one word(click to show/hide)
I don't think this even deserves discussion, outside the U.S. It's asking "should there be a separation between an organization full of delusional people that believe in a fairy tale and the state?" It's not a question that requires discussion.Church tax
I don't think this even deserves discussion, outside the U.S. It's asking "should there be a separation between an organization full of delusional people that believe in a fairy tale and the state?" It's not a question that requires discussion.
Islam is the one true religion.
I don't think this even deserves discussion, outside the U.S. It's asking "should there be a separation between an organization full of delusional people that believe in a fairy tale and the state?" It's not a question that requires discussion.
If there's anywhere that this question still requires much discussion, it's in the muslim world. Map of nations having a "state religion":Forgot Russia. 2 years of imprisonment for dancing in a church.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_state_religions.svg
The US has separation of church and state. Dominionists are not a political factor, even most of the far-right christians have a tendency to worship the constitution when it comes to the rule of law, not necessarily the bible. The deification of the founding fathers and the mythology built around them (especially by conservatives) is a big hint.Yes, sure, in theory. But the US has a crazy amount of "believers" compared to Europe. In Scandinavia, it is extremely rare to meet anyone that's not an atheist. Believers got made fun of in school. In many parts of the US, it's completely the opposite: atheists bullied in school and made fun of. Europe's almost gotten over the whole religion thing as a whole, but US is still far from that.
If there's anywhere that this question still requires much discussion, it's in the muslim world. Map of nations having a "state religion":
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_state_religions.svg
Yes, sure, in theory. But the US has a crazy amount of "believers" compared to Europe. In Scandinavia, it is extremely rare to meet anyone that's not an atheist. Believers got made fun of in school. In many parts of the US, it's completely the opposite: atheists bullied in school and made fun of. Europe's almost gotten over the whole religion thing as a whole, but US is still far from that.
Yes, sure, in theory. But the US has a crazy amount of "believers" compared to Europe. In Scandinavia, it is extremely rare to meet anyone that's not an atheist. Believers got made fun of in school. In many parts of the US, it's completely the opposite: atheists bullied in school and made fun of. Europe's almost gotten over the whole religion thing as a whole, but US is still far from that.
If there's anywhere that this question still requires much discussion, it's in the muslim world. Map of nations having a "state religion":
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_state_religions.svg
The north, yes. But not the south. And not the east, either. The north had it easier to get over it, since it didn't exactly arrive with love and peace in its hands and was thus never really welcome there.
But yeah, America is still a completely different story.
Wait...
Norway, Finland, Denmark... wtf?
In Europe, there is France which is so far the country with the most sound state/religion separation and state neutrality (for historical reasons). It is getting eroded right now though as things like banning all religious symbols in state workplaces is considered intolerant for some reason.
Yes, sure, in theory. But the US has a crazy amount of "believers" compared to Europe. In Scandinavia, it is extremely rare to meet anyone that's not an atheist. Believers got made fun of in school. In many parts of the US, it's completely the opposite: atheists bullied in school and made fun of. Europe's almost gotten over the whole religion thing as a whole, but US is still far from that.
I think when you guys talk shit about religion, what you really mean is Abrahamic religions, and that is a problem of its own, both your in your 'enlightened humanist' intolerance and lack of knowledge of all religions, while touting some sort of fully automatic model of scientific atheism as the solution, none is the solution. For some reason you don't think Abrahamic religons of undergoing transformations from within so you feel the need to put them down.
If you have more thoughts on religion in general look up a fellow by the name of 'Alan Watts' and listen to what he's got to say.
Forgot Russia. 2 years of imprisonment for dancing in a church.
"Scientific atheism" isn't a religion. It isn't a replacement for it. It's something completely unrelated. Absence of delusions is useful when you're doing science, but not related to it.
Personally, it's all religions. I grew up in a country where the state favored one religion heavily over all others, and I wouldn't care if they supported Asatru, Buddhism, or Judaism. Any religious involvement in government is bad for everyone. While it's impossible to take away religious bias from the act of government in a society that still practices religion, we should at least try and limit it, if only because of the social impact it has on a culture.
I don't think scientific atheism is the solution. I think people not caring about religion would be better.
My point is that you're all being intellectually lazy, everyone knows in fact that science is a man made measure of things, it is not a reality, it's as simple as measuring something and getting the same result. reality is the here and now, with no today or yesterday, reality is where words get clumbsy. you must appreciate this or else you'll be as lost as the religious folk.
Butan is a buddhist society, and they're the greenest country in the world, Lao Tzu says when people talk of religion they shy away, like trying to see the color of your own eyes, as seen from your eyes, we can't do it, because we're enveloped in it, but when people smell good food or hear good music, everyone rejoices, so the master empties peoples minds and fills their cores, or bellies. It is not necessary for everyone to have a deep understanding of religion, or the tao for that matter, but that people live happily and that LEADERS have a deep understanding of philosophy and religion, like Plato's own 'philosopher king'. To quote Osho 'All the religions in the world are concerned with the poor people, the poor man doesn't understand what I'm saying, I am the rich man's Guru! Let me look after the Rich!'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0O9IK8bxM8
Words only get clumsy if you let them. Science is the best thing we have to figuring out the nature of reality, as nothing else comes close. The evidence lies in the manipulation of reality- what other system of thought has been able to do this as much as science?
It's not faith, you understand. It's a willingness to test everything against what you know, and moreover, a willingness to accept new truths when they're discovered. Religion's answers lie in the past; the answers of secularists often lie in the future.
Absence of delusions is related to science as it's what the scientific method is in a nutshell.Not really. There are many religious scientists.
Not really. There are many religious scientists.
Not really. There are many religious scientists.
Absence of delusions is related to science as it's what the scientific method is in a nutshell.Absence of delusions is related to a 'healthy'/'normal'/'average'/'mainstream'/'common sense' way of thinking/statements/behaviour.
My point is that you're all being intellectually lazy, everyone knows in fact that science is a man made measure of things, it is not a reality, ...insult(intellectually lazy) + wrong conclusion.
...It is not necessary for everyone to have a deep understanding of religion, or the tao for that matter, but that people live happily and that LEADERS have a deep understanding of philosophy and religion, ...slightly contratidicting with the being intellectually lazy accusation of ours through you.
Not really. There are many religious scientists.Which must not be a contradiction depending on perspective. They may be just be checking authenticities and origns of old scriptures, not trying to proove 'other' scientists wrong. Even if the later, it would be ok, the trying part and if possible also the proving part. What i don't like so much is when they would try to do it though repetition and propaganda, not through scientific method and tools mentioned earlier by Kafein.
tell me what is it worth, wher do you want to go. And may be: wher do we come from. And why?
Do you want a future, where 2 big religous believe system clash against each other in a final battle about the wholy truth? Fuck that shit, we have been there and done that and all sides included failed/lost bigtime. I 'll take a nap or get myself some popcorn and try to watch it from afar, but don't ring at my fucking door and ask for my support.
[
So?Yes, exactly, it doesn't. And science has nothing to do with delusions. You can check it yourself: nowhere will you find "absence of delusions" as the definition.
That doesn't change what science in of itself is.
till here i follow and agree complettly, even with the troubled part :mrgreen:(click to show/hide)
for you to try and distance yourself from me shows that you'd kill me if your leader told you to, that's fine, but it's not the true way.Here is where i think you got it wrong. Ego and void are not mutily exclusiv, they are two perspectives which can coxesist, but dont use the one to judge nore explain through the other.
We are the same we use the same energy to think and breathe, with different historical experiences, if we don't acknowledge this we're screwed in this world.fully agree here again
''I just cherry pick from several systems, which then makes my worldview, my reality, my own little universe.'' It sounds to me like you're doing just that, living in your own little universe.So i hurt your feelings now you need to hurt mine? :D dont pitty me or i would need to return the favour? Not very Zen like is it now? Or is it more the warriors way , that i striked you, now it is retaliation? I think i may have judged you too harsh, or haven't i?
Kin, instead of quoting and lengthly discussing ... like scientist would do.
First: scientists are humans too. dont overglorify them becouse of theire studies and intellect.
Second: Religion is old. Its got messed with alot and raped and used for war and gain and wtf (same goes for science ironically). Still its part of the human history, human thinking and ... therfore science in a broader sense. Dont get narrowed on science. See the world with your eyes, your knowledge and your criticism. Then tell me what is it worth, wher do you want to go. And may be: wher do we come from. And why?
I always find it cute how religious people remind others to be skeptical of the scientific theories, but when it comes to stuff that has been told and retold for ages before it has even been written down, and then it has been translated and interpreted by thousands of different people, suddenly, skepticism doesn't apply.
Also, he doesn't glorify scientists. It would be stupid to do so, because a theory only holds as long as it isn't disproven. That's one of the main differences between science and religion: science actually deals with reality, and when reality happens, scientific knowledge is adapted. Since religion doesn't deal with reality, it can never be disproven, and there is no need for change. In my eyes, this also makes it irrelevant, but there seem to be a lot of people that are more interested into "why" things happen instead of "how" they happen. I can't even begin to understand how someone would be able to comprehend the plan behind something that he doesn't even understand the process of.
I think its because people who respect and have knowledge of religions no matter what they may be also have great knowledge and respect for science, which has always existed alongside religion since the first spear was invented, now we can try to explain everything by way of cells and atoms, yet, is that view the most beneficial? You can try and explain what a mountain is through words, but if you had to explain the reality of what it TRULY is, I'm not sure it could be done, how it functions why is it standing its history everything associated with it, like your heart, if you had to explain exactly how it beats and gets all the blood flowing you'd go insane, so scientist go insane, and so do those who misunderstand religion, they both go insane.
We need not to think about our heart beating because it does it in itself, or to think about dancing, but when someone calls our attention and tells us to do it again, suddenly we don't want to dance anymore. This is closer to the way the world truly works, you can make a religion out of it if you wanted to, but it probably wouldn't appeal to anyone.
Absence of delusions is related to a 'healthy'/'normal'/'average'/'mainstream'/'common sense' way of thinking/statements/behaviour.
By default it has nothing to do with atheism nore religion nore science.
Dunno, Muhammad really does sound like someone who smoke too much weed. Trying to sound wise and mysterious, yet the information value of his posts is zero. The world really isn't that magical a place, and things he claims can't be explained have already been reduced to explainable parts by science.
http://youtu.be/tIwdf9Ob7YU?t=2m27s
Do you seriously believe anyone is going to watch a lengthy video if you can't even reply to simple questions?
Your questions are the source of accumulated bias that not a million years of my answering will fix.
