice to say that Lingus's view on views (not a grammatical error) is exactly what I believe.
I wanted to point out that not believing in something because there is no proof is silly. The only reason anyone believes anything is because we have evidence and faith. I have evidence that I will wake up tomorrow because I have woken up every morning before, but I do not have proof. Therefore I have faith based upon evidence that I will indeed wake up. I look at faith as the gap between evidence and proof, and I believe it is necessary in living our lives, otherwise we would need proof for everything and wouldn't believe anything.
My point is that not believing in something simply because of a lack of proof is an illogical way to live. Factors such as faith aren't exclusive to religion, although they are often considered as such because theists tend to use more faith than evidence. One factor is never solely used though, so anyone saying they believe in something purely through evidence (which would also be labeled as proof because there is no faith), or someone saying they believe through faith alone, are expressing their true beliefs incorrectly. The only time in which you can express your belief in something through proof alone is if you know everything, and the only time in which you can express your belief in something through faith alone is if you believe it for absolutely no reason.
Quote from: Jake on December 15, 2009, 10:00:42 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on December 15, 2009, 05:52:34 PM
why base owr beliefs of stuff we can never prove when we can do so with things we can prove?
If you want to live in your own world go ahead. I cant stop you. But my personal prefrents would be to believe it something that i can work with and change and grow as we discover. That's just me thoe.
I'm feeling kind of lazy, so I'm not going to address the other points that came up after this post, suffice to say that Lingus's view on views (not a grammatical error) is exactly what I believe.
I wanted to point out that not believing in something because there is no proof is silly. The only reason anyone believes anything is because we have evidence and faith. I have evidence that I will wake up tomorrow because I have woken up every morning before, but I do not have proof. Therefore I have faith based upon evidence that I will indeed wake up. I look at faith as the gap between evidence and proof, and I believe it is necessary in living our lives, otherwise we would need proof for everything and wouldn't believe anything.
My point is that not believing in something simply because of a lack of proof is an illogical way to live. Factors such as faith aren't exclusive to religion, although they are often considered as such because theists tend to use more faith than evidence. One factor is never solely used though, so anyone saying they believe in something purely through evidence (which would also be labeled as proof because there is no faith), or someone saying they believe through faith alone, are expressing their true beliefs incorrectly. The only time in which you can express your belief in something through proof alone is if you know everything, and the only time in which you can express your belief in something through faith alone is if you believe it for absolutely no reason.
Quote from: ARTgames on December 15, 2009, 07:19:27 PM
But to clear up something else, i am open to theory of the unknown. That is part of the discovery. You try and find out about it and that will lead you to some kind of discovery. Even if that discovery is that its impossible for you to find out. Make it a fact that you don't know. And if you do find out then change it.
Quote from: ARTgames on December 15, 2009, 11:58:28 PM
Quote from: Jake on December 15, 2009, 10:00:42 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on December 15, 2009, 05:52:34 PM
why base owr beliefs of stuff we can never prove when we can do so with things we can prove?
If you want to live in your own world go ahead. I cant stop you. But my personal prefrents would be to believe it something that i can work with and change and grow as we discover. That's just me thoe.
I'm feeling kind of lazy, so I'm not going to address the other points that came up after this post, suffice to say that Lingus's view on views (not a grammatical error) is exactly what I believe.
I wanted to point out that not believing in something because there is no proof is silly. The only reason anyone believes anything is because we have evidence and faith. I have evidence that I will wake up tomorrow because I have woken up every morning before, but I do not have proof. Therefore I have faith based upon evidence that I will indeed wake up. I look at faith as the gap between evidence and proof, and I believe it is necessary in living our lives, otherwise we would need proof for everything and wouldn't believe anything.
My point is that not believing in something simply because of a lack of proof is an illogical way to live. Factors such as faith aren't exclusive to religion, although they are often considered as such because theists tend to use more faith than evidence. One factor is never solely used though, so anyone saying they believe in something purely through evidence (which would also be labeled as proof because there is no faith), or someone saying they believe through faith alone, are expressing their true beliefs incorrectly. The only time in which you can express your belief in something through proof alone is if you know everything, and the only time in which you can express your belief in something through faith alone is if you believe it for absolutely no reason.
Quote from: ARTgames on December 15, 2009, 07:19:27 PM
But to clear up something else, i am open to theory of the unknown. That is part of the discovery. You try and find out about it and that will lead you to some kind of discovery. Even if that discovery is that its impossible for you to find out. Make it a fact that you don't know. And if you do find out then change it.
I suppose you're off the hook ;)
Like I said before, I was being partially lazy and didn't really look into the other posts too much. I did read what you said but didn't really think it correlated exactly with what i was saying. Plus, I wanted to post my views on that matter.
Its ok. There are people who think in such ways and it would be a good read.
Jake, great post. Kind of opened my eyes a bit. I never thought about the interplay between evidence (versus proof) and faith.
Quote from: Jake on December 15, 2009, 10:00:42 PMThe only time in which you can express your belief in something through proof alone is if you know everything
To respond, I wanted to point out the above quote. This is exactly the way I try to view the world. None of us really know anything for certain, so we shouldn't take anything for granted. You say you have evidence that you will wake up tomorrow morning, and because this evidence is not proof, you have faith that it will be true. I say since we do not have proof we should attempt to live our lives to the fullest and assume that there is a possibility that we will not wake up tomorrow.
Well evidence is a part of proof. The evidence will always prove something it just might not be the answer your looking for or just a part. Nothing is really certain in sciences also. Its all about the conflicting theories, +-'s, and how accurate you can measure something. Im not sure about religon's thoe.
Non the less even when you have proven something that turns into faith of it always being true. I mean you have faith a^2+b^2=c^2. So its just another value we give things.
Quote from: Lingus on December 16, 2009, 01:54:35 PM
Jake, great post. Kind of opened my eyes a bit. I never thought about the interplay between evidence (versus proof) and faith.
Quote from: Jake on December 15, 2009, 10:00:42 PMThe only time in which you can express your belief in something through proof alone is if you know everything
To respond, I wanted to point out the above quote. This is exactly the way I try to view the world. None of us really know anything for certain, so we shouldn't take anything for granted. You say you have evidence that you will wake up tomorrow morning, and because this evidence is not proof, you have faith that it will be true. I say since we do not have proof we should attempt to live our lives to the fullest and assume that there is a possibility that we will not wake up tomorrow.
Rock on ;)
Considering multiple outcomes to seemingly proven scenarios is how I live my life too. It's pretty much what I do all day long... although it takes it's toll on me, specifically because I have a hard time taking anything for granted now. Most people get used to the fact that we're humans on a world, and accept that we don't really know what is going on. All day long I consider death, why we're hear, my psychological response to my senses. I simply wish that I could go back to the days where it didn't matter why I was here, only that I was here.
It's true. Having that mind set can be tiring. I think to a certain extent, in order to get along in this life you have to sort of switch it off. If you truly make decisions based on the mindset that we know nothing for certain, you would be stuck in an infinite loop of indecision. If you try to base your actions on reason, but there is no reason to be had because there is no absolute knowledge, you literally cannot make valid decisions about anything. So we do kind of have to act based on certain assumptions. The trick is to make sure those assumptions are reasonable. Like assuming that everything is not just an elaborate illusion.
When you die, you simply cease to exist.
People can believe in resurrections, afterlifes, ghosts/spirits etc. but this is all based on speculation and to comfort those who don't wish to accept that after life there is nothing.
There is no evidence to support any of these theories and are just formulated by people with active imaginations.
If anyone has had general anesthetic, they will know how it feels to 'not exist'.
When you are knocked out by G.A. you go beyond sleep and have zero sense of passing time. You could be out for 2 hours / 20 hours and not know the difference. Essentially, your consciousness doesn't exist during this time. Death can be logically extrapolated from this. I.e. Death is like being under G.A. for eternity.
Quote from: germ on January 04, 2010, 04:09:09 PM
People can believe in resurrections, afterlifes, ghosts/spirits etc. but this is all based on speculation and to comfort those who don't wish to accept that after life there is nothing.
There is no evidence to support any of these theories and are just formulated by people with active imaginations.
You couldn't be farther from the truth.
There's two types of evidence that are important when discussing this subject. Circumstantial and direct evidence. Religion, ghosts, etc, all have a multitude of circumstantial evidence, or in other words, lots of people have claims to experiencing, seeing, and/or feeling these other-worldly encounters. For many people, the amount of circumstantial evidence regarding a certain belief is enough to classify it as true to them. For others, they seek more direct evidence before they will classify something as true.
Your claims that these beliefs have no evidence behind them is flat out wrong. A better expression of your beliefs would be to say "I have not personally found enough evidence of the super-natural to classify these beliefs to be true, but accept that they could be true based on the fact that I have not seen all the evidence regarding these subjects. As it stands, they seem unlikely".
I see you as no different than a narrow-minded Christian professing what he believes to be the ultimate truth. You draw inaccurate assumptions and attempt to prove a negative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof), which is one of the ultimate logical fallacies.
Quote from: Jake on January 04, 2010, 04:36:49 PM
Quote from: germ on January 04, 2010, 04:09:09 PM
People can believe in resurrections, afterlifes, ghosts/spirits etc. but this is all based on speculation and to comfort those who don't wish to accept that after life there is nothing.
There is no evidence to support any of these theories and are just formulated by people with active imaginations.
You couldn't be farther from the truth.
There's two types of evidence that are important when discussing this subject. Circumstantial and direct evidence. Religion, ghosts, etc, all have a multitude of circumstantial evidence, or in other words, lots of people have claims to experiencing, seeing, and/or feeling these other-worldly encounters. For many people, the amount of circumstantial evidence regarding a certain belief is enough to classify it as true to them. For others, they seek more direct evidence before they will classify something as true.