So I offer something more feasible for our times.
someone who is just an arrogant asshole that thinks he's above other people, if you don't show us the slightest hint that it could be worth it to listen to what you have to say?
why oh why would anyone in their sane mind start this discussion?
I'd much rather sound like that, than believe the way you do, in that case according to some Philosophs the only thing left for you to contemplate is whether or not to kill yourself rather than continue on like this. The only problem with believing the way I do, is that there are plenty others who would rather kill me for it, because it inherently disturbs their 'sky cake dodge' or their machine fantasies.Ehm, except, why the fuck should I care what some "Philosophers" think is the only thing left for me to do? You see, when you believe the way I do the only one who gets to tell me what to do is me. Why would I kill myself? That makes no sense.
http://vimeo.com/24737728
...: common sense is not science, and common sense is full of delusions.i didnt state the first part it would be so and i dont nessarily deny the second part.
Science is unnatural thinking, otherwise it would be easy.That i do deny.
Also what the fuck is wrong with Muhammad's way of expressing himself. I didn't pay for a yoga lesson.new age guru trippin on mushrooms?
http://youtu.be/tIwdf9Ob7YU?t=2m27swtf :lol: "You may be even be able to handle 2 swords" ... yes that i took out of that 8-)
why oh why would anyone in their sane mind start this discussion?
...
Fuck me forum whoring.
I'd much rather sound like that, than believe the way you do, in that case according to some Philosophs the only thing left for you to contemplate is whether or not to kill yourself rather than continue on like this. The only problem with believing the way I do, is that there are plenty others who would rather kill me for it, because it inherently disturbs their 'sky cake dodge' or their machine fantasies.
http://vimeo.com/24737728
Why would any sane person get involved in this discussion?
So you have a problem with nihilism?WHYYYYY did you bring this up, this shit did cost me at least one year of my life :|
...
Why would any sane person get involved in this discussion?similar as my friendly nihilist(or who at least mentioned it) before said.
So you have a problem with nihilism?
Anything substantial rather than "I wouldn't want to believe that because it sounds icky"?
Judging by your previous posts, I don't expect much but I'm willing to see what you got.
WHYYYYY did you bring this up, this shit did cost me at least one year of my life :|
I never before felt that depression actually is the default base line.
Getting out of that was only possible by answering and reforming the question to
What is the meaning of life?(click to show/hide)
True nihilism is in no way the stereotype of 'nothing matters' it is more like nietszche's 'superman' essentially that christianity by putting Jesus on the pedastal and taking away the original message that was 'we're all sons of god and equal in front of god' diminished mans capacity to become something more than a potential sinner. this can be compared to buddha's 'buddha nature' but the buddhas path was a different one, where as nietzsche struggled with western society and how fucked up it was, the buddha struggled only with desire and the desire to end it..
I don't believe nihilist views as icky, but it's wrong because it will leave that negative view on the world which is neither life affirming and possibly not true. maybe its a branch of the tree of knowledge of who we are as a people.
The apples on a tree aren't likely to be Nihilists, because even though the apple will fall, rot and 'die' by our definition, it knows by its own nature that there will be many other apples just like it to replace it and therefore it had a fruitful existence. In the same way a tree 'apples', the earth 'peoples'. I guess if the apple were a pessimist it would probably rot before it fell on the ground.
I believe Jesus said something similar when he said Heaven is life a mustard seed, the smallest of seeds but the largest of trees.
I don't get how you answered the problem of nihilism for yourself by saying reproduction was the answer. You'd have to then say why reproduction matters, especially when the current understanding of how life goes is that it ends. In a long enough time frame, reproduction does not matter.I didn't, but i did by reformulating the question, as the question was not formulated in a helpfull way as it is with Nihilism. It is not helpful, so we leave it behind. It doesnt make it true or untrue, but i deny nehilsm the relevance to my thought process. Leaving the box behind.
Not necessarily trying to pull you back to nihilism, I understand the depressing thoughts it gives. It really does make you wonder why you don't just blow your brains out especially since you can't give one. Not a logical one anyway.
Muhammad's posts in a nutshell. Completely nonsensical.
The apples on a tree aren't likely to be Nihilists, because even though the apple will fall, rot and 'die' by our definition, it knows by its own nature that there will be many other apples just like it to replace it and therefore it had a fruitful existence. In the same way a tree 'apples', the earth 'peoples'. I guess if the apple were a pessimist it would probably rot before it fell on the ground.
simple, as many as he could(click to show/hide)
I didn't, but i did by reformulating the question, as the question was not formulated in a helpfull way as it is with Nihilism. It is not helpful, so we leave it behind. It doesnt make it true or untrue, but i deny nehilsm the relevance to my thought process. Leaving the box behind.
Ever read The Conspiracy Against the Human Race?Perhaps you'd care to elaborate on that. Why do you think one has to distract oneself from nihilism or you go mad/commit suicide?
I imagine you might have but Ligotti does a good job of why this only circumvents the issue and why we must do this if we didn't want to mass suicide.
But I don't blame you. Once you admit nihilism, you have to distract yourself from it or you go mad and/or commit suicide. So basically nihilism is ignored once one becomes a nihilist or is embraced in suicide.
All nihilists do one or the other. Most do what you and I do, ignore it.
Perhaps you'd care to elaborate on that. Why do you think one has to distract oneself from nihilism or you go mad/commit suicide?
Well I'm a poor subsititute for Ligotti who does a good job of showing in his unique way of existential horror.There are more ways to deal with the existential horror of nihilism than distracting yourself from it or committing suicide.
But if one accepts that life has no meaning and that nothing has any meaning, such as typing this message, raising a child, saving a life and so on, then none of those things serve any purpose to that person. Thus waking up and going to work is useless or anything people commonly think of as productive. This causes the person to then accept that nothing is worthwhile. If nothing is worthwhile, then why do anything? Why go to work and earn a paycheck or try to accomplish something that matters nothing at all?
This then turns into suicidal thoughts as the person understands that since nothing matters, not himself or anything or anyone, then why bother living? Its pointless and means nothing whether the person lives or dies.
Its basically the emotional outcome of a logical conclusion.
So most nihilists will accept that even if nothing means anything ultimately, they still value their family and children and doing well at work even though it means nothing once they die. Its really a fear of death that stops them.. what if I am right .. or what if I'm wrong? But most nihilists will put value on things and people so they don't commit suicide. The ones that don't put value on anything usually commit suicide since nothing has value therefore they cannot see the point of living thus suicide.
Like I said, an emotional outcome of a logical conclusion. Its a emotional decision based on the logical acceptance of a concept.
There are more ways to deal with the existential horror of nihilism than distracting yourself from it or committing suicide.
Life doesn't have any intrinsic purpose, so what? None of those things "mean" anything insofar that their importance is not woven into the fabric of the universe. They mean something when you, the individual, decides they mean something. This is childish existential horror, or perhaps it would be more accurate to call it the "first stage of existential horror." It is certainly not impossible to overcome. It simply takes more time from some than it does from others.
Nothing matters as far as the Universe is concerned. Again, big deal. It's the humans that give purpose to all of this. Why would you need some universal rules for life to make sense? Why can't you decide what you want for yourself? Why commit suicide if you enjoy living, as normal human beings do? Why end something you like? You don't stop playing a good game because it, ultimately, has no meaning either.
Egan's Law: It all adds up to normality.
That is a half-truth and so much so that it may be an old lie. I call you rabble because that is the common believe perpetuated by our times, here in the West.You're a flying pink donkey, therefore I don't have to listen to you.
If you had lived in Egypt you'd be worshiping the Pharaoh. You have nothing new or good to offer this world so you believe in what the vast majority of the population believes, and that can never be close to the truth, in fact it is a dangerous world view to rely on if we wish to progress as a species and cultivate true compassion and understanding.
There are more ways to deal with the existential horror of nihilism than distracting yourself from it or committing suicide.
Life doesn't have any intrinsic purpose, so what? None of those things "mean" anything insofar that their importance is not woven into the fabric of the universe. They mean something when you, the individual, decides they mean something. This is childish existential horror, or perhaps it would be more accurate to call it the "first stage of existential horror." It is certainly not impossible to overcome. It simply takes more time from some than it does from others.
Nothing matters as far as the Universe is concerned. Again, big deal. It's the humans that give purpose to all of this. Why would you need some universal rules for life to make sense? Why can't you decide what you want for yourself? Why commit suicide if you enjoy living, as normal human beings do? Why end something you like? You don't stop playing a good game because it, ultimately, has no meaning either.
Egan's Law: It all adds up to normality.
That is a half-truth and so much so that it may be an old lie. I call you rabble because that is the common believe perpetuated by our times, here in the West.
And alot people that become nihilists that commit suicide are usually from a heavily religious background. I can't say all or most since I don't know how to find stats on that but its a very jarring experience to go from one extreme to the other and a lot of people can't handle it.
I live in the west. In my opinion, most people here believe in something. A very large part wouldn't identify themselves as members of any specific religion, but they would still admit that they believe in a higher power, and that there is a purpose behind the fabric of reality. People who call themselves agnostics or even atheists, or people in general who admit they don't think there is a purpose in life are rare.
Yep. That's the distraction part. I don't see how you've said anything different than I did. That's the value aspect.Maybe I haven't really said anything different from you, but I don't need to distract myself from the facts to be able to live. "Nothing means anything" is true only in that the Universe doesn't care and never did, we weren't put here for any purpose, we've come this far simply to breed more, for no other purpose than breeding more yet again. But that is different from saying "an individual gives meaning to things." These two things are not contradictory. I may enjoy playing a sport because of meaningless, evolved things: so what? I still enjoy it. It doesn't have to "mean something in the grand scale of things" to be enjoyable; if it is enjoyable, that's enough reason to do it.
You cannot accept completely that nothing means anything then turn around and be just fine. You either say nothing means anything and fuck it or you go halfway and you say "well nothing means anything really but I still like hanging out on crpg (lulz) or with my family or playing a sport and so forth so that value is worthwhile enough to stick around."
You haven't said anything different than I already said Xant.
And alot people that become nihilists that commit suicide are usually from a heavily religious background. I can't say all or most since I don't know how to find stats on that but its a very jarring experience to go from one extreme to the other and a lot of people can't handle it.
Those who say they believe merely do it for success in business or in life, but in reality they believe just the same thing you do, because there is a stigma to calling yourself an atheist.
Maybe I haven't really said anything different from you, but I don't need to distract myself from the facts to be able to live. "Nothing means anything" is true only in that the Universe doesn't care and never did, we weren't put here for any purpose, we've come this far simply to breed more, for no other purpose than breeding more yet again. But that is different from saying "an individual gives meaning to things." These two things are not contradictory. I may enjoy playing a sport because of meaningless, evolved things: so what? I still enjoy it. It doesn't have to "mean something in the grand scale of things" to be enjoyable; if it is enjoyable, that's enough reason to do it.
And it does seem you are saying something different, since you claim that nihilists must either distract themselves or commit suicide, yet I am saying those are not the only options.
But you are. If you really understood that nothing was worthwhile, you wouldn't even attribute value to enjoying things. But you did say that this was something of value so you're not saying that nothing is valuable. There's a difference. Its a very subtle difference.Well, I suppose that I disagree with nihilism in that regard, then. I don't believe that "nothing is worthwhile" if that means one can't attribute value to things. And it's clearly false, because I can do it, therefore it's possible. Nihilism countered. The very act of attributing value to things and making them meaningful in one's mind destroys the claim that "nothing is worthwhile."
We're saying the same things here Xant. You're too fixated on the word "distraction" though. Its simply a placeholder to mean that one doesn't place everything as meaningless on a personal level. That's all. So exactly what you're saying that if something is enjoyable, why not do it or anything else that brings value into one's life.
Well, I suppose that I disagree with nihilism in that regard, then. I don't believe that "nothing is worthwhile" if that means one can't attribute value to things. And it's clearly false, because I can do it, therefore it's possible. Nihilism countered. The very act of attributing value to things and making them meaningful in one's mind destroys the claim that "nothing is worthwhile."
Nah.Yes, exactly.
Its merely saying "this has value to me" not saying its anything meaningful. One can say both and not be contradictory. Value and meaning are not the same thing.
I can say that playing crpg is something I value but I can also say it has no meaning overall. The value statement is just a personal statement and the meaning statement is saying something about it on a universal level.
If you really understood that nothing was worthwhile, you wouldn't even attribute value to enjoying things.
Yes, exactly.
It is this I take exception with. Why would I not want to enjoy my life even though I understand that it's "meaningless"? Why on Earth should I care if my life is meaningless according to the "universe"? Humans might have the power to create and shape universes of their own not so long from now; why should I care that something unthinking does not give me or my life inherent meaning? It is no different from being upset that a rock doesn't care about you.
Xant and Taser both of you fail and haven't said anything. Pseudo-intellectual mental masturbation, showing us all the true value of Nihilism.
Prove it wrong rather than saying simply its not useful.
You have yet to do so and have instead posted nonsensical feel good posts.
Now if you would like to add anything of value, go ahead. You can start by trying to answer my post in response to yours earlier.
Xant and Taser both of you fail and haven't said anything. Pseudo-intellectual mental masturbation, showing us all the true value of Nihilism.
...Your existence always has meaning to you.Sadly there you are wrong, it may not be concievable to you, then just let this one go. This is a well ment advice.
There's no one free of conceit.true
I'm more intrigued with the idea of the universe observing itself- and what's more, playing with itself, through us.Like us being parts of a body, or part of a cell, which in the end extends to be a consious being, not nessarily conciousness about its parts though ^^?
Anyway, for those of you arguing for religion, or at least, acknowledging the benefits of religion, what kind of relationship should the state and religion share?while i am not part of either of those categories, i can play the part of advocatis diaboly.
Xant and Taser both of you fail and haven't said anything. Pseudo-intellectual mental masturbation, showing us all the true value of Nihilism.The irony is strong in this one.
This guy is like Mike Myers in The Love Guru.
Waiting for Muhammad to back up or justify his fucked up religion with a) logic, b) evidence or c) proof:sofar i dont even know which religion that would be.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Taser, ty for your explanations. I had pretty much written 3 times now an essay to explain myself, nihilism and why it fucked me up. I deleted it 3 times and decided now to not go into it any further detail then: I was never a very religious guy, but there was a time i had a strong believe of my purpose in life, when i got in contact with nihilism, that changed and i changed. It wasnt a pleasent experience, that one can be shaken badly by only thinking theoreticly about ... a Theory, a concept ... something which nearly had been my job description before ^^
No problem. I understand that feel.
For about a month I basically weighed whether or not I should continue to live. Just played with the question and kept going over it in my mind. I just couldn't answer the question of why my own life was meaningful to myself. There was no logical answer to it that I could come up with. And once you hit that, its just.. depressing. Sure I came up with other reasons.. stuff is fun, I like doing this.. family.. whatever but once you hit that idea of "I cannot justify my own life", you fall into an abyss of not being to justify anyone else's either or anything that is considered "good".
But then you push that aside and realize you still like doing things in life that give you pleasure and value. It still sticks around but its more manageable after that first brush with the question. Not everyone does though. Your experience will vary of course and I don't know what happened to you and how hard it was for you.
There are competing ideas and so forth. I just can't see why they're right though.
Personally, I came to the conclusion that I don't even have to justify my own life. It just is.
sofar i dont even know which religion that would be.
The name as indicator could be a troll. The posts of his would lead to Taoism , Laotze it was right? Wasnt that the chinese philospher who was all about the state? *yawn* 4 in the monring wtf, i am off.
Why can't you decide what you want for yourself? Why commit suicide if you enjoy living, as normal human beings do? Why end something you like? You don't stop playing a good game because it, ultimately, has no meaning either.
The name as indicator could be a troll.
What's even the point of not having delusions?
Plenty of reasons to promote atheism. Stripping potentially dangerous delusions from people, for one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldGPptJh0cE&feature=relatedhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ5LpwO-An4
Uh, like stoning people to death for ridiculous reasons? Limiting freedom of speech? Murdering people because God said so? Limiting freedom in general?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ5LpwO-An4
In my view, religions are not about power (big god told me and you have to do what I say therfore). Politics do this. People to this. I have never seen some holy entity coming over humankind demanding obedience. Humans and Animals do this for territory, food, luxury and the right to reproduce ones dns. Its in our nature. God is an Ideal, nothing really real. Its a human concept to help us overcome our nature. Just something some yearn for. Religion for me is purely spiritual. Jesus is shown as a (holy) man or prophet who wanted to make life better for human kind (entitys children). Whats wrong with that?You've never seen a holy entity coming over humankind demanding obedience because there is no holy entity. In your view religion is purely spiritual and you want to make things better. But that's not everyone's religion, and the bloodthirsty religions tend to garner more support than the peaceful ones. This is why it is better to face the facts: there is no god. Leave no room for these mass-spread delusions that can be very dangerous. When most of the world beside the majority of European countries reach the stage where being religious is an invitation to open ridicule, things will be better. Then religion will retreat to where it will do least amount of harm: to homes, kept as a private affair.
Shure everything can be used for power: love and seduction, believe and fear, medicine and poison, electric energy and atomic bombs. World didnt change so much, the power hungry get the power and use it for good or for bad. At least we have democracy and some education at our hands...
If you come to the point when there is no religions on the planet, I guess you will have one of the following scenarios:
- Robots took over the planet
- Jurassic Park took over the world
- Scientific World Revolution: Robots take over the planet or Jurassic park , or both.
- Humanistic Revolution: maybe world communism. Robots take over the Gulags and then rest of the world.
- Alien Invasion. Ah, another myth.
I earlier on described how i see cause and effect in combination with rebirth. This for me is essential to my approach now in life. It is not so much to give a meaning to my life or that my life has a meaning, but that my life has deffinetly an effect. Within this discourse here we bounced around our imprints of reality, how we see things. I use for quite a while the analogy of 2 or more universes having intersections, thereby finding common ground for mutual understanding. This didn't became clear with 'my own little universe', as it was only in my own little universe defined concept. I should have started back then like here with telling about that concept too. It is also essential to get an understanding between different religions, as many concepts within releigions are pretty much the same, they are just explained with different phrasings , different words, still but pointing to the very same thing.(click to show/hide)
as it is long dead, i guess noone could have explained it to you, so you learened it from scripture without anyone explaining, interpreting it to/for you? Was it like, aaaaaaaaaaah now i understand? If so, it is not me not being able to understand, but you not able to find the words to explain it understandably. Every system, every concept can be put in words, if you can't put it in words, it doesnt exist on a broader reality but merily 'in your own little universe'(click to show/hide)
If someone believes in something which i wouldn't, i havent got a problem, i would go so far, most people wouldn't have one. For myself i found , that i also dont need to beleive in the mystical thing which ends in the kind of a need for a higher being which gave us meaning and our life meaning in the end when we die. I am quite satisfied with the concept, 'our life has an effect'. It may not give me quite the warm and fuzzy feeling as other inherent concepts of other religions which glorify to some extent 'the concept of meaning'. Still when you realise that everything you do, if only conversational like here, has an effect on pretty much everything else, whereby you not nessarily can concieve what that effect in the end would be, it makes you realise another concept shared by many religions, that 'you are a part of everything' sort of ^^. If someone now wants to put in here the quantum theories ... different systems describing similar or same concepts on a different level of understanding, qualitivly i wouldn't want to make a differentiation, just different levels of understanding, different wordings and phrases pointing into the same direction.(click to show/hide)
If you come to the point when there is no religions on the planet, ...true
...Still I think its better to live with religions then to fight them. When humankind has no need of them, they will vanish anyway.
And all the deluded fanatics wouldnt they just turn political fanatics instead of religious ones if they had to?Remember bush more or less calling out for a crusade? The BS religiously colored pharsings of him, did create more jehadests. The concept of a drone war, without presidential oversight but targets solely choosen by the military and thereby often getting it very wrong does create even more. The disfunctional mainstream media following up with witchhunts on islam does not help either.
- a world full of people who aren't religious- a world full of cynics ... or as cynics would say realists ^^ what a pleasent thought
But, Xant, isn't the scientific approach to NOT deny (but neither affirm) something, until it has been conclusively proven as false? Tsk, tsk!wat
You proclaim yourself to be an atheist, yet apparently subscribe to the scientific method. Find the contradiction!wat
...So why not choose it? For me uncertaintinty was a long time a thing i couldnt scratch till 'i defined' that it is something i cant scratch and don't care. We live all the time with uncertaintinties and often there is not really a need to change that. Accepting that as a fact of life, maybe a bitter pill, but for me better then being totally wrong ^^ because i excluded a possibility. That is not about perhaps still getting into heaven *hrhrhr*, but about logic which is to me more important then "certain" believes/concepts. For me logic gives stability and certainties. That i am still not able to explain quite a lot of things ... well i have hopefully still a good time ahead to solve a few mysteries for myself.