Your claims that these beliefs have no evidence behind them is flat out wrong. A better expression of your beliefs would be to say "I have not personally found enough evidence of the super-natural to classify these beliefs to be true, but accept that they could be true based on the fact that I have not seen all the evidence regarding these subjects. As it stands, they seem unlikely".
I see you as no different than a narrow-minded Christian professing what he believes to be the ultimate truth. You draw inaccurate assumptions and attempt to prove a negative, which is one of the ultimate logical fallacies.
Cue round of applause.
Quote from: Jake on January 04, 2010, 04:36:49 PM
Quote from: germ on January 04, 2010, 04:09:09 PM
People can believe in resurrections, afterlifes, ghosts/spirits etc. but this is all based on speculation and to comfort those who don't wish to accept that after life there is nothing.
There is no evidence to support any of these theories and are just formulated by people with active imaginations.
You couldn't be farther from the truth.
There's two types of evidence that are important when discussing this subject. Circumstantial and direct evidence. Religion, ghosts, etc, all have a multitude of circumstantial evidence, or in other words, lots of people have claims to experiencing, seeing, and/or feeling these other-worldly encounters. For many people, the amount of circumstantial evidence regarding a certain belief is enough to classify it as true to them. For others, they seek more direct evidence before they will classify something as true.
Your claims that these beliefs have no evidence behind them is flat out wrong. A better expression of your beliefs would be to say "I have not personally found enough evidence of the super-natural to classify these beliefs to be true, but accept that they could be true based on the fact that I have not seen all the evidence regarding these subjects. As it stands, they seem unlikely".
I see you as no different than a narrow-minded Christian professing what he believes to be the ultimate truth. You draw inaccurate assumptions and attempt to prove a negative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof), which is one of the ultimate logical fallacies.
The evidence that you mentioned can be explained by said people misinterpreting, imagining, or straight up lying about said encounters. In my mind, this evidence doesn't count for much since it cannot be backed up.
It would also seem logical to act on the most likely possibility. In my mind, the likelyhood of a god existing is so small that it is not worth acting on unless more convincing evidence is found.
Quote from: Torch on January 05, 2010, 08:06:37 AM
The evidence that you mentioned can be explained by said people misinterpreting, imagining, or straight up lying about said encounters. In my mind, this evidence doesn't count for much since it cannot be backed up.
It would also seem logical to act on the most likely possibility. In my mind, the likelyhood of a god existing is so small that it is not worth acting on unless more convincing evidence is found.
Like I said before, not everyone sees a large amount of circumstantial evidence for a belief as a sufficient reason to view it as true. You fit into this category.
The Shroud of Turin is very interesting... Look it up.
~Aqua
I'm surprised this topic has not gone this direction yet.
http://fora.tv/2009/10/07/Richard_Dawkins_The_Greatest_Show_on_Earth#Dawkins_Compares_Creationists_to_Holocaust_Deniers
Lol. What's that law about bringing up Hitler/Nazis as an end to an argument?
But seriously. The scientific viewpoint should not stoop to that level. Yes, there is evidence that goes to prove evolution over creationism. Let that stand on its own merit. If people choose to believe otherwise, so be it. Instead this guy comes off more as a baby holding its breath to get what it wants. "You believe in Creationism? You're no better than Hitler!" How immature.
(Btw, I didn't watch the video. My comment is based solely on the title of the video.)
Well he is basically saying people who are Creationism supporters act the same way as people who are Holocaust deniers. Then he explains why he said that.
But at no point does he say "You believe in Creationism? You're no better than Hitler!" :P But i know you did not watch the vid.
Creationism doesn't always contradict evolution, despite common misconception.
Quote from: ARTgames on March 16, 2010, 08:41:37 PM
Well he is basically saying people who are Creationism supporters act the same way as people who are Holocaust deniers. Then he explains why he said that.
But at no point does he say "You believe in Creationism? You're no better than Hitler!" :P But i know you did not watch the vid.
Yea no, I was just making a point. I can kind of guess how he draws parallels, but it's the fact that he used such a shocking analogy.
Quote from: Jake on March 16, 2010, 10:56:44 PM
Creationism doesn't always contradict evolution, despite common misconception.
Please explain. I would be interested to hear how. From my understanding the core concepts are mutually exclusive. Of course, I'll be the first to admit I don't know everything.
Quote from: Lingus on March 17, 2010, 01:18:12 AM
Please explain. I would be interested to hear how. From my understanding the core concepts are mutually exclusive. Of course, I'll be the first to admit I don't know everything.
First things first, we define Creationism.
"Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in some form by a supernatural being or beings." - Wikipedia
Evolution is fact and theory. The proven part of evolution is what we have observed through biological processes. It's proven because we can test it, view it, etc. The modern evolutionary synthesis theory on the other hand deals with how life has evolved over time. This is the part that many claim to contradict Creationism.
But why do they contradict? Just because God created life, the earth, etc, doesn't mean he didn't use forces of nature to do it. Not every Creationist believes God snapped his fingers and created our earth. In fact, Creationism can often times goes hand in hand with deism (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism"), which supports God through science alone.
Young Earth Creationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism) contradicts evolution, and that's what many Christian fundamentalists believe. Because of this, many people fail to acknowledge the many beliefs that Creationism encompasses, and in turn, things like
this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District) happen, which wrongly generalize a large group of people.
In response to Jake's post (and I suppose the rest of this thread) I think a problem with any certain belief system (or lack thereof, which ironically is a belief system in itself) is that some become slightly obsessive over it. They get so caught up in the every day minutiae of attempting to follow their belief, or attempting to convert others who don't share the same religion/belief/faith, that they end up missing out on living. Please keep in mind that I'm talking about the zealots, not lay practitioners of a certain belief.
An example of this are my father's side of the family, whom are deeply Catholic. They worry over my sister and I because we don't share the same beliefs as them, and desperately try to show us the light each time they visit. They cause themselves extensive amounts of pain and sorrow knowing their nephew and niece are going to suffer for an eternity in Hell, or any other person whom they dearly love or care about for that matter. Sometimes it becomes unendurable to watch them struggle, and no amount of reassurance will quell their fears. I understand and respect their views on life, but I don't understand why they cannot do the same for me. It's this obstruction that I feel impedes a person's ability to just enjoy life and simply live.
On a less personal note, my "belief" is keeping an open mind on others belief systems. I've been to a Christian church numerous times with a close friend, thoroughly enjoying the community of accepting people, singing hymns, and praying. I've put myself in the shoes of an atheist and found the lack of belief liberating as well as frightening. I've gone on a week long retreat at a Buddhist monastery, practicing mindfulness and waking up at 4 o'clock in the morning for an hour of meditation. The great irony of religion is that the vast majority of them have the basic set of moral principles, and the major difference between them is what happens after death.
Having a belief you can fall back on is a wonderful thing in times of doubt, such as the contemplation of death and what might occur thereafter. However, I had to sacrifice complete faith in a specific belief in order to maintain an open mind regarding others. With this sacrifice comes the uncertainty of death (which is another great irony). I take solace in the fact that I am guaranteed an explanation in my life, and I will have to exercise patience before that truth is revealed to me.
The set of principles expressed by the many religions that I've been involved with in my life are roughly summarized in a list of "rules" for being human (in addition to being aptly titled so). The following was found on the door of a refrigerator in a home in Toronto. It has been slightly altered from various people, but it still maintains the essential concept expressed in such a list. The author is anonymous.
Rules for Being Human
1. You will receive a body.
You may like it or hate it, but it will be yours for the entire period you are on this planet.
2. You will learn lessons.
You are enrolled in a full-time informal school called life. Each day in this school you will have the opportunity to learn lessons. You may like the lessons or think them irrelevant and stupid.
3. There are no mistakes, only lessons.
Growth is a process of trial and error, i.e. experimentation. The "failed" experiments are as much a part of the process as the experiment that eventually "works".
4. A lesson is repeated until it is learned.
A lesson will be presented to you in various forms until you have learned it. When you learned it, you can go on to the next lesson.
5. Learning lessons does not end.
There is no part of life that does not contain its lessons. If you are alive there are lessons to be learned.
6. "There" is no better place than "here and now".
When your "there" has become a "here and now", you will simply obtain another "there" that will again, look better than "here and now".
7. Others are merely mirrors of you.
You cannot love or hate something about another unless it reflects to you something you love or hate about yourself.
8. What you make of life is up to you.
You have all the tools and resources you need. What you do with them is up to you. The choice is yours.
9. Life is exactly what you think it is.
You create a life that matches your beliefs and expectations.
10. Your answers lie inside you.
The answers to life's questions lie inside you. All you need to do is look, listen and trust.
11. You will forget all this.
edit: i messed up on editing this post and posted twice.
Quote from: Jake on March 17, 2010, 02:32:48 AM
Quote from: Lingus on March 17, 2010, 01:18:12 AM
Please explain. I would be interested to hear how. From my understanding the core concepts are mutually exclusive. Of course, I'll be the first to admit I don't know everything.
First things first, we define Creationism.
"Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in some form by a supernatural being or beings." - Wikipedia
Evolution is fact and theory. The proven part of evolution is what we have observed through biological processes. It's proven because we can test it, view it, etc. The modern evolutionary synthesis theory on the other hand deals with how life has evolved over time. This is the part that many claim to contradict Creationism.
But why do they contradict? Just because God created life, the earth, etc, doesn't mean he didn't use forces of nature to do it. Not every Creationist believes God snapped his fingers and created our earth. In fact, Creationism can often times goes hand in hand with deism (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism"), which supports God through science alone.
Young Earth Creationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism) contradicts evolution, and that's what many Christian fundamentalists believe. Because of this, many people fail to acknowledge the many beliefs that Creationism encompasses, and in turn, things like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District) happen, which wrongly generalize a large group of people.
That is a good point Jake. Who tould you that? I never really looked into it because i never really took sides. I just posted a video wondering what evolution and religion have to say to each other. And it looks like we got your post. not saying your post is the end of the subject but just something good to point out. something i did not know.
Also then what do you want us to call it to separate the people who do from the people who don't?
Quote from: Jake on March 17, 2010, 02:32:48 AM
Quote from: Lingus on March 17, 2010, 01:18:12 AM
Please explain. I would be interested to hear how. From my understanding the core concepts are mutually exclusive. Of course, I'll be the first to admit I don't know everything.
...Not every Creationist believes God snapped his fingers and created our earth...
Young Earth Creationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism) contradicts evolution, and that's what many Christian fundamentalists believe. Because of this, many people fail to acknowledge the many beliefs that Creationism encompasses, and in turn, things like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District) happen, which wrongly generalize a large group of people.
That's where my understanding broke down. I did not think about Creationism as a more broad scope theory. I assumed the Young Earth Creationism theory was what was being referred to.
Quote from: Lingus on March 17, 2010, 11:13:00 AM
Quote from: Jake on March 17, 2010, 02:32:48 AM
Quote from: Lingus on March 17, 2010, 01:18:12 AM
Please explain. I would be interested to hear how. From my understanding the core concepts are mutually exclusive. Of course, I'll be the first to admit I don't know everything.
...Not every Creationist believes God snapped his fingers and created our earth...
Young Earth Creationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism) contradicts evolution, and that's what many Christian fundamentalists believe. Because of this, many people fail to acknowledge the many beliefs that Creationism encompasses, and in turn, things like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District) happen, which wrongly generalize a large group of people.
That's where my understanding broke down. I did not think about Creationism as a more broad scope theory. I assumed the Young Earth Creationism theory was what was being referred to.
same here
Was going to respond to Trogdor earlier but ran out of time.
Quote from: Trogdor on March 17, 2010, 04:09:22 AMThe great irony of religion is that the vast majority of them have the basic set of moral principles, and the major difference between them is what happens after death.
I'm not sure I agree here. I think most of the major religions have very similar views on the afterlife with minor differences such as the specific details of just how you will burn in hell, or just how much pleasure you will receive in heaven. There are of course exceptions such as Buddhism, but even here there is a sort of similarity. Do good in life you are rewarded (ie Nirvana or reincarnating at a higher stage), do bad and you will be punished (ie reincarnating to a lower stage).
My opinion is that the major differences between religions are the sum of all of the minor differences. Take all of the traditions and rituals of one religion and compare to another and they will look entirely different. Strip those away and the core concepts will be very similar. The irony (or rather tragedy) is that the differences are surface level and if everyone just realized that and accepted those differences while embracing the similarities then there probably would be nothing to argue over.
Quote from: Trogdor on March 17, 2010, 04:09:22 AMHowever, I had to sacrifice complete faith in a specific belief in order to maintain an open mind regarding others. With this sacrifice comes the uncertainty of death (which is another great irony). I take solace in the fact that I am guaranteed an explanation in my life, and I will have to exercise patience before that truth is revealed to me.
I'm very similar in this respect. I don't have a very strong conviction for any belief system. There is a kind of general logic that I adhere to, but even this is maleable. In any case because of this, I feel I am better able to accept other's beliefs.
Where I think we differ is that I don't feel a guarantee that I will receive an explanation of anything in life (or after life). Everything is uncertain, and may likely always be. Even after I die I don't expect some entity to swoop in and give some grand narrative exposition. Nor do I feel I will suddenly become aware of "the truth". I feel death is likely just another stage. We will probably be just as clueless in that stage as we are now. But, that's just a guess. We may never know.
Quote from: Lingus on March 17, 2010, 03:35:12 PM
Take all of the traditions and rituals of one religion and compare to another and they will look entirely different. Strip those away and the core concepts will be very similar. The irony (or rather tragedy) is that the differences are surface level and if everyone just realized that and accepted those differences while embracing the similarities then there probably would be nothing to argue over.
This is
exactly how I feel. Though death is just another one of these dissenting opinions religions have, I attributed a prevailing characteristic to it in order keep with the theme of the topic.
Quote from: Lingus on March 17, 2010, 03:35:12 PM
Even after I die I don't expect some entity to swoop in and give some grand narrative exposition. Nor do I feel I will suddenly become aware of "the truth". I feel death is likely just another stage. We will probably be just as clueless in that stage as we are now. But, that's just a guess. We may never know.
I didn't mean to come off like that. What I meant to say was that when we die, we'll finally know what death itself is. Even if nothing happens and our biological battery simply runs out, the absence of swooping entities or enlightenment to the truth will be the answer, though our conscious self will not realize it. However, if death is another journey that many religions claim, then some part of the self must linger long enough to comprehend what death is.
This is not to say the self lingers for an eternity. Bringing back a controversial subject introduced by Delicious, there have been countless cases of NDE's (Near-Death Experiences) where a person's self remains intact after being pronounced clinically dead, and they project their belief system into the experience of death. Of course, human error plays a part from malfunctioning machinery to mistakes made by doctors. Whether it's the random firing of synapses in the brain as the body realizes its life is coming to a close, struggling to make sense of its current situation/deities exist and welcome their followers with open arms/the body is able to project its local self into the environment temporarily, NDE's are becoming increasingly prevalent in the medical community as newer and more refined life saving/prolonging techniques are invented.
I feel that the overwhelming documented cases of NDE's shouldn't be ignored, as they contribute in their own way to the various belief systems. Depending on what belief system the person had when going into the NDE, it's almost a "confirmation" that said person's belief is true, and further reinforces that specific belief system from this "proof". Of course if this were the case, then each religion who had a member with an NDE would be the "correct" one. Until scientists fully understand what the brain (assuming the mind and self manifest from it) goes through in response to the trauma of near-death, one should not immediately judge and label a situation. The subject to me is fascinating, though I always take it with a grain of salt.
Quote from: Trogdor on March 17, 2010, 05:17:01 PMHowever, if death is another journey that many religions claim, then some part of the self must linger long enough to comprehend what death is.
In as much as we comprehend
life. That's really what I'm getting at I think. We may understand things to a certain extent (which may be not at all) but I don't think we will ever know the full truth. Just as there may be an underlying reality to the "living" world, there may be the same for the "after-life". I guess I'm just saying even if we remain aware on some level after we die, I don't think the "layers" of illusion will instantly drop away as some people believe. I know this isn't what you're saying. I guess I'm going on a tangent a bit.
And yes, I agree on the NDE's there. It's interesting true, but only on a scientific level. I don't feel there is any reason why it can't be explained by biology and psychology. The brain does some crazy stuff near and after death. Your mind is going to interpret that craziness in some very interesting ways.
(http://warkitty.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/cat_pushing_watermelon_argument_invalid.jpg)
What comes after death? I know what it is! the answer is a lot of this (http://www.bittenandbound.com/2008/11/16/2008-victorias-secret-fashion-show-photos/vs-photo-7/)
and a lot of this (http://www.bittenandbound.com/2008/11/16/2008-victorias-secret-fashion-show-photos/adriana-lima/)!
And how could I forget this (http://www.bittenandbound.com/2008/11/16/2008-victorias-secret-fashion-show-photos/vs-photo-5/)!
Quote from: Lingus on March 17, 2010, 06:12:00 PM
And yes, I agree on the NDE's there. It's interesting true, but only on a scientific level. I don't feel there is any reason why it can't be explained by biology and psychology. The brain does some crazy stuff near and after death. Your mind is going to interpret that craziness in some very interesting ways.
There are also NDE recordings of things that can't happen from the brain simply going crazy. For example, if you're completely unconscious and being operated on, how would you know the name of the doctor working on you or what they were wearing and what they were saying at the time if you had never seen or heard of that person before? There's literally hundreds of crazy incidents just like that if you read about them.
I can't answer that other than to say there is a lot about the brain that is not understood. There is every possibility that those external signals are still somehow filtering through. I mean, just because you're unconcious it doesn't mean your ears turn off. Your brain is supposed to shut those signals out, but from what I understand there are incidences of people having heard what people are saying as they lay unconcious. So it is very possible the same thing is occuring.
Though, I guess in that respect there's as much evidence to support either side of the argument. I'm not saying I'm necessarily right. Just offering a counter.
Quote from: Scotty on March 19, 2010, 05:47:38 PM
this (http://www.bittenandbound.com/2008/11/16/2008-victorias-secret-fashion-show-photos/vs-photo-5/)!
Does your skin feel burnt? Because I think you must have just fallen down from heaven, and re-entry would have caused some problems for you.
Quote from: Red October on March 20, 2010, 08:06:26 PM
Quote from: Scotty on March 19, 2010, 05:47:38 PM
this (http://www.bittenandbound.com/2008/11/16/2008-victorias-secret-fashion-show-photos/vs-photo-5/)!
Does your skin feel burnt? Because I think you must have just fallen down from heaven, and re-entry would have caused some problems for you.
Do me a favor, and say that to a woman, the humiliation of watching the girl laugh at you would be priceless to witness. Make sure to video tape it as well.
Quote from: Scotty on March 21, 2010, 02:40:09 AM
Do me a favor, and say that to a woman, the humiliation of watching the girl laugh at you would be priceless to witness. Make sure to video tape it as well.
No one is that stupid to do it for you. You will have to do it yourself. :)
During my day to day pondering of life, death, and tits, I've developed some questions that really irk me. Most people can sufficiently live their lives without knowing the answers to everything... I can't. So I've come here, to a place where I can always count on intellectual people to reply meaningfully and thoughtfully.