Agnosticism would be a better choice.
Oh, please. Not the "science is just another religion" bullshit.Scientific theories are constructed the same way religions are, the evidence and conclusions drawn from them are just generally way less idiotic.
Scientific theories are constructed the same way religions are, the evidence and conclusions drawn from them are just generally way less idiotic.
Nope, not that.
I guess you all missed the point. Whilst i am an atheist myself (since it serves my view of the world), it pretty much deals with certainties - there are no higher beings, nor can be - which is something that, at least currently, cannot be proven (nor disproven).
Agnosticism would be a better choice.
I have chosen to *believe* in atheism, because it gives me a more comfortable and relateable view of the world around me, but i still realize that is merely a belief, rather than a fact. Claiming otherwise would be dishonest and similar to being a religious nut.
Agnosticism is what actually deals in facts.
Just wanted to point this out.
Agnosticism doesn't necessarily believe in a higher being either, but it doesn't claim with certainty that something like that might not exist, unlike atheism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
You can try to justify atheism, it doesn't change the fact, that it claims something, that cannot be proven nor disproven. Hence, not a fact.
Hell, maybe i was a bit hasty claiming to be an atheist.
Philosophers such as Antony Flew[43] and Michael Martin[38] have contrasted positive (strong/hard) atheism with negative (weak/soft) atheism. Positive atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. Negative atheism includes all other forms of non-theism. According to this categorization, anyone who is not a theist is either a negative or a positive atheist. The terms weak and strong are relatively recent, while the terms negative and positive atheism are of older origin, having been used (in slightly different ways) in the philosophical literature[43] and in Catholic apologetics.[44] Under this demarcation of atheism, most agnostics qualify as negative atheists.
Agnosticism doesn't necessarily believe in a higher being either, but it doesn't claim with certainty that something like that might not exist, unlike atheism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
You can try to justify atheism, it doesn't change the fact, that it claims something, that cannot be proven nor disproven. Hence, not a fact.
Hell, maybe i was a bit hasty claiming to be an atheist.
I don't think this even deserves discussion, outside the U.S. It's asking "should there be a separation between an organization full of delusional people that believe in a fairy tale and the state?" It's not a question that requires discussion.
I have chosen to *believe* in atheism,
but i still realize that is merely a belief, rather than a fact. Claiming otherwise would be dishonest and similar to being a religious nut.
Agnosticism doesn't necessarily believe in a higher being either, but it doesn't claim with certainty that something like that might not exist, unlike atheism.
You can try to justify atheism, it doesn't change the fact, that it claims something, that cannot be proven nor disproven. Hence, not a fact.
Try again.
You proclaim yourself to be an atheist, yet apparently subscribe to the scientific method. Find the contradiction!I trust you've found out that it was no contradiction already, or do I need to further elucidate the point?
There's no proof that tooth fairy doesn't exist...
You're all missing the point, ...It is not my wish to critisize you, nevertheless when you look at the topic and what you sofar wrote, not sure you should make this claim. I would rather say, you tried giving us an excursion into Taoism.
Totally related.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Mate, WHERE DAFUQ DOES HE SELL THE TEETH? He/she MUST be selling them to be able to pay the kiddies, so, if the Tooth Fairy is running an international tooth retail business, he/she HAS to be employing a whole horde of fairies, there must be a payroll for that too. Your trying to tell me that single biggest dental retailer doesnt pay tax to anyone? Not in this economy, bud.
You proclaim yourself to be an atheist, yet apparently subscribe to the scientific method. Find the contradiction!
I think saying there contradiction is going a bit too far, I suppose it comes down to semantics and what is your exact definition for atheism. I don't find the likelihood of existence of a god not any more or less likely then the existence of flying unicorns. Yes, it is theoretically possible for these things to exist and we can't disprove them but if someone asks me if I believe in flying unicorns I just say "no" instead of "maybe" and continue with a lecture on how I find the existence of everything imaginable possible and I do the same with god.Flying unicorns are more likely to exist than god as described by the religions of the world.
Religion is something for people who can't develop their own moral standards and need to deny their faults and blame them on a higher authority.
Flying unicorns are more likely to exist than god as described by the religions of the world.
Actually it's the other way around, people don't like religion because most of the time it condemns their immoral ways.
I'm just curious are you an atheist who studies evolution?Peripherally.
Actually it's the other way around, people don't like religion because most of the time it condemns their immoral ways.
That's one of the most common reasons religious people give for why people don't want to believe. "They don't want to be judged for their immoral ways! They want to keep living like they do!"
Fucking bullshit. I'd convert in a second if there really was a heaven where you'd live for all eternity after you die, and all would be great there. So would everyone else. As if anyone would trade 20 years of being "immoral" for 20000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (and keep adding zeroes until infinity) years of pure bliss in heaven. For living eternally.
It's a really bad argument.
It's all good, just give a little money to the church and confess. Then the priest will absolve you of your sins. That is, if you can find him when he's not buttfucking the altar boy.
So what your saying is you'd give up your immoral ways if their was a heaven, but since there isn't you'll keep doing it.No, that's not what I'm saying. I have no immoral ways.
Argument is still valid since you are saying the reason you won't give up your immoral ways is because there is no heaven meaning you won't accept the religion because it's condemning your immoral ways and you want to keep them.What? No. I just said that I'd rather live eternally in bliss than "keep my immoral ways." So no, not valid.
I'll give you a little credit though it does seem a bit ridiculous, because who wants to be accountable for doing bad things.I would, if it meant living eternally. Sadly, no such thing as God, so nobody is accountable for bad things.
I would, if it meant living eternally. Sadly, no such thing as God, so nobody is accountable for bad things.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I have no immoral ways.
If somebody steals your car and sells it, is that not a bad thing? Is he not accountable for stealing your car? I mean no one had to steal your car, they could've gotten their own but they wanted to steal it, their choice, not a random event. Why are you against people being accountable for their actions?He is accountable if he is caught and the laws say stealing cars is a no-no. He isn't accountable to an invisible sky daddy.
I just want you to clarify on this, are you saying you don't have any morals or what?
Actually it's the other way around, people don't like religion because most of the time it condemns their immoral ways.
So what your saying is you'd give up your immoral ways if their was a heaven, but since there isn't you'll keep doing it.i havent seen him saying that, Xant just didnt respond on a, from my point of view, insulting implication from you.
Argument is still valid since you are saying the reason you won't give up your immoral ways is because there is no heaven meaning you won't accept the religion because it's condemning your immoral ways and you want to keep them.How about christians choose not being judged in this life with a chance there is no judgment afterwards by that having a free path at everything? That seems pretty much to be your argument the other way round. I think i will use that as base paradigma from now on when reading your posts.
I'll give you a little credit though it does seem a bit ridiculous, because who wants to be accountable for doing bad things.qed
That's Catholicism, what they're doing is not right and it's just another way for man to take advantage of other men.While i wouldnt judge catholicism solely based by actions of priests who take advatage of childs, i do judge catholicism by how they judge themselves or ignor to judge those formentioned priest, instead of excumunicating them and leave it to state authorities, they only relocate them and try to treat these cases silently. I judge catholisim by their doctrins, by their past and current actions as a church. That all still is not always the same as the religion and the believes of catholicism, there are many things to differentiat.
Like the Crusades and blah blah blah. No man can make another man's sins "go away" since the priest is just as much a sinner.Every man for his own sanity, will find away or not, in his lifetime to live with what he has done. Thats how brains work, brains will always try to see onceself as good person, if that isnt possible, the brain will have problems working normally. Some can blend out their misdeeds, rectify them, ignore them or justify them, in the end but people who are doing bad things(if they have also some intelligence ^^) will suffer because of that in their lifetime. Brains who work differently to that are normaly called sociological psychopaths(could be wrong about the term here but that srpang to mind ^^). Is this a fact? Well from what i have learned and experienced in my life sofar, yes.
I believe in Christianity and I study Creationism but i'm no scholar on the subject.You are entitled to that, as are others to believe in the flying Spagetthi Mosnter, Lochness Monster, Tooth fairies, ... any type of story or concept which makes you feel better and gets you through the day. Just don't expect others to.
Ya'll austistic. I think that's the only explanation.
Hence why I never ever listen to liberal arts majors, or whatever is the english word to describe those people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Sartre).
Play on words is not argumentation and will never amount to anything but pretentious-looking gibberish.
Hence why I never ever listen to liberal arts majors, or whatever is the english word to describe those people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Sartre).
Uh, like stoning people to death for ridiculous reasons? Limiting freedom of speech? Murdering people because God said so? Limiting freedom in general?
The french?
Considering that logical debate remains the child of philosophy, and philosophy is often under the liberal arts, that's kind of silly. Unless, of course, you accept nothing but mathematical logic- in which case, there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barber_paradox) are still some things to trip you up.
Stop offending my religion!
when is killing another person justified?
Creationism ... (http://www.wikihow.com/Defend-Evolutionism-Against-Creationism)(click to show/hide)
And where is the evidence that religious people are in any way shape or form "less immoral" than people that are not religious ?
How about christians choose not being judged in this life with a chance there is no judgment afterwards by that having a free path at everything? That seems pretty much to be your argument the other way round. I think i will use that as base paradigma from now on when reading your posts.
Has obviously never seen Dexter
And where is the evidence that religious people are in any way shape or form "less immoral" than people that are not religious ?
interestingly, there are some statistics floating about concerning religiosity of a society vs. societal health, (an example of bad societal health, high unrest, rapes, murder, dissatisfaction with the government etc)
the interesting thing was that these statistics actually found that the more religion the worse the societal health
source: http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.pdf
article sourced from: http://furiouspurpose.me/societal-health-correlates-inversely-with-religiosity/ (was a google search)
admitedly this is only one study so it shouldn't be taken as 'gospel' (so to speak :P), but still, it's certainly very interesting, considering the majority of the religious I have ever spoken to have been quite convinced it's the other way (as in the more religion the better)
-the vast majority of the great thinkers in the (western, at least) world are on the side of the non-religious (academically speaking)
-the vast majority of the evidence in the religious debate is on the 'non-religious' 'side'
I have looked into evolution and I can't even understand why it's in textbooks these days. It's not even a law, just a theory it's never been proven. Evolution can't be studied by the scientific method of testing over and over again with the human senses. It doesn't do the theory of evolution much credit either with all the fake fossils they have tried to make their theory a law. I could go all day on this but it's getting off topic. If you want I can give more facts about evolution not making sense.
I have looked into evolution and I can't even understand why it's in textbooks these days. It's not even a law, just a theory it's never been proven. Evolution can't be studied by the scientific method of testing over and over again with the human senses. It doesn't do the theory of evolution much credit either with all the fake fossils they have tried to make their theory a law. I could go all day on this but it's getting off topic. If you want I can give more facts about evolution not making sense.You haven't given a single fact yet of how the evolution makes no sense. First, find out what "theory" means in science. Second, yes, evolution can be studied by the scientific method; there are many ways to do that, some of which have to do with DNA and others with direct observation and deduction. Fake fossils have nothing to do with the theory of evolution. They neither strengthen nor weaken it; is the plausibility of Christianity weakened, in your opinion, if a single priest steals the donation money in a small town?
I think this is just trolling but whatever. There are no laws. There are only theories that have to descripe reality to a certain degree. Evolution is by far the best we have to explain how different species developed. So putting creationism and evolution on the same level textbook-wise would mean we would have to put hollow-earth and timecube into them as well. Who falls for all those fake satellite photos depicting a round earth? Have you been up there?
It's something called logic, which is exactly what evolution lacks. Evolution is as unproven as they get, absolutely nothing backing it up. No change of kinds, no in between forms, and no evidence whatsoever. So tell me again why it's the best theory.I really hope you're trolling. You claim to have studied it, and yet you're this ignorant?
If you want I can point out the evidences for Creationism and more reasons why evolution is a load of hooey.
Second, yes, evolution can be studied by the scientific method; there are many ways to do that, some of which have to do with DNA and others with direct observation and deduction. Fake fossils have nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
What's your point, Jarold? How does DNA decay disprove evolution? I don't get it.Fool. Don't you know that if we (maybe) can't acquire T-Rex DNA and therefore clone it, Evolution is disproved?
On the other hand, it's hard to tell if somebody pretending to be Creationist is trolling or not; it takes some genuine stupidity rarely encountered in normal situations to actually argue for Creationism over Evolution. I suppose it would fit the general Creationist behavior to ignore the post full of proof and dig up an article about how Jurassic Park, a movie about dinosaurs, couldn't be real.
What's your point, Jarold? How does DNA decay disprove evolution? I don't get it.
interestingly, there are some statistics floating about concerning religiosity of a society vs. societal health, (an example of bad societal health, high unrest, rapes, murder, dissatisfaction with the government etc)
the interesting thing was that these statistics actually found that the more religion the worse the societal health
If you've studied some United States history and other things like it for a little while you would see the United Stated was an exception.
I have looked into evolution and I can't even understand why it's in textbooks these days. It's not even a law, just a theory it's never been proven.
I stopped believing in santa claus when I was still a young child.:shock: Why don't you believe in Santa? I met him last Christmas and he gave me a colored pencils.
If you've studied some United States history and other things like it for a little while you would see the United Stated was an exception. It's early years they focused on keeping religious beliefs the core of it's country. Slowly but surely they started separating religious beliefs and standards from public life. If you do a quick study you will see how much social health (crime) has risen over the years.
What are their names exactly?
What qualifies as "on the religious side"?
It's something called logic, which is exactly what evolution lacks. Evolution is as unproven as they get, absolutely nothing backing it up. No change of kinds, no in between forms, and no evidence whatsoever. So tell me again why it's the best theory.
If you want I can point out the evidences for Creationism and more reasons why evolution is a load of hooey.
Evolution has been observed in nature many times using species that have a very low life expectancy and fast generation cycle. A common example are the moths, which, during the industrial revolution where everything was black from coal residue, suddenly adapted a darker camouflage pattern (because the bright ones were easy to see for birds on the blackened walls), then, when the cities started getting cleaner again, they went back to their brighter color again. There are numerous other examples you can easily find if you google a bit.
Now if you are of the micro- vs. macroevolution debating kind of guy, you can also find a lot of evidence for the latter, maybe starting with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
Saying someone who believe in invisible guy living in the sky whose existence ofc can be proved... kinda ironic :P
That's called adaption not evolution which is what evolution always confuses.
I have not seen a single shred of evidence given here for evolution here yet. Please no more "evidences" on how a species has changed that's actually adaption. I need to see the species getting new traits, not choosing a certain trait over another. Example, a short hair dog and a long hair dog mate, it makes a medium haired dog, that's taking it's short haired genes, and it's long haired genes and making a medium haired gene. It didn't get a new trait it just adapted or used an existing trait. So birds changing color is merely adaption, just like the beaks on the finches (finches right?) in Charles Darwin's book. A change of kinds would be nice to see actually, like a sea animal to a land animal.
Obviously i'm alone on my side here and you people are well versed on your evolution but this is interesting nonetheless.
I guess Creationism and Evolution share a common trait then. After all both need a little bit of faith. How do you know it took billions of years, were you there? How do I know the universe was made by God? Well actually I do but that's besides the point.
Example, a short hair dog and a long hair dog mate, it makes a medium haired dog, that's taking it's short haired genes, and it's long haired genes and making a medium haired gene.
Finally this thread is picking up some pace.
How do you know it took billions of years, were you there? How do I know the universe was made by God? Well actually I do but that's besides the point.wat?
If you've studied some United States history and other things like it for a little while you would see the United Stated was an exception. It's early years they focused on keeping religious beliefs the core of it's country. Slowly but surely they started separating religious beliefs and standards from public life. If you do a quick study you will see how much social health (crime) has risen over the years.
Yeah, you most definitely did not study evolution.
pleeeeasse just read my post for christ's sake
i included 2 books which explain in very simple terms the evidence for evolution, the problem you're having is you don't seem to understand it, read some books and you will! :)
it's pretty bloody infallable. a scientist is a man who sees things which happen, and writes them down. these are called 'facts'. there's a really really really really good reason the vast majority of the worlds scientists believe evolution happened, please for the love of god read the books.
Yeah because the part you quoted was me talking about adaption not evolution, which proves my point.
...Depends on where you are looking at, and the exact timelines(century is quite a big timeline). Small ups and downs are always there, still in quite a big part of the USA crime is pretty constantly on the rise and as mentioned before largly because of the criminalization of substance abuse. Looking at other "first world" countries you are right though, there is a relation between living in a wealthy country, wich has the means to help those of their population in need and crime rates.
Also, crime has been on a steady decline in the First World for more than a century...
That term is misused anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World
..., including Switzerland and Austria.*repressinglaughter,remindingmyselfnottomentionit...failing*
what makes human evolution so funny is that the rabble actually kills off the smart ones.Nope. If you get killed off by rabble, you are not smart.
That's called adaption not evolution which is what evolution always confuses.
what makes human evolution so funny is that the rabble actually kills off the smart ones.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/275670/human-evolution/250603/Reduction-in-tooth-size
What kind of logic is not mathematical logic ? Philosophy is math sans rigor. Both "philosophical problems" and "philosophical solutions" tend to rely on language misuse. I would even go as far as challenging you to find an example of actual logic being used to "solve" a "philosophical problem". There is no language misuse in math, and in some way there is no problem in math, as everything derived from correct premisses will be correct by construction (here logic and math is pretty much the same thing). The existence of unintuitive properties in higher-order logic such as the indecidability of some problems (strongly linked with the paradox you mentioned) is only a problem if you really want a consistent set of axioms from which a computer could derive all mathematic truths that exist with this set of axioms. I mean, it only destroyed mathematics for a couple of years after Godel's famous proof of the incompleteness of arithmetics. Turing together with several others fixed it with decidability theory.
... I still believe you need regular Philosophy though...I would prefer philosophy and ethic education for children in schools, a thousand times over any religion specific education. Also this should be present within pretty much every year and also part of bachalor, masters and doctorants studies. Not as the main courses but at least not leaving these out completly as that from my point of view already often led to disasters.
That term is misused anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World
The term is almost always misused but I precisely used First World to refer to Western Europe and the USA. People frequently think crime rates are increasing, but especially in the USA that vision comes from the 70s crime wave even though crime quickly stopped increasing and started decreasing again in the mid 90s
you guys obviously know a lot about the theory of evolution, but as for changing someone's opinion on their beliefs, you seem to suck ass at that.
this guy has had a different upbringing than you, access to very different information all his life, authority figures saying that god is the truth and scientists are liars, do you really think that shouting at him and calling him an idiot on the internet is really helping things, or just distancing him from you.
the only way to change the mind of these people is a bit of gentle encouragement to educate themselves with a firm hand every time they get out of line regarding their religion. if you berate them and make fun of them it does no-one any good at all. i really hate overzealous atheists, you do nothing but alienate the religious majority from the message we're actually trying to bloody give them.
Christian bad. ate pork. go hell. Muslim good.Go heaven.Allah is merciful.visitors can't see pics , please register or login
What I learned from religions is ; God -> evidence of existance -> Holy books -> written by -> prophets -> sent by -> God.
Wake up.
You may give it a new name, but this exact process is what is known as "evolution" to the rest of the world. A random mutation turns out to be an advantage for a species' survival, those who don't have it die and cannot reproduce, the random mutation becomes a common trait through inheritance. Pretty easy. As you said, even you recognize that this mechanism works fine.
What you seem to be having problems with is how this mechanism could turn a fish into a land animal. You are a classic believer, they usually accept micro-evolution, but reject macro-evolution (because it makes god as a creator much less interesting). I understand that it's hard to comprehend mutations on such large timescales, but in the case of the fish, can't you see how it could be an advantage for a fish to have slightly longer and thicker fins than other fish, so that he could better travel from one shallow pool to another, or reach out of the water further to get at that juicy snail that is so very close to the pool's edge but not quite in it? Now what happens, when food in the pool actually gets rare? Certainly, the fish better able to change the pool or get at other sources of food will survive, while the others will die. Hence longer, thicker fins, better muscles to power them, a shorter, lighter tail that doesn't slow you down so much and eyes that are better suited for vision in air instead of vision in water.
I know it doesn't have lungs yet, but my biology-fu is too limited to explain this transmutation. But I don't see why this process shouldn't be useful for ANY change in ANY species, given that the external circumstances make development into this direction beneficial. Especially since there are so many fossils and even still living species that fit right into the gaps that so many religious people claim cannot be bridged.
Here is a list that orders some of those intermediate species so that you can see evolution better: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils The fish to tetrapods part is relevant to what I just said.
Most Creationists fail to understand what adaptations really mean. "Oh yeah, those Darwin's finches, their beaks are just, like, adaptations." Well, what the fuck happens when they continue to adapt further? Oh, that's right, they become a new species after a sufficiently long enough time and enough adaptations.