Alright, so today the topic I want to discuss is Intelligent Design (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design). Please, everyone, get rid of preconceived notions of ID before reading on. I'm not another person trying to make an argument for Irreducible Complexity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity), or trying to argue that ID can be proven at this point in time (although of course, I accept the fact that evidence could uncover proof for such a theory, but we simply cannot know based on current knowledge of the universe).
To be a little clearer on what I'm trying to accomplish here; I'm not trying to prove something to you guys, I'm just organizing my thoughts and want you guys to give me some feedback on any errors in my thinking process. Forgive me for the rhetorical questions.
Alright, so what do I know? I know that I'm alive for all intensive purposes. I know that I can comprehend things within this realm of existence. I know there are other beings that claim to comprehend things too. But why is any of this happening? Why do we exist within this chaos called the universe? The truth is undoubtedly that nobody knows. What we do know is that the answer isn't going to be simple. One thing I find interesting is how ID is rejected quite commonly in the scientific community for having no evidential basis and because it is supposedly based on religion, yet it's quite common to accept theories that explain our creation by saying "Well uhh, there was this big ball of mass". Religion has not only clouded the minds of many people following it (not everyone of course, there are very bright religionists out there and I have nothing against them), but it has clouded the minds of Atheists as well. Many people are so hell bent against religion, that they feel the only other alternative is to believe in a universe that was created without intelligence, otherwise they risk being labeled as another narrow minded theist or religionist. It's almost as if scientists are trying to prove how the universe could be created through chance alone, rather than look at all possible scenarios.
I encourage everyone to read this article.
http://www.anthropic-principle.com/preprints/god/god.html (http://www.anthropic-principle.com/preprints/god/god.html)
One of the most unbiased articles I've read in a long time, which is really refreshing. Despite the fact that they end up siding slightly with Atheists, they bring up great points and are open to possibilities. Rather than relate ID to religion, they look at it for it's own scientific merits.
Let me quote what I thought was a very interesting paragraph from the article.
"But how come the universe is such as to permit life to exist? Physics and cosmology reveal that the existence of life is dependent on various physical parameters having values within certain very narrow intervals. For example, if the expansion speed of the early universe had been very slightly less than it was, then the universe would have recollapsed within a fraction of a second, and no life could have evolved. If the expansion speed had been very slightly greater than it was, then the density of the universe would have been too low for galaxies, stars and planets to form ? again no life would have evolved. There are a number of other parameters that appear in a similar manner to have been "fine-tuned" for the existence of intelligence life. (This is referred to as the so-called "anthropic coincidences".) If one uses any natural probability distribution over the possible values that these physical parameters could have, it turns out that there would only be an astronomically small probability that they would have values that permit the evolution of life."
The counter-argument that the article produces is that there are an ensemble of universes, and that ours was fine-tuned so perfectly that it is life-permitting. So what exactly makes this answer so much more plausible than ID? I seriously don't understand. Many Atheists will argue that ID has no scientific basis, yet they turn around and argue that somehow life exists in a chaotic universe that was created out of an ensemble of universes that just so happened to allow for the laws of evolution to exist and in turn, life results from this unlikely chance. Amid all this random chaos, chance, luck, whatever, I am writing this paragraph with the ability to fathom... Something which is taken for granted, yet so incalculably rare that it makes winning the lottery look likely. My argument is that both theory's are entirely plausible depending on your frame of mind, and can both be logically followed. So... Why won't they mention ID in schools? Why is it automatically related to religion? Why can't they allow some of the logical theories for ID that have arisen completely unscathed by religion? If a large group of idiots eat cake, does that mean all people who eat cake are idiots? !@#$ no, I love cake, and I am not an idiot.
"The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility." -Albert Einstein
Well, I just want to point out something on the "perfect conditions" required to allow life to exist that you mention. I admit, I didn't read the article, and skimmed your post, except for the last two paragraphs, so that's all I'll want to address.
The statement is very similar to the question, in my mind, "How did the earth just so happen to have the exact conditions to allow life?". The answer? Perception and statistics. From my beliefs and understandings, the universe, in time, will eventually collapse upon itself. Then blow up again. Ad infinitum.
The reason we can not find the beginning of the universe, is because there isn't one. We live in an endless cycle. Eventually, one of those Big Bang's are going to give off the correct conditions. If you roll a million sided dice an infinite amount of times, it is a statistical certainty that you will eventually get the number you're looking for. Beyond that, it is just our perception of "How did it just so happen to come out this way?". Because if it came out in such a way where we didn't have life, there would be no one alive to ponder the question of how they just so happened to exist. Millions upon billions of what we call 'years' pass by, universe squishes together again, rolls the die, and sees what we end up with again.
That's how I see it. If that provides an answer, secksi. IF I was totally off the mark, oh well.
Quote from: Chaos on April 01, 2010, 03:53:28 AM
The reason we can not find the beginning of the universe, is because there isn't one. We live in an endless cycle. Eventually, one of those Big Bang's are going to give off the correct conditions. If you roll a million sided dice an infinite amount of times, it is a statistical certainty that you will eventually get the number you're looking for. Beyond that, it is just our perception of "How did it just so happen to come out this way?". Because if it came out in such a way where we didn't have life, there would be no one alive to ponder the question of how they just so happened to exist. Millions upon billions of what we call 'years' pass by, universe squishes together again, rolls the die, and sees what we end up with again.
I'd like to point out that I don't think of it as rolling dice. It isn't that us humans lucked out when Mother nature rolled her dice and landed on "the human race", therefor allowing humans to have a piece of the universe capable of hosting our presence. I have no doubt in my mind that Humans have adapted (aka evolved) to some extent or another to adapt to our surroundings. Mother nature didn't create "humans" millions of years ago the same as she creates them now. I look at it the opposite way. WE are the ones that rolled the dice and landed on earth's side of the die. We are the ones who lucked out and properly adapted to the earth's means for providing life. Also, I wouldn't use the term "Correct conditions", as there is no such thing. We are still prone to cancer if we breathe according to all the scientists and the FDA. We started out somewhere (in some shape or form) as a species back when the planet was a whole different beast, and as the planet progressed and changed, we've evolved to adapt to the new and ever changing Earth. In my opinion, referencing us lucking out on mother nature's accord isn't the best way to put it.
BTW: Am I the only one that gets a boner seeing Mother Nature in the mini-series "Planet Earth"? She sure is drop dead gorgeous! Wonder if she's taken?
Quote from: Chaos on April 01, 2010, 03:53:28 AM
Well, I just want to point out something on the "perfect conditions" required to allow life to exist that you mention. I admit, I didn't read the article, and skimmed your post, except for the last two paragraphs, so that's all I'll want to address.
The statement is very similar to the question, in my mind, "How did the earth just so happen to have the exact conditions to allow life?". The answer? Perception and statistics. From my beliefs and understandings, the universe, in time, will eventually collapse upon itself. Then blow up again. Ad infinitum.
The reason we can not find the beginning of the universe, is because there isn't one. We live in an endless cycle. Eventually, one of those Big Bang's are going to give off the correct conditions. If you roll a million sided dice an infinite amount of times, it is a statistical certainty that you will eventually get the number you're looking for. Beyond that, it is just our perception of "How did it just so happen to come out this way?". Because if it came out in such a way where we didn't have life, there would be no one alive to ponder the question of how they just so happened to exist. Millions upon billions of what we call 'years' pass by, universe squishes together again, rolls the die, and sees what we end up with again.
That's how I see it. If that provides an answer, secksi. IF I was totally off the mark, oh well.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with almost everything you're saying here. If we live in an ensemble of unlimited universes with unlimited possibilities, eventually one universe will get created that allows for life... Although if you look at things within our universe, specifically the big bang, you'd realize that the statistical probability of life getting created from the big bang is extremely small.
From the article - "if the expansion speed of the early universe had been very slightly less than it was, then the universe would have recollapsed within a fraction of a second, and no life could have evolved".
Not only are we going under the extrapolated assumption that our universe is going in a circle of big bangs, but it's also improbable that our universe would have the ability to create a perfect big bang that allowed for an endless repeat of them to happen. I forgot the exact theory, but it has been suggested that the chemicals in our universe would essentially burn out after one big bang (don't take my word for it. Maybe one of you can recall the name of this theory), which in turn basically concludes that we can't have an unlimited cycle of big bangs.
To me, this suggests the need for multiple universes to explain the statistical probability of life happening. It's not enough to say that there are unlimited occurrences of big bangs in our universe, because even then, those theories rely on a limited amount of probability when one brings up the improbability of these big bangs allowing for consecutive cycles as well as the ability for life to start.
So what point am I trying to make? Every theory regarding our creation is pretty much grasping at straws. Therefore, however unlikely it is that we were created through ID, it sounds of similar probability to current explanations of our universe. Of course, this brings up the question of "Who created God?", and my answer is who knows... But that doesn't mean a God doesn't exist. There could be unlimited God's all creating God's that create stuff. I really don't know.
On the contrary, Scott, it is EXACTLY that we rolled the dice, and ended up with the correct conditions. We are talking about the chances of the universe being able to sustain, well, anything (something that human adaptation will have NO effect on). Any slower Big Bang, it would have re-collapsed on itself. Any faster, and the planets wouldn't have formed properly, or something like that. Humans are irrelevant. Alternatively, there's also the part where I was talking about planets ending up with conditions for life. Yes, there is an argument about evolution and adaptability there, but again, look at all the planets in our solar system that DON'T have life on them. You can be as adaptable as you want, but if life never gets started in the first place...
Tell me, Jake. Do you know anything about String Theory, and Alternate Dimensions? Same deal as my infinite universe and statistical certainty principle, except all dice rolls happened at the same time. ;)
Quote from: Chaos on April 01, 2010, 01:48:09 PM
Humans are irrelevant.