I'm not sure if i'm getting the picture about how evolution is the same as adaption. I am under the impression that adaption is just suppressing bad traits and bringing out the good ones already present and works hand in hand with natural selection. (see my article at the bottom) Example, there are a bunch of fish in a river most of them are brightly colored and a few are dark and dull. The brightly colored ones die until only the dark and dull ones remain and they mate making more dark and dull ones making that the only color that will ever be produced by those particular fish. Which is not evolution just adaption, in my mind. Since they didn't get a new trait just an existing one.
While evolution is when that species gets an entirely new trait that wasn't there before. Example, a bunch of fish have no teeth and they only eat plants, but all of a sudden there are very little plants but there are an abundant amount of other fish. Though they don't have a gene/trait to have teeth they get teeth anyways out of nowhere.
So the difference between the two are pretty big.
I have a problem with fossils. Fossils only show characteristics (which are open to anyone's interpretation) not transition. My other problem is this, has there ever been evidence of a change of kinds or just a change in species? Like the dinosaur that had feathers, does having feathers make it a bird (changing of kind) or just a different species of dinosaur?
How do they do that? If they are truly adapting they are actually getting rid of most of their already existing bad traits and keeping a few of the already existing good ones not making any new ones. Now if they were evolving they would be getting whole new traits so they could make themselves into something else. But by your statement they weren't evolving merely adapting, so it's not possible.
I think you need to brush up on your evolution and definitions my friend.(click to show/hide)
Also, to cover another base, this is a good article about Natural Selection and Evolution. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v6/n4/natural-selection
To everyone else, maybe I was being ignorant to the facts before i'll be more open from now on.
IMO, it's a dick move to criticize people of their spiritual beliefs - coming from someone who beliefs that no one view is correct or wrong.
Gahd. I'm no scientist, but I'll try to explain it to you in layman's terms. Some biology or genetics expert correct me if I'm wrong.
Every time something reproduces, it's making a copy of it's genetic code. Now, because nature is imperfect, these codes often have errors. These errors are called 'mutations'. There's nothing that says the positive traits are the ones that survive: clearly, they're not, unless, you know, you're trying to evolve hamsters over your lifetime and kill all the hamsters with undesirable traits. I think there are some Christians that view evolution in that way.
Anyway, back to how us non-believers see it. So we've got these errors occurring in a species. We'll use your fish. Some are light, some are dark. Now, there's a predator in the area which happens to see bright colors more clearly, so it's easier for it to hunt the brighter fish. Accordingly, many of the light scaled fish are killed off by this predator, and the survivors are mostly dark scaled. So they mate and have little fishies and they're dark scaled.
Now, one day, there's a (relatively) big error in the genetic code and one of these fishes has bumps inside his mouth. This allows him to catch and eat more food, so he's more successful than his peers. Naturally, because he survives, he reproduces. Some of his kids are born with the same mutation. They also have an advantage, so more of them survive than their peers. So on and so forth.
Most of the modern day evidence of the dramatic changes you hint that you're looking for, Jarold, lie in microorganisms and viruses. That's because smaller, in general, is usually faster in nature, so they reproduce at a faster rate, therefore there's more chance for them to evolve within a shorter time frame. This kind of dramatic change in larger animals obviously takes a long ass time, because here's the thing about evolution: it's random. No one is choosing who lives or who dies, it's just a response to the environment.
We've changed the environment, so we can only imagine where humanity might go in the extremely distant future, biologically speaking. Anyway, I'm getting off track. Hope that helped.
And for the record, it's not like we all weren't presented with the same arguments you're giving us. I was raised in a fundamentalist christian family. I had to pass out pamphlets that were from Answers in Genesis as a child. My entire community went to the same church, and I wasn't really allowed to hang out as much with nonbelievers. I was ostracized for expressing my doubts from an early age.
It just doesn't make sense. I mean, look at all the religions out there. What makes any one of them more right than the other? How do any of those stories make any sense given what we know? Do we believe in fairies? Elves? No? So why do we still have people who believe in demons and prophecy?
In the beginning though, was the message itself. Love your neighbor, but judge him if he's not following a set of arbitrary rules that were designed for people in the past who lived in a different world. Love your neighbor, but not if he's gay. You can be a good man, but not if you don't accept that there's some guy who rules over it all and he gets angry at people for being the people he made them to be. Wait, that's not his fault. That's our fault, and Satan's fault. But if he's all powerful, is it?
You've got to understand, that to us, believing you is akin to you believing some hindu about his extra-limbed god with an elephant head that occasionally drinks milk fed to his idols. Or you know, Tolkien's middle-earth for that matter, since middle-earth is more coherent than most mythological narratives. Yes, there was a time when we needed to explain things we didn't understand, but those people didn't have access to the cumulative knowledge we do know. We do. We don't have an excuse to simply dismiss real things in favor for imagined explanations.
We don't need religion because religion, ultimately, is outdated pop culture and science all rolled into one. We've got better versions of both those things.
It is. I never attempt it with older people, but I feel like those who grew up in these times, with the kind of access to information that we have, don't really have an excuse.
In the beginning though, was the message itself. Love your neighbor, but judge him if he's not following a set of arbitrary rules that were designed for people in the past who lived in a different world.
Love your neighbor, but not if he's gay.
You can be a good man, but not if you don't accept that there's some guy who rules over it all
and he gets angry at people for being the people he made them to be. Wait, that's not his fault. That's our fault, and Satan's fault. But if he's all powerful, is it?
(click to show/hide)
Honestly i'll never really be convinced that evolution is real
How do they do that? If they are truly adapting they are actually getting rid of most of their already existing bad traits and keeping a few of the already existing good ones not making any new ones. Now if they were evolving they would be getting whole new traits so they could make themselves into something else. But by your statement they weren't evolving merely adapting, so it's not possible.An adaptation, also called an adaptive trait, in biology is a trait with a current functional role in the life history of an organism that is maintained and evolved by means of natural selection. Adaptation refers to both the current state of being adapted and to the dynamic evolutionary process that leads to the adaptation. Adaptations contribute to the fitness and survival of individuals.
I think you need to brush up on your evolution and definitions my friend.
Well, there you go. The difference between a scientist and a believer. One seeks the truth and will change his mind when provided with enough evidence, the other will "never believe that evolution is real" no matter what.
I'd rather be known as a believer over a scientist.
Now onto the highly controversial homosexual topic, no where in the Bible does it say to not love gay people. It says to love them, but do not support what they're doing. You're supposed to love them as an individual, not what they practice.
So you'd rather be delusional than base your opinions on facts. Gotcha.
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (NKJ, Leviticus 20:13)
Yea.... I can see how that says "to love them."
Well actually it makes me a better supporter for my science/belief because I can't be swayed into thinking something else as easily instead of doubting what I beleive. Unlike what you said, being a scientist makes you more liable to change your belief. Gotcha.How exactly is your "belief" scientific?
It also says ALL sin is punishable by death. So i'm not supposed to kill someone over him saying a lie. It goes back to what I said earlier we are not the judge, jury, or executioner that's God's place. That's why God sent His son to die on the cross, because someone perfect needed to die for our sins.Where does it say you're not supposed to kill the homosexual? And the Bible doesn't judge homosexuals but tells you to love them, even though it says that they shall be put to death? How does that make sense, again?
Where does it say you're not supposed to kill the homosexual? And the Bible doesn't judge homosexuals but tells you to love them, even though it says that they shall be put to death? How does that make sense, again?
How exactly is your "belief" scientific?
The Bible does judge homosexuals, but we don't judge them. The Bible is not man's word but God's word.Yes, so Christianity judges homosexuals. Q.E.D.
I knew you would pick out the put to death part so I will address it. Like I said earlier it was a law meant for God's holy people. It was a law for their society. Just like we have laws in our society. It's condemning the practice and he who practices it shall be put to death is what they believe in their society. Obviously in our society I can't go up and kill somebody because they're gay. Most of Leviticus is debateable today and meant for the Israelites.How do societies come into it? Are God's morals not universal? God gave this law to his holy people, meaning he condones it - or even insists on it. This is an incredibly weak defense you're giving here, one that I've seen before. No, it doesn't make it any better if God told just "his favorite people" to be immoral murderers and bigots. That makes God an immoral murderer and a bigot. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to blame Hitler. He only told the SS, his Chosen People, to exterminate the jews. It was just a law in his society. Just like we have laws in our society now. Obviously in our society now I can't go up and exterminate someone just because they're a jew.
I'll combat a question with a question. How is your evolution a science if it lacks the simplest part of the scientific method, repeatability.Because it doesn't? And even putting that aside, it is clear you don't know what the scientific method is. "Repeatibility" is not a necessary step. Here, an easy definition: "To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning."
Honestly i'll never really be convinced that evolution is real, and after the recent discussion in this thread I think i'm just trying to understand it now. I whole heartedly believe in Creationism and Christianity (which are the same thing, you can't have one without the other) and I won't be shaken in it either because it's so blindingly obvious to me just by my friends and my life.
Well actually it makes me a better supporter for my science/belief because I can't be swayed into thinking something else as easily instead of doubting what I beleive. Unlike what you said, being a scientist makes you more liable to change your belief. Gotcha.
... because I can't be swayed into thinking something else as easily instead of doubting what I beleive. ...Don't you think doubt is important? I don't mean religion; do you never doubt what authorities tell you? Because I think the ability to doubt (which is kind of a synonym for curiosity) is god's greatest gift to mankind :wink:
..., but all of a sudden there are very little plants but there are an abundant amount of other fist.It is not all of a sudden, it can take millions of years to develop a atypical trait of a species.
Though they don't have a gene/trait to have teeth they get teeth anyways out of nowhere.Not out of nowhere but incremental.
That code is not active still there, dont ask me the exact mechanism behind it, but as in a libary you may have books on your table for reading, you put them back and thats it, they arent read anymore. There are possible triggers wich may get the code/book back activated/read again, it may be a avarage tempreature or a higher CO2 level in the atmosphere, we often just dont know yet, but we know there is this inactive code.(click to show/hide)
...if nothing else, this already made this discussion worth it.
To everyone else, maybe I was being ignorant to the facts before i'll be more open from now on.
...when i was 18-19, i was roughly woken up and after that, everything was been put into doubt and questioned. Since then it was nearly 20 years of roler coster, lots of pain and lots of fun, but i am still doubting and questioning everything and i wouldnt want it any other way. Life can be scary to me, but also very rewarding, and as you mentioned, family is important, also to get through the rough spots, as are friends. Many people speak about awakening, wich sounds so metaphysical ... what i don't like, still i think people often need certain triggers, so that they try to broaden their approach of seeing things.