You do realize how useless that mentality is don't you?
We, as humans, are not irrelevant to ourselves.
Quote from: HamsterPants on April 01, 2010, 02:07:53 PM
Quote from: Chaos on April 01, 2010, 01:48:09 PM
Humans are irrelevant.
You do realize how useless that mentality is don't you?
We, as humans, are not irrelevant to ourselves.
Hurr durr. Derp derp derp. Congrats, you'd be a wonderful politician! Or a member of the media.
Now let me teach a little something called "Context".
Quote
con?text
/ˈkɒntɛkst/ Show Spelled[kon-tekst] Show IPA
?noun
1.
the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.
2.
the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.
3.
Mycology. the fleshy fibrous body of the pileus in mushrooms.
In this case, definition #1.
Quote from: Chaos on April 01, 2010, 03:02:59 PM
Quote from: HamsterPants on April 01, 2010, 02:07:53 PM
Quote from: Chaos on April 01, 2010, 01:48:09 PM
Humans are irrelevant.
You do realize how useless that mentality is don't you?
We, as humans, are not irrelevant to ourselves.
Hurr durr. Derp derp derp. Congrats, you'd be a wonderful politician! Or a member of the media.
Now let me teach a little something called "Context".
Quote
con?text
/ˈkɒntɛkst/ Show Spelled[kon-tekst] Show IPA
?noun
1.
the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.
2.
the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.
3.
Mycology. the fleshy fibrous body of the pileus in mushrooms.
In this case, definition #1.
I did it on purpose...
Quote from: HamsterPants on April 01, 2010, 03:05:19 PM
Quote from: Chaos on April 01, 2010, 03:02:59 PM
Quote from: HamsterPants on April 01, 2010, 02:07:53 PM
Quote from: Chaos on April 01, 2010, 01:48:09 PM
Humans are irrelevant.
You do realize how useless that mentality is don't you?
We, as humans, are not irrelevant to ourselves.
Hurr durr. Derp derp derp. Congrats, you'd be a wonderful politician! Or a member of the media.
Now let me teach a little something called "Context".
Quote
con?text
/ˈkɒntɛkst/ Show Spelled[kon-tekst] Show IPA
?noun
1.
the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.
2.
the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.
3.
Mycology. the fleshy fibrous body of the pileus in mushrooms.
In this case, definition #1.
I did it on purpose...
So you PURPOSELY decided to argue against a point I NEVER MADE?
Wow, you WOULD be a good politician or member of the media.
Quote from: Chaos on April 01, 2010, 03:06:34 PM
Quote from: HamsterPants on April 01, 2010, 03:05:19 PM
Quote from: Chaos on April 01, 2010, 03:02:59 PM
Quote from: HamsterPants on April 01, 2010, 02:07:53 PM
Quote from: Chaos on April 01, 2010, 01:48:09 PM
Humans are irrelevant.
You do realize how useless that mentality is don't you?
We, as humans, are not irrelevant to ourselves.
Hurr durr. Derp derp derp. Congrats, you'd be a wonderful politician! Or a member of the media.
Now let me teach a little something called "Context".
Quote
con?text
/ˈkɒntɛkst/ Show Spelled[kon-tekst] Show IPA
?noun
1.
the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.
2.
the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.
3.
Mycology. the fleshy fibrous body of the pileus in mushrooms.
In this case, definition #1.
I did it on purpose...
So you PURPOSELY decided to argue against a point I NEVER MADE?
Wow, you WOULD be a good politician or member of the media.
Yup, too bad I never will be. :P
The following link is an article by Philip K. Dick, author of some very interesting and thought provoking science fiction:
http://deoxy.org/pkd_how2build.htm
In this article he talks about a lot of things. A good portion is relavent, but I do believe his mind is quite a bit unhinged. I'm guessing this is what allows him to write such brilliant pieces. He talks about reality and our perception of it. This relates to some of what Jake is talking about.
All I can really say on the topic is that pretty much everything is conjecture. Anything we observe is based on our perception of the universe. Even with that in mind, we don't have enough evidence to prove anything about what we're talking about. Even in the article Jake linked, they say that the multiple universe theory is an assumption. Any result based on an assumption can potentially be false. And even if the multiple universe theory is true, and it explains how there can be a universe with the possibility of life, that doesn't mean that whole setup was not "intelligently designed." There is no possible way to disprove ID. There is only observations that would make people less likely to believe in it.
Quote from: Lingus on April 01, 2010, 03:26:18 PM
All I can really say on the topic is that pretty much everything is conjecture. Anything we observe is based on our perception of the universe. Even with that in mind, we don't have enough evidence to prove anything about what we're talking about. Even in the article Jake linked, they say that the multiple universe theory is an assumption. Any result based on an assumption can potentially be false. And even if the multiple universe theory is true, and it explains how there can be a universe with the possibility of life, that doesn't mean that whole setup was not "intelligently designed." There is no possible way to disprove ID. There is only observations that would make people less likely to believe in it.
Exactly right.
"What you choose right here and now, that is the true reality of your universe."~ That has always been my way of looking at the perception of reality as a whole. Probably not very scientific, but hey, I never thought science was the most important thing ever.
Actually, on that note, from the article I posted: "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
It's a simple statement, but when you really think about it, it makes a whole lot of sense. We can't really say the universe or that which we observe is not real. I can stop believing in it all I want, but it's still there. But those things which we believe to be true are real at least for the time we believe in them. Intelligent Design is part of some people's reality because they believe in it. Whereas for others, it is not because they do not believe in it.
Well we are always going to do what we do so why go on about it?
Quote from: Chaos on April 01, 2010, 01:48:09 PM
Tell me, Jake. Do you know anything about String Theory, and Alternate Dimensions? Same deal as my infinite universe and statistical certainty principle, except all dice rolls happened at the same time. ;)
The only thing I really know about string theory is that it attempts to explain how the universe works using one theory. Anything else about it confuses me to the point of closing the window and banging my head against the wall.
Quote from: Lingus on April 01, 2010, 03:26:18 PM
There is no possible way to disprove ID. There is only observations that would make people less likely to believe in it.
I don't necessarily believe that to be true. In fact, the more people try to explain the universe, the more I'm inclined to believe in ID.
Anyways, I read *most* of the article you posted, and enjoyed it. The way he views perception and reality is very similar to my own observations. Very interesting read.
Quote from: Jake on April 02, 2010, 01:29:41 PM
Quote from: Chaos on April 01, 2010, 01:48:09 PM
Tell me, Jake. Do you know anything about String Theory, and Alternate Dimensions? Same deal as my infinite universe and statistical certainty principle, except all dice rolls happened at the same time. ;)
The only thing I really know about string theory is that it attempts to explain how the universe works using one theory. Anything else about it confuses me to the point of closing the window and banging my head against the wall.
Don't worry, I'm pretty sure that's the intended effect. But regardless, I'm just referring to the Alternate Dimensions portion of the theory.
Incidentally, I'm not trying to prove Intelligent Design wrong, I'm merely pointing out that there are other explanations for the "CONDITIONS THAT JUST SO HAPPEN TO BE PERFECT" portion. It's not a solid argument for ID to stand upon.
Quote from: Chaos on April 02, 2010, 01:53:31 PM
Incidentally, I'm not trying to prove Intelligent Design wrong, I'm merely pointing out that there are other explanations for the "CONDITIONS THAT JUST SO HAPPEN TO BE PERFECT" portion. It's not a solid argument for ID to stand upon.
Yup, I agree here. My argument is that the explanations for the conditions just happening to be perfect seem of similar likeliness as ID. It's gotten to the point where scientists are using alternate dimensions and multiple universes to explain that statistical probability of life without intent. of course, this brings to light what Lingus stated earlier, which is that ID could be the cause of alternate dimensions and multiple universes and basically provided the statistical probability of life being created.
ID goes on one assumption. Intelligence made us. it doesn't even have to be a God, just something that actually has what I would describe as awareness. I'm not arguing that ID is more probable than other theories, because I don't have enough information to make such a decision. On the other hand, I find ID to be a viable option when presented amongst current theories that try to describe our existence.
Quote from: Lingus on April 01, 2010, 03:41:04 PM
Actually, on that note, from the article I posted: "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
It's a simple statement, but when you really think about it, it makes a whole lot of sense. We can't really say the universe or that which we observe is not real. I can stop believing in it all I want, but it's still there. But those things which we believe to be true are real at least for the time we believe in them. Intelligent Design is part of some people's reality because they believe in it. Whereas for others, it is not because they do not believe in it.
Ah yes, and I suppose that the point I made was rather unrelated to begin with, in the quote that I used, it involved choices rather than beliefs, and I specifically said "your universe" as in, everything that you yourself are living. It's a first-person view...
So yeah....
Quote from: Jake on April 02, 2010, 02:44:14 PM
Quote from: Chaos on April 02, 2010, 01:53:31 PM
Incidentally, I'm not trying to prove Intelligent Design wrong, I'm merely pointing out that there are other explanations for the "CONDITIONS THAT JUST SO HAPPEN TO BE PERFECT" portion. It's not a solid argument for ID to stand upon.
Yup, I agree here. My argument is that the explanations for the conditions just happening to be perfect seem of similar likeliness as ID. It's gotten to the point where scientists are using alternate dimensions and multiple universes to explain that statistical probability of life without intent. of course, this brings to light what Lingus stated earlier, which is that ID could be the cause of alternate dimensions and multiple universes and basically provided the statistical probability of life being created.
ID goes on one assumption. Intelligence made us. it doesn't even have to be a God, just something that actually has what I would describe as awareness. I'm not arguing that ID is more probable than other theories, because I don't have enough information to make such a decision. On the other hand, I find ID to be a viable option when presented amongst current theories that try to describe our existence.