And then happened the best thing in my life: I started doubting things.
...
chadz, your story is cute. First world problems :D
Well actually it makes me a better supporter for my science/belief because I can't be swayed into thinking something else as easily instead of doubting what I beleive. Unlike what you said, being a scientist makes you more liable to change your belief. Gotcha.Mind explaining this to me? How is blind faith a good thing? If god wanted you to believe in him even if nothing he says makes the least bit of sense, then he'd be basing getting people to believe in him purely on the fact that someone gave the person a bible while he was vulnerable, and if the truth of god isn't so obvious that doubt would hurt the belief, then he can't possibly blame people he placed outside Isreals reach (Japan, Americas, etc) for not being converted. If god didn't want people thinking "is this shit correct?" (I'm gonna assume you're Catholic or Protestant here) then how come your religion is either a successful heretic movement in Catholicism (some random Protestant movement here), or a faith that has been altered half a million times (look at Catholicism in the dark ages and now, it is far from the same thing, and has changed a lot on its way)?
Which is not evolution just adaption, in my mind. Since they didn't get a new trait just an existing one.
While evolution is when that species gets an entirely new trait that wasn't there before. Example, a bunch of fish have no teeth and they only eat plants, but all of a sudden there are very little plants but there are an abundant amount of other fish. Though they don't have a gene/trait to have teeth they get teeth anyways out of nowhere.
So the difference between the two are pretty big.
I technically only have 4 toes, because the second and third biggest are linked together by skin. Am I the new human race
I technically only have 4 toes, because the second and third biggest are linked together by skin. Am I the new human race, with better ability to swim ?
Jarold, I have a couple of questions to remove some of the uncertainities of my view on your view on things:
1) How old do you think is the earth? If it is a couple of thousand years only, do you think current geological theories are simply wrong and based on faulty or possibly faked evidence?
2) Do you think all fossil found are fake or simply not as old as they are claimed to be(<10000 years)?
i wasnt speaking about a particular mutation, failed or working. Still then, who am i to judge what is which? How about people with autism failed or working? How about Hawking type dudes failed or working? What about the Neandertaler failed or working? Only because it is extinct, doesnt excluded its viability for the time it existed nore afterwards as extenction the same with evolution has no inherent meaning or reason. What i myself but do find beautiful are the concepts, the working systems, the plans coded in the DNA which are working, the complexity of that all fascinats me.(click to show/hide)
hm...
we all know of the hundreds of comedians mocking religion and creationism
I just wondered - are there comedians that mock atheism/evolution etc? Can anyone find a clip of such a standup comedian? I'd be interested in seeing that if anyone can find something...
hm...
we all know of the hundreds of comedians mocking religion and creationism
I just wondered - are there comedians that mock atheism/evolution etc? Can anyone find a clip of such a standup comedian? I'd be interested in seeing that if anyone can find something...
These statements are very upfront and honest, props to you. It reminds me of when I was young. I was raised catholic, and I can remember praying for lots of stuff. Both egoistical stuff as well as stuff like world piece. I wasn't even raised that hardcore a catholic, but I had all those childrens bibles and illustrations, and everyone told me god was real, so I drew the connection and tried to be as good a christian as possible. But apart from that, I was scared. I was extremely scared of being watched. It was a childs naive way of seeing "God watches over you", and it freaked me the fuck out. I was afraid of getting naked in my room because I didnt want god (or anyone else for that matter) to see me naked. I took god like a literal person, a physical being with xray vision watching me every second of my life.
Incidentially, it was also the time of my life where death scared the shit out of me. Despite me fully believing in the (childrens) bible, I was.. unhealthily scared of death. I remember my elementary school teachers talking to my parents whats going on with me, as it's not normal for a seven year old to be frightened of death that much. It wasn't actually that I was scared it would all end - it was more that I was afraid how God would judge me.
And then happened the best thing in my life: I started doubting things. At first it was very simple things. Maybe god does not watch over me every second? Hm... felt uncomfortable at first. How do you know if he's watching you right now or not. How do you know he wont punish you for eternity because just the moment you stole the sweets ouf of the kitchen he'd be watching you, crossing you off the "heavens" list. I think I just took a leap of faith.
With my new freedom found, I dug into the whole idea of not taking everything literally deeper. It took me a few years, but I just started questioning anything (not just religion). It took me some time to get really comfortable with it, because that stuff was what defined me for a long time, but at the end of the line, it all came down (for me) to the fact: The bible is a book. It's printed by machines. It's made of paper. It burns when you set it on fire. It swims when you throw it in water. There's nothing magical about it. It's words written by someone a long time ago. People told me it's the word of god. But how would they know? They knew because the bible said so. They had no more knowledge than me why it's gods word. They just were told by someone (their parents) that it's gods word. It's a book that's saying about itself that it's the word of god. It's like me writing on a piece of paper that this words were written by god.
And at this point, everything went very quickly. Let's see what is left of my religion when I take the bible out of the equasion. It felt like pulling the lowest stone out of a game of JengaIt still was a mind game at this point, a "what if?" scenario - what if the bible is just a story? And I thought about many things with the "what if the bible is just a story" thought, and not just did it sound plausible to me - it sounded a lot more realistic. When you have the bible as your foundation, you try and draw those crazy lines to make everything in line with the bible. Once you remove the bible of that picture, you dont have to draw crazy lines any more - the connections all make sense without drawing a line. There is no need for a god or a jesus to make sense to the world. The world makes sense in its own way. And fuck the world is beautiful. I felt a freedom in my life that just feels so damn good. I'm not part of some grand master plan, I'm merely a random piece of goo in a universe that's so vast that my life doesn't matter for any supernatural being - it's just me and the people that I know and love that are what matters.(click to show/hide)
To me, it felt like being raised in a dark prison the first 10 years of my life, and stepping out into the sun, and catching your first beams of sunshine for the first time in your life. It felt damn good, and still does.
It all comes down to this:
Don't you think doubt is important? I don't mean religion; do you never doubt what authorities tell you? Because I think the ability to doubt (which is kind of a synonym for curiosity) is god's greatest gift to mankind :wink:
Jarold, I have a couple of questions to remove some of the uncertainities of my view on your view on things:
1) How old do you think is the earth? If it is a couple of thousand years only, do you think current geological theories are simply wrong and based on faulty or possibly faked evidence?
2) Do you think all fossil found are fake or simply not as old as they are claimed to be(<10000 years)?
3) If a skeleton found from saber-toothed tiger happens to be real, do you think those longer teeth came from an adaptive potential every big cat has and could a today's tiger adapt in a similar way given the correct stress? Can this happen in a lifetime of a tiger or only over several generations?
The thing with evolution is that it is incredibly inefficient precisely because it lacks the vision of an intelligent designer. In computer science there is something called genetic algorithms, which use the same principle of mutation, selection and reproduction (mixing) of solutions to find good solutions to very hard problems. You can implement that kind of algorithms in a way that mimics real life evolution, but it is not a good idea at all, because you can almost always improve the results by introducing elements that have nothing to do with genetics, such as starting with a priori good solutions through simple heuristics, applying iterative improvement techniques to the solutions you find using your genetic algorithm, etc.
In a couple hundred million years (I don't remember exactly), evolution invented the wheel for a grand total of three times. Put that in relation to what the human race has been able to do during the last ten thousand years.
...What gives you the impression, the forming of an idear, wouldnt be random?
If everything is just a random occurrence, a hiccup in life, why can we form logical thoughts? Why don't they just randomly form in our minds like how everything else is? Don't you think there is some sort of intelligent design behind that?
it doesn't matter how good you are just have Him in your heart and hopefully you follow Him in your life. If you do something bad, ask Him to forgive you and He will
I have doubts sometimes but I quickly dismiss them because as I sad earlier it's pretty obvious to me that He's real. It's only human to doubt but it's your job to dismiss the doubts and know the truth and in my mind the truth is God is real.
...Just don't get it how your mind works...same as in all of us, from a biologicle and nouroscientific view.
same as in all of us, from a biologicle and nouroscientific view.
I was talking about how it's good that I don't doubt my beliefs because who would I be if I was someone who didn't even trust the things I stand for as a person?
Dear God, today I was very bad girl, murdered a few guys, raped a few others, robbed one church, but I've heard it doesn't matter how good I am if I have You in my heart and I do, I really do. So... Will you forgive me? I hope you will, otherwise I will stop believing in you.
There're people who don't think about religion, about its roots and genuineness, they just believe. Because that's what their parents do, that's how they were brought up, because of surrounding them culture, tradition and so on. THey neither ask questions nor have doubts. And to some extent I can understand their approach and thier belief in ridiculous fairy tales about crucified son of god. But I definitely can not understand how someone who actually thinks about religion, tries to analyze all this bullshit, doesn't get to the conlusion that's what it is: bullshit. Myths, no different than those about Zeus and the rest of gods from pantheon. Just don't get it how your mind works...
Dear God, today I was very bad girl, murdered a few guys, raped a few others, robbed one church, but I've heard it doesn't matter how good I am if I have You in my heart and I do, I really do. So... Will you forgive me? I hope you will, otherwise I will stop believing in you.
Yes, big surprise. Jarold still hasn't provided evidence of the dinosaur DNA that was the whole basis of his DNA decay argument.
Spoiler: that's because he was making it up.
I can't forgive you, but God can and He will. Did you not read what I wrote? :|
Dear God, today I was very bad girl, murdered a few guys, raped a few others, robbed one church, but I've heard it doesn't matter how good I am if I have You in my heart and I do, I really do. So... Will you forgive me? I hope you will, otherwise I will stop believing in you.
:arrow::?:
I'm rude to rude people. Like The Phantom. Old Jungle Saying: The Phantom is rough with rough-necks.
You're right huge blunder on my part. I should've been talking about dino bone cells and protein. Honestly I don't like discussing things with you because you're a rude person.
I was talking to the God, in hope he reads these forums :P
:?:
What gives you the impression, the forming of an idear, wouldnt be random?
What does the later found legitemity of a "logical statement" has to do with the inspiration of the first acurance of it? As within this dialog, we swing around idears, concepts, believes, some may have been new to some of us, some not. Anyone who would have found those on his own, not originating from something he read or heared directly, would not have had at first also the certaintity that it is a) logical b) true or false, but would need to proove, test and fact check them.