The point you made about "intelligence made us", I have to say, it seems rather plausible, otherwise, how would lifeforms instinctively know to evolve, and on another note, what is instinct, and why does it seem to exist in all life?
The world changes frequently regardless of how perfect the conditions are, and yet life still adapts to the changes.
Quote from: HamsterPants on April 02, 2010, 03:11:16 PM
I have to say, it seems rather plausible, otherwise, how would lifeforms instinctively know to evolve, and on another note, what is instinct, and why does it seem to exist in all life?
The world changes frequently regardless of how perfect the conditions are, and yet life still adapts to the changes.
If there are infinite universes with an infinite number of combination's, the statistical probability of a universe being created that allows for the laws of evolution to exist is very likely. It's like creating a program that spits out random formations of code. Eventually, it will create code that resembles something intelligently made. It is not our place to argue that this code generator does not have the ability to create something useful, but rather if the generator could exist in the first place.
Quote from: Jake on April 02, 2010, 03:23:51 PM
Quote from: HamsterPants on April 02, 2010, 03:11:16 PM
I have to say, it seems rather plausible, otherwise, how would lifeforms instinctively know to evolve, and on another note, what is instinct, and why does it seem to exist in all life?
The world changes frequently regardless of how perfect the conditions are, and yet life still adapts to the changes.
If there are infinite universes with an infinite number of combination's, the statistical probability of a universe being created that allows for the laws of evolution to exist is very likely.
Exactly.
Another question, assuming that it is infinite in mass, what would be the need for more than one universe?
Quote from: HamsterPants on April 02, 2010, 03:26:00 PM
Quote from: Jake on April 02, 2010, 03:23:51 PM
Quote from: HamsterPants on April 02, 2010, 03:11:16 PM
I have to say, it seems rather plausible, otherwise, how would lifeforms instinctively know to evolve, and on another note, what is instinct, and why does it seem to exist in all life?
The world changes frequently regardless of how perfect the conditions are, and yet life still adapts to the changes.
If there are infinite universes with an infinite number of combination's, the statistical probability of a universe being created that allows for the laws of evolution to exist is very likely.
Exactly.
Another question, assuming that it is infinite in mass, what would be the need for more than one universe?
Well, some would argue that you need more than one universe to argue why life is probable. If there was only one universe, it could bring into question why the laws of this specific universe are so fine tuned. Technically though, there is no "need" for anything... it just is.
Quote from: Jake on April 02, 2010, 03:28:18 PM
Quote from: HamsterPants on April 02, 2010, 03:26:00 PM
Quote from: Jake on April 02, 2010, 03:23:51 PM
Quote from: HamsterPants on April 02, 2010, 03:11:16 PM
I have to say, it seems rather plausible, otherwise, how would lifeforms instinctively know to evolve, and on another note, what is instinct, and why does it seem to exist in all life?
The world changes frequently regardless of how perfect the conditions are, and yet life still adapts to the changes.
If there are infinite universes with an infinite number of combination's, the statistical probability of a universe being created that allows for the laws of evolution to exist is very likely.
Exactly.
Another question, assuming that it is infinite in mass, what would be the need for more than one universe?
Well, some would argue that you need more than one universe to argue why life is probable. If there was only one universe, it could bring into question why the laws of this specific universe are so fine tuned. Technically though, there is no "need" for anything... it just is.
And then, that's where religion comes in to give supposed needs for such things, namely 'existence' as a whole.
Quote from: HamsterPants on April 02, 2010, 03:41:32 PM
Quote from: Jake on April 02, 2010, 03:28:18 PM
Quote from: HamsterPants on April 02, 2010, 03:26:00 PM
Quote from: Jake on April 02, 2010, 03:23:51 PM
Quote from: HamsterPants on April 02, 2010, 03:11:16 PM
I have to say, it seems rather plausible, otherwise, how would lifeforms instinctively know to evolve, and on another note, what is instinct, and why does it seem to exist in all life?
The world changes frequently regardless of how perfect the conditions are, and yet life still adapts to the changes.
If there are infinite universes with an infinite number of combination's, the statistical probability of a universe being created that allows for the laws of evolution to exist is very likely.
Exactly.
Another question, assuming that it is infinite in mass, what would be the need for more than one universe?
Well, some would argue that you need more than one universe to argue why life is probable. If there was only one universe, it could bring into question why the laws of this specific universe are so fine tuned. Technically though, there is no "need" for anything... it just is.
And then, that's where religion comes in to give supposed needs for such things, namely 'existence' as a whole.
No, religion comes in to to pray on the weak minded, and throw in a bunch of other bullshit along with the belief in a God. That goes without saying that there are very intelligent religious people out there who have studied and understand why they believe the way they do, sadly, the majority of religious people are sheep that don't want to think for themselves.
Quote from: Jake on April 02, 2010, 03:47:09 PM
Quote from: HamsterPants on April 02, 2010, 03:41:32 PM
Quote from: Jake on April 02, 2010, 03:28:18 PM
Quote from: HamsterPants on April 02, 2010, 03:26:00 PM
Quote from: Jake on April 02, 2010, 03:23:51 PM
Quote from: HamsterPants on April 02, 2010, 03:11:16 PM
I have to say, it seems rather plausible, otherwise, how would lifeforms instinctively know to evolve, and on another note, what is instinct, and why does it seem to exist in all life?
The world changes frequently regardless of how perfect the conditions are, and yet life still adapts to the changes.
If there are infinite universes with an infinite number of combination's, the statistical probability of a universe being created that allows for the laws of evolution to exist is very likely.
Exactly.
Another question, assuming that it is infinite in mass, what would be the need for more than one universe?
Well, some would argue that you need more than one universe to argue why life is probable. If there was only one universe, it could bring into question why the laws of this specific universe are so fine tuned. Technically though, there is no "need" for anything... it just is.
And then, that's where religion comes in to give supposed needs for such things, namely 'existence' as a whole.
No, religion comes in to to pray on the weak minded, and throw in a bunch of other bullshit along with the belief in a God. That goes without saying that there are very intelligent religious people out there who have studied and understand why they believe the way they do, sadly, the majority of religious people are sheep that don't want to think for themselves.
Ouch! Dude, I'm supposed to be the ultimate dick!
Quote from: Scotty on April 02, 2010, 04:08:29 PM
Quote from: Jake on April 02, 2010, 03:47:09 PM
Quote from: HamsterPants on April 02, 2010, 03:41:32 PM
Quote from: Jake on April 02, 2010, 03:28:18 PM
Quote from: HamsterPants on April 02, 2010, 03:26:00 PM
Quote from: Jake on April 02, 2010, 03:23:51 PM
Quote from: HamsterPants on April 02, 2010, 03:11:16 PM
I have to say, it seems rather plausible, otherwise, how would lifeforms instinctively know to evolve, and on another note, what is instinct, and why does it seem to exist in all life?
The world changes frequently regardless of how perfect the conditions are, and yet life still adapts to the changes.
If there are infinite universes with an infinite number of combination's, the statistical probability of a universe being created that allows for the laws of evolution to exist is very likely.
Exactly.
Another question, assuming that it is infinite in mass, what would be the need for more than one universe?
Well, some would argue that you need more than one universe to argue why life is probable. If there was only one universe, it could bring into question why the laws of this specific universe are so fine tuned. Technically though, there is no "need" for anything... it just is.
And then, that's where religion comes in to give supposed needs for such things, namely 'existence' as a whole.
No, religion comes in to to pray on the weak minded, and throw in a bunch of other bullshit along with the belief in a God. That goes without saying that there are very intelligent religious people out there who have studied and understand why they believe the way they do, sadly, the majority of religious people are sheep that don't want to think for themselves.
Ouch! Dude, I'm supposed to be the ultimate dick!
Unfortunately, it's the truth a lot of the time. Douchebags want power over people, and when it comes to religion, people are more than willing to give said douchebags power.
Quote from: Jake on April 02, 2010, 03:47:09 PM
Quote from: HamsterPants on April 02, 2010, 03:41:32 PM
Quote from: Jake on April 02, 2010, 03:28:18 PM
Quote from: HamsterPants on April 02, 2010, 03:26:00 PM
Quote from: Jake on April 02, 2010, 03:23:51 PM
Quote from: HamsterPants on April 02, 2010, 03:11:16 PM
I have to say, it seems rather plausible, otherwise, how would lifeforms instinctively know to evolve, and on another note, what is instinct, and why does it seem to exist in all life?
The world changes frequently regardless of how perfect the conditions are, and yet life still adapts to the changes.
If there are infinite universes with an infinite number of combination's, the statistical probability of a universe being created that allows for the laws of evolution to exist is very likely.
Exactly.
Another question, assuming that it is infinite in mass, what would be the need for more than one universe?
Well, some would argue that you need more than one universe to argue why life is probable. If there was only one universe, it could bring into question why the laws of this specific universe are so fine tuned. Technically though, there is no "need" for anything... it just is.
And then, that's where religion comes in to give supposed needs for such things, namely 'existence' as a whole.
No, religion comes in to to pray on the weak minded, and throw in a bunch of other bullshit along with the belief in a God. That goes without saying that there are very intelligent religious people out there who have studied and understand why they believe the way they do, sadly, the majority of religious people are sheep that don't want to think for themselves.
Like Chaos said, that is true most of the time, but I will not agree that such is the case for all religion.
Druidism is a good example, also Buddhism, Hinduism, ect.
Quote from: HamsterPants on April 02, 2010, 04:30:29 PM
Like Chaos said, that is true most of the time, but I will not agree that such is the case for all religion.
Druidism is a good example, also Buddhism, Hinduism, ect.
I honestly have nothing against religion in general, only people and their reasons for following said religions. For example, if someone is a Buddhist because "it sounds correct", I think they're an idiot. Same goes for any other religion. On the other hand, if they have studied that individual religion, and have come to the logical conclusion in their mind that that religion holds truth for them, I support them 100%. Sadly, this is often not the case, and people who logically think about the truth usually don't follow a religion.
Quote from: Jake on April 02, 2010, 04:39:49 PM
Quote from: HamsterPants on April 02, 2010, 04:30:29 PM
Like Chaos said, that is true most of the time, but I will not agree that such is the case for all religion.
Druidism is a good example, also Buddhism, Hinduism, ect.
I honestly have nothing against religion in general, only people and their reasons for following said religions. For example, if someone is a Buddhist because "it sounds correct", I think they're an idiot. Same goes for any other religion. On the other hand, if they have studied that individual religion, and have come to the logical conclusion in their mind that that religion holds truth for them, I support them 100%. Sadly, this is often not the case, and people who logically think about the truth usually don't follow a religion.
Religion is not considered to be scientific, so exclusively approaching it intellectually is not exactly the best method to achieve the desired results.
I do agree, every religion should be heavily inspected, and one shouldn't stay in a religion just because they were raised in it, or because somebody they want to marry is in it. I don't know how many churches encourage their members to investigate every single detail of the religion, but I do know that Mormonism has a reputation for encouraging that. I always appreciated that about it too.
(Also, sorry if my comments may seem biased, most of the time I can only speak for Mormonism, because I know enough about it.)
Quote from: HamsterPants on April 02, 2010, 04:46:04 PM
Religion is not considered to be scientific, so exclusively approaching it intellectually is not exactly the best method to achieve the desired results.
So people should choose religion through emotion rather than rationalization?
Sorry to jump back a bit, but you all seem to go off on tangents while I'm away from the computer... so to respond:
Quote from: Jake on April 02, 2010, 01:29:41 PM
Quote from: Chaos on April 01, 2010, 01:48:09 PM
Tell me, Jake. Do you know anything about String Theory, and Alternate Dimensions? Same deal as my infinite universe and statistical certainty principle, except all dice rolls happened at the same time. ;)
The only thing I really know about string theory is that it attempts to explain how the universe works using one theory. Anything else about it confuses me to the point of closing the window and banging my head against the wall.
I believe you are thinking of what is refered to as the Theory of Everything or Grand Unified Theory (I believe there's some differences in those two things, but that's the concept you're talking about.) String Theory is different.
Quote from: Jake on April 02, 2010, 01:29:41 PM
Quote from: Lingus on April 01, 2010, 03:26:18 PM
There is no possible way to disprove ID. There is only observations that would make people less likely to believe in it.
I don't necessarily believe that to be true. In fact, the more people try to explain the universe, the more I'm inclined to believe in ID.
Anyways, I read *most* of the article you posted, and enjoyed it. The way he views perception and reality is very similar to my own observations. Very interesting read.
Perhaps I should have said: There is only observations that would make people
more or less likely to believe in it.
Quote from: Jake on April 02, 2010, 02:44:14 PMIt's gotten to the point where scientists are using alternate dimensions and multiple universes to explain that statistical probability of life without intent.
I'm curious, is this an issue for you? This act alone, theorizing on multiple universes or alternate dimensions, does not in itself negate the core concept of ID (as you pointed out that I mentioned). So why would it be a problem? You mentioned earlier something about keeping options open. I don't believe scientists are particularly trying to disprove the concept of an intelligently designed universe. Rather, they are scientifically looking at any and all possible theories. It is the opposite of, "The universe/life is so complex that it must have been intelligently designed." Instead it is, "The universe/life is so complex. Let's figure out what process may have brought it about, independant of the potential possibility of intelligent design."
With that said, there are likely scientists who think they are attempting to disprove ID, but these are not very good scientists. A good scientist wouldn't care about that part and would only care about learning the truth or gaining additional knowledge. This is why I always say these two topics are completely separate. You can learn all you want about the universe and it will tell you nothing of the possibilities of the "spiritual world," whether it exists or not. The two topics are mutually exclusive in my opinion.
On this note, the above two paragraphs is really what I don't like about the article you linked. It seems to be making a connection between these two topics. Pitting the scientific viewpoint against the religious. Making an inference that one would win out over the other or make one more or less plausible. That will never be the case. Yes, it may not take a biased stance on either side, but it is still in the debate. In my opinion, the debate itself is pointless.
I thoght this might be intresting.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_deathControlled clinical death
Certain surgeries for cerebral aneurysms or aortic arch defects require that blood circulation be stopped while repairs are performed. This deliberate temporary induction of clinical death is called circulatory arrest. It is typically performed by lowering body temperature to +18?C (+64?F), stopping the heart, stopping the brain with drugs to conserve energy, turning off the heart lung machine, and draining blood to eliminate all blood pressure. At such low temperatures the clinically dead state can be sustained without serious brain injury for up to one hour. Longer durations are possible at lower temperatures, but the usefulness of longer procedures has not been established yet.
Controlled clinical death has also been proposed as a treatment for exsanguinating trauma to create time for surgical repair.
Could this be considered comming back from death?
Or more importantly does this mean your a zombie?
Quote from: Lingus on April 02, 2010, 07:09:26 PM
I believe you are thinking of what is refered to as the Theory of Everything or Grand Unified Theory (I believe there's some differences in those two things, but that's the concept you're talking about.) String Theory is different.
Well, when I was reading the wiki page for String Theory, I came across this.
"In particular, string theory is the first candidate for the theory of everything (TOE), a way to describe the known fundamental forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions) and matter (quarks and leptons) in a mathematically complete system."
Does that not qualify?
Quote from: Lingus on April 02, 2010, 07:09:26 PM
I'm curious, is this an issue for you? This act alone, theorizing on multiple universes or alternate dimensions, does not in itself negate the core concept of ID (as you pointed out that I mentioned). So why would it be a problem? You mentioned earlier something about keeping options open. I don't believe scientists are particularly trying to disprove the concept of an intelligently designed universe. Rather, they are scientifically looking at any and all possible theories. It is the opposite of, "The universe/life is so complex that it must have been intelligently designed." Instead it is, "The universe/life is so complex. Let's figure out what process may have brought it about, independant of the potential possibility of intelligent design."
With that said, there are likely scientists who think they are attempting to disprove ID, but these are not very good scientists. A good scientist wouldn't care about that part and would only care about learning the truth or gaining additional knowledge. This is why I always say these two topics are completely separate. You can learn all you want about the universe and it will tell you nothing of the possibilities of the "spiritual world," whether it exists or not. The two topics are mutually exclusive in my opinion.
On this note, the above two paragraphs is really what I don't like about the article you linked. It seems to be making a connection between these two topics. Pitting the scientific viewpoint against the religious. Making an inference that one would win out over the other or make one more or less plausible. That will never be the case. Yes, it may not take a biased stance on either side, but it is still in the debate. In my opinion, the debate itself is pointless.
I understand where you're coming from a little better now. I think the key difference between our view points is that you have divided spirituality and science. I believe that if some kind of spiritual force does exist, it's unified with science, which is why I regard Intelligent Design as a scientific theory.
You are correct in that the debate between ID and multiple universes and statistical probability, is kind of moot, simply because they don't contradict each other. At the same time, depending on how you look at it, each theories own plausibility effects the others plausibility. For example, if there
was an all powerful God, one might be less likely to believe in multiple universes because it isn't necessary to explain how life was created. I mean, one of the only reasons we believe there could be multiple universes out there right now is because it's a possible explanation for how are universe is so fine tuned to allow life to exist. The existence of God lowers the plausibility that this is true because it takes away the need to find another reason for life to exist. Am I making any sense at all?
I think after death you go to heaven or hell
Quote from: Forum on April 02, 2010, 09:49:52 PM
I think after death you go to heaven or hell
Why did you use a default Windows 7 wallpaper for your avatar?
That just seems really random, and lazy.
Quote from: HamsterPants on April 02, 2010, 10:35:02 PM
Quote from: Forum on April 02, 2010, 09:49:52 PM
I think after death you go to heaven or hell
Why did you use a default Windows 7 wallpaper for your avatar?
That just seems really random, and lazy.
I guess im also random and lazy. : (
Quote from: Jake on April 02, 2010, 09:33:55 PM
Quote from: Lingus on April 02, 2010, 07:09:26 PM
I believe you are thinking of what is refered to as the Theory of Everything or Grand Unified Theory (I believe there's some differences in those two things, but that's the concept you're talking about.) String Theory is different.
Well, when I was reading the wiki page for String Theory, I came across this.
"In particular, string theory is the first candidate for the theory of everything (TOE), a way to describe the known fundamental forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions) and matter (quarks and leptons) in a mathematically complete system."
Does that not qualify?
Yes, that would qualify. I wasn't thinking about that.
Quote from: Jake on April 02, 2010, 09:33:55 PM
Quote from: Lingus on April 02, 2010, 07:09:26 PM
I'm curious, is this an issue for you? This act alone, theorizing on multiple universes or alternate dimensions, does not in itself negate the core concept of ID (as you pointed out that I mentioned). So why would it be a problem? You mentioned earlier something about keeping options open. I don't believe scientists are particularly trying to disprove the concept of an intelligently designed universe. Rather, they are scientifically looking at any and all possible theories. It is the opposite of, "The universe/life is so complex that it must have been intelligently designed." Instead it is, "The universe/life is so complex. Let's figure out what process may have brought it about, independant of the potential possibility of intelligent design."
With that said, there are likely scientists who think they are attempting to disprove ID, but these are not very good scientists. A good scientist wouldn't care about that part and would only care about learning the truth or gaining additional knowledge. This is why I always say these two topics are completely separate. You can learn all you want about the universe and it will tell you nothing of the possibilities of the "spiritual world," whether it exists or not. The two topics are mutually exclusive in my opinion.
On this note, the above two paragraphs is really what I don't like about the article you linked. It seems to be making a connection between these two topics. Pitting the scientific viewpoint against the religious. Making an inference that one would win out over the other or make one more or less plausible. That will never be the case. Yes, it may not take a biased stance on either side, but it is still in the debate. In my opinion, the debate itself is pointless.
I understand where you're coming from a little better now. I think the key difference between our view points is that you have divided spirituality and science. I believe that if some kind of spiritual force does exist, it's unified with science, which is why I regard Intelligent Design as a scientific theory.
You are correct in that the debate between ID and multiple universes and statistical probability, is kind of moot, simply because they don't contradict each other. At the same time, depending on how you look at it, each theories own plausibility effects the others plausibility. For example, if there was an all powerful God, one might be less likely to believe in multiple universes because it isn't necessary to explain how life was created. I mean, one of the only reasons we believe there could be multiple universes out there right now is because it's a possible explanation for how are universe is so fine tuned to allow life to exist. The existence of God lowers the plausibility that this is true because it takes away the need to find another reason for life to exist. Am I making any sense at all?
I guess I should explain a bit more. I am only referring to the possibility of proof of these things. The method of gaining knowledge on either realm (the physical and the spiritual). This is where I find they are mutually exclusive. I agree with you though that they are both probably fully intertwined. If there is an intelligent spiritual force behind the creation of the physical world, it definitely is related. There would be an inherent reason why the physical world is the way it is. But there would be no "physical" way for us to have any evidence of that. That's really my point. You can use all of the physical evidence you want and it will tell you nothing of the spiritual world. Not that they aren't somehow and/or fully related to each other.
Quote from: ARTgames on April 02, 2010, 08:36:40 PM
I thoght this might be intresting.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_deathControlled clinical death
Certain surgeries for cerebral aneurysms or aortic arch defects require that blood circulation be stopped while repairs are performed. This deliberate temporary induction of clinical death is called circulatory arrest. It is typically performed by lowering body temperature to +18?C (+64?F), stopping the heart, stopping the brain with drugs to conserve energy, turning off the heart lung machine, and draining blood to eliminate all blood pressure. At such low temperatures the clinically dead state can be sustained without serious brain injury for up to one hour. Longer durations are possible at lower temperatures, but the usefulness of longer procedures has not been established yet.
Controlled clinical death has also been proposed as a treatment for exsanguinating trauma to create time for surgical repair.
Could this be considered comming back from death? Or more importantly does this mean your a zombie?
I've heard of this. It's definitely very interesting. And yes, to answer your question, it is definitely coming back from death. (Though I'm guessing a bit different than the definition of a zombie.) Though still, this doesn't prove anything about near death experiences. Not that you said it did...
Quote from: Lingus on April 02, 2010, 11:06:47 PM
I've heard of this. It's definitely very interesting. And yes, to answer your question, it is definitely coming back from death. (Though I'm guessing a bit different than the definition of a zombie.) Though still, this doesn't prove anything about near death experiences. Not that you said it did...
I don't think so.
It just doesn't seem to have enough evidence backing it, clinically, it is considered death, but I don't think it was 100% death.
The fact of the matter is, you cannot bring somebody back to life if they are dead for a certain period of time(not saying I don't believe zombis exist), which leads me to believe that it is simply that the person wasn't really dead, maybe half-dead, if there is such a thing.
Quote from: HamsterPants on April 03, 2010, 04:07:51 AM
Quote from: Lingus on April 02, 2010, 11:06:47 PM
I've heard of this. It's definitely very interesting. And yes, to answer your question, it is definitely coming back from death. (Though I'm guessing a bit different than the definition of a zombie.) Though still, this doesn't prove anything about near death experiences. Not that you said it did...
I don't think so.
It just doesn't seem to have enough evidence backing it, clinically, it is considered death, but I don't think it was 100% death.
The fact of the matter is, you cannot bring somebody back to life if they are dead for a certain period of time(not saying I don't believe zombis exist), which leads me to believe that it is simply that the person wasn't really dead, maybe half-dead, if there is such a thing.
Nope. They are dead. The problem with death and coming back to life is that if your brain isn't getting enough oxygen (as will happen when your heart stops) then it starts to decay quickly. By lower the body temperature as well as some other techniques, they have found a way to preserve the brain for a longer period of time than usual. This buys them enough time to do whatever needs to be done in order to save the person and then bring their temp back up and start up their heart. Obviously there would still be some risk of brain damage, and probably the possibility of not coming back alive, but this would be used as a last resort. Only if they would have died if they did nothing. But yes, the heart is stopped and there is no detectable brain activity. There is no other definition for death. You can't be more dead than that.
Then what do these people say how there dead time was?
Are you talking about when someone dies in a hospital and they have to announce the time of death? I imagine they wouldn't do that until they have attempt to revive the person and they can't. In that case, I'm not sure. They would either use the current time, or the time when they stopped their heart.
Oops. I meant: How did the people they brought back say how there time being dead was like?
Quote from: ARTgames on April 05, 2010, 09:18:37 PM
Oops. I meant: How did the people they brought back say how there time being dead was like?
Read up on NDE's and you can get a good idea... Despite the fact that brain waves have stopped, there are recorded cases of people having very lucid experiences.
This NDE (http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html) in particular is very interesting. The woman is made clinically dead for a surgery, and reports her experience.
Well, the problem I have with NDEs is there is no way to know when they experienced it. They may be having the experience while they are completely alive and simply unconcious. Then, after the experience they die and they experience nothing. When they are revived and are told they had died, they would assume the experience they remembered was when they were dead.
Obviously, I recognize there is some weird and seemingly unexplainable phenomena such as the person being dead yet being able to recall what people around them were saying. Though I still feel there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for those kinds of things.
Quote from: Lingus on April 06, 2010, 01:36:20 PM
Obviously, I recognize there is some weird and seemingly unexplainable phenomena such as the person being dead yet being able to recall what people around them were saying. Though I still feel there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for those kinds of things.
I agree here. Simply because it's unexplainable at this point in time does not mean there is no explanation for it. At the same time, there are some things that really can't be explained... For example, people being operated on have watched their operation in progress, and knew what the doctors were wearing, how they looked, etc. I can't imagine how that would be possible, unless the person was lying or had some kind of lucid dream, combined with senses that were still intact, such as their hearing, in order to form some kind of accurate mental image of what was going on.
Quote from: Jake on April 06, 2010, 02:27:34 PM
combined with senses that were still intact, such as their hearing, in order to form some kind of accurate mental image of what was going on.
This is what I believe. I think the subconcious mind picks up on a whole crap load of information that we don't conciously think about. The person may have caught a glimpse of the doctor before hand to know what they were wearing, they "heard" the doctor talking in the operating room and their mind filled in the rest of the info needed.
Quote from: Jake on April 05, 2010, 09:46:42 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on April 05, 2010, 09:18:37 PM
Oops. I meant: How did the people they brought back say how there time being dead was like?
Read up on NDE's and you can get a good idea... Despite the fact that brain waves have stopped, there are recorded cases of people having very lucid experiences.
This NDE (http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html) in particular is very interesting. The woman is made clinically dead for a surgery, and reports her experience.
I knew a guy who had an NDE a while back, he said that he saw his relatives waiting too.
Also:
Quote from: Aqua on August 06, 2009, 08:13:03 PM
After his death, he became more aware of what was around him, because he was not limited by his human body, brain, or senses
Just putting out that I wrote this 8 months before reading that NDE you posted, where the woman's senses sharpened; and that's the only NDE I've ever read.
~Aqua
Quote from: Aqua on April 06, 2010, 08:44:48 PM
Quote from: Jake on April 05, 2010, 09:46:42 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on April 05, 2010, 09:18:37 PM
Oops. I meant: How did the people they brought back say how there time being dead was like?
Read up on NDE's and you can get a good idea... Despite the fact that brain waves have stopped, there are recorded cases of people having very lucid experiences.
This NDE (http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html) in particular is very interesting. The woman is made clinically dead for a surgery, and reports her experience.
I knew a guy who had an NDE a while back, he said that he saw his relatives waiting too.
Also:
Quote from: Aqua on August 06, 2009, 08:13:03 PM
After his death, he became more aware of what was around him, because he was not limited by his human body, brain, or senses
Just putting out that I wrote this 8 months before reading that NDE you posted, where the woman's senses sharpened; and that's the only NDE I've ever read.
~Aqua
If you read up on more NDE's, it's actually pretty common for the out of body experiences to be extremely vivid. Many people report it as thinking clearly for the first time.
My grandma had an NDE when she was going through surgery a long long time ago. She said that she watched all the doctors work on her as she floated peacefully up to the corner of the room. When she woke up, she saw the doctor that had lead the surgery and said thank you. The doctor replied "How did you know I was the one that operated on you" (or something along those lines), and my grandma replied "Because I was watching you do it".
Quote from: Jake on April 07, 2010, 01:39:43 AMIf you read up on more NDE's, it's actually pretty common for the out of body experiences to be extremely vivid. Many people report it as thinking clearly for the first time.
Probably has something to do with the process taking place in the brain at the time. If the brain really is working on some level, this level of functioning probably causes the person to feel this way. If this is the case, then all/most NDEs would be experienced in this way.
Quote from: Jake on April 07, 2010, 01:39:43 AM
My grandma had an NDE when she was going through surgery a long long time ago. She said that she watched all the doctors work on her as she floated peacefully up to the corner of the room. When she woke up, she saw the doctor that had lead the surgery and said thank you. The doctor replied "How did you know I was the one that operated on you" (or something along those lines), and my grandma replied "Because I was watching you do it".
Jake, sorry but that is really creepy to me.