A more honest man for one, both to yourself and others. If you have doubts about something, you face those doubts. If you have good reason and evidence to counter your beliefs, you don't stand up for those beliefs. It takes some courage to admit your mistakes(especially when it has been such a major part of who you are), but that's the way to learn and move forward.
The reason he gets called an idiot is because he's behaving like one. I'm all for being nice and kind and kissing in the moonlight and happy happy fun time, but Jarold's not worth it. His debating style (and it's a stretch to call it debating) is gay, and on top of that, rude. So rudeness is what he gets in return. He stops making baseless claims and ignoring 99% of the arguments where he gets proven wrong, maybe he'll earn some politeness in return.
you have to consider it from a psychological perspectiveone of the points i made much earlier, only because it stands in a book and is sold and read a million times, does not make it true. That but often is the tenor in casual discussions, such and such many christians cant be wrong ... or over thousands of years this is now the case and only because you come and say different ...(click to show/hide)
you have to consider it from a psychological perspectiveI'm not trying to convert him. What he believes is his own business. So why would I care?
we learn things we consider to be true from what we consider to be 'authority figures', which dictates how much truth we personally attribute to a piece of information. this is a lot more relevant in many cases (as with religions in the western world where information is freely available), than the validity of the information itself. imagine, his father, mother, uncles, aunties, brothers sisters, community leaders are all giving him a message (even though it's incorrect) that tells him one thing, it's very very hard to undo that shit.
even though you're right, it doesn't matter, because you are just 'a guy on the internet' to this guy, your credibility in his (or any religious person's) mind is very low. in order to change someone's mind about something they believe to be fact, you need a strong 'authority figure' (someone with information that the receiver deems as trustworthy).
so if his 'authority figures' suddenly started changing their message and telling him a new thing it might change his mind. but what you're doing, berating him, simply lowers your 'standing' in his mind (the religious guy), about the weight he gives to the information you're giving him. therefore by berating people you are actually alienating them from what we're trying to say.
this is why i always try to get religious people to self-educate more with a bit of gentle guidance when they're being "de-relion'd" (phrase copyright corsair 2013), because these religious people are far more likely to highly value the information of a variety of highly accredited and reknowned authors (note i said likely, not guaranteed to), than they are to regard what i am telling them, as i am just some schmuck.
Short Version: stop being an asshole, and people will listen to what you say
one of the points i made much earlier, only because it stands in a book and is sold and read a million times, does not make it true. That but often is the tenor in casual discussions, such and such many christians cant be wrong ... or over thousands of years this is now the case and only because you come and say different ...
If you are in a point of a discussion, where the believer does not find arguments , but repeats parols, you need to give him time and not put him into the corner. Afterall we are just animals and would react devensivly, just let the information sinck in and hope that at a later point for an epiphany. This may now sound condescending for the christian folks at first, then again you can do it the other way round equaly ;)
I agree on the authority figure statement of importance and relevance to the frozen state of believes, although i disagree that that would be the only or even best solution to convince someone of a different way, not a bad way though neither. 'Stetig Tropfen höhlte den Stein', repetition is important too. As maybe experiences good or bad, where none believers would be helpfull with how and what they say and help through actions too. Live examplatory lives as none believers, then you may even become partly an authority figure you mentioned or just be a normal human being with all the inherint flaws, problems and struggles and still stand your ground in bad times as a none-believer =)
In the end, if religions don't adept, get rid of the BS put in books by some backwards minded sheperds(well 2000 years back they had been super hip ^^, but now a few of the values have a patina). If they don't adept, they will be exchanged or just cease to exist, simple as that, happened hundreds of times before, will happen again, no doubt there whatsoever.
Also when you look especially at cristianity, all the holy days in the year ... wich are different from country to country ^^ ... adaption for a broader publicum is what they do normaly, so there is hope for 'better/newer/uptodate' religions.
Trying not to be a dick, is for anyone who wants to make a point a good rule in my book.
xant, i just think that what you're saying to him isn't really constructive, if you're teaching someone something it's ok to be a bit condescending, but you have to understand he's not being an asshole, people like this come from backgrounds where they hear lies every single day, it doesn't help your position if you're abrasive, you just have to show a little understanding to their situation whilst trying to change their minds. if you're not trying to convert him then why are you arguing with him. the whole point of an argument is to say you're right and he's wrongActually, if you're teaching someone something without being asked to, being condescending is the worst thing you could do. I don't see what his "different background" has to do with him sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting "CANT HEAR U CANT HEAR U NO EVIDENCE AAA DINOSAUR DNA".
Islam is the one true religion.
how can it be the one true when its the youngest?
It's funny because if you ask some muslims, Islam must be the one true religion precisely because it is the youngest, disregarding the fact that countless other religions appeared after 632.
Wat. Muslims believe that there were prophets before Muhammed. Like Jesus, Abraham, Moses etc. They consider it being the oldest religion.
christianity (if you live in europe or north america) is a foundation of everyday life cos its reflected in law you follow everyday
Yeah, modern day laws and morals have nothing to do with Christianity.Not sure if troll...
Any examples? Neither do I see laws like the ones described in Leviticus, nor laws like the ones described by Jesus.I dont know mayby "dont kill" or "dont steal" and stuff it is not literally taken from bible but christian moral philosophy is what our law is based. Christian morality is REFLECTED not literally taken from bible in our law. You have thousands of diffrent robberies you can perform and many diffrent law executions for it but still in general the moral sentence behind it is "dont steal". Im not a lawyer but this is what lawyer said to me.
Not sure if troll...I dont know mayby "dont kill" or "dont steal" and stuff it is not literally taken from bible but christian moral philosophy is what our law is based. Christian morality is REFLECTED not literally taken from bible in our law. You have thousands of diffrent robberies you can perform and many diffrent law executions for it but still in general the moral sentence behind it is "dont steal". Im not a lawyer but this is what lawyer said to me.
You seriously think "don't steal" and "don't kill" is an achievement of Christianity? So, before Christianity, it was totally okay to kill and steal whatever you could??? Achievment ?
I dont think you are reading what im writing or my english is so bad that my sentences are completly missing the point. ?? Achievment ?So what is your point...?
I dont think you are reading what im writing or my english is so bad that my sentences are completly missing the point. ?? Achievment ?
You are misunderstood because you only make claims without providing either examples or steps that could be reproduced to arrive at the same conclusions.yes i dont have any if you deny fact that bible says dont kill and killing is against law. I lack knowledge from law history this is true and im founding my opinion on some authorities (authorities on law history) and i do believe there might be some others that would think diffrent but in my experience most people that know stuff about law can agree on statement that christian morality is reflected by civil law.
No, the values aren't reflected in modern law. Laws would be the same even if Christianity had never existed.
Again, that has nothing to do with Christianity. Every society needs said laws to function. Hunter gatherer tribes that have never heard of Christianity don't go around killing each other and stealing stuff... Because a community can't work like that.No not every society works like this, most yes but definitelly not all. There is huge variety of moral ideals among diffrent cultures that from cultures that find woman having many housbands very moral, hight prestige to cultures that find eating other people morally correct.
Yeah, modern day laws and morals have nothing to do with Christianity.
(click to show/hide)
It is logical because groups do not work if you are allowed to kill who you please. There has never existed a society where murder is fine and we wouldn't have evolved like that for the same reason. Your turn.No society ever said that murdering Jews is ok ? What more they have a lot of earnings from this and become "stronger" in some economic and military aspects. Touche
No society ever said that murdering Jews is ok ? What more they have a lot of earnings from this and become "stronger" in some economic and military aspects. ToucheWhat are you talking about?
Also predicting your next move i say in advance you can't put strickt walls of who is within society and who is not. (as Jews were part of German society for hundreds of years)
And almost all of people here have to admit that christianity (if you live in europe or north america) is a foundation of everyday life cos its reflected in law you follow everyday. So unless you are sociopath you are christian at some point in my view cos christianity is also a model of morality.
for me christian is somebody who follow christian morality.
Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”
6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”
Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. 31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let’s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.”
33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I slept with my father. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.” 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
36 So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father.
There is huge variety of moral ideals among diffrent cultures that from cultures that find woman having many housbands very moral, hight prestige to cultures that find eating other people morally correct.
No society ever said that murdering Jews is ok ?
Marriage existed before Christianity. I'm quite sure that neither ancient greeks nor romans could have more than one wife.
I have demonstrated that monogamy is not commanded in the
Bible, and that it is not the doctrine of Christianity. I
shall now account for its origin, by proving that it is the
joint offspring of paganism and Romanism. The social system
of European monogamy is proved to be derived from the ancient
Greeks and Romans (especially from the latter), by the early
histories of the nations of Europe, and by an uninterrupted
descent of traditional customs from them to our own times. It
is one of those pagan abominations which we have inherited,
which the Roman Church has sanctioned and confirmed, and from
which we find it so difficult to emancipate ourselves.
I also recomend anyone who wants to know about what real socialism is to read "The Road to Wigan Pier" by George Orwell. A man who wanted people not to be used, not to be hungry, not be to bled for the bread of others. It is a very good primer on understanding the difference between true socialism and the horrible fascist states that are set up in its name.
If that is too heavy going for you, try "Animal Farm". This is obviously a very popular book about the russian revolution and the rise of Stalin. It is often given to children to read, but unlike Harry Potter I do not think it is any way a children's book. I weep inside for Boxer... but unfortunatly I am Benjamin it seems. At least I hope so. Maybe I am the cat: Who are you? respond pls if you have read it.
No, the values aren't reflected in modern law. Laws would be the same even if Christianity had never existed.
But Christianity did exist (and to some degree still does). And without its existence world would be really different
I said it is reflected.cause and effect
...
But Christianity did exist (and to some degree still does). And without its existence european history would be really different - also our laws. Without christianity we would not have had monastrys and monks who saved antique knowledge through the middle ages. We would have forgotten latin and old greek language. Monastrys were the centers of learning and study in the middle ages (those times before universitys for the public existed and peasants were not much more then owned cattle). The monks copied many books of old and saved that wisdom (and also changed some content to be more "christian"), so later generations could still learn from that. Thats exaclty what happened in Rennaisance. This would not have been possible without christian monks. Without church we would have some more "witches" around and maybe some more different pagan believes. And on and on and on. Without christianity we would not have the same written german language, which was highly popularised by Martin Luther and his bible - the first one in german language, so the peasants could learn and try to read it themselves...
and lot more of influence from christianity in Europe as dominant doctrine, that in some periods was brutaly enforced on the public by feudal and clerical law. Dont try to say our history does not influence our present with a single sentence statement, its just not true.
You could well say that other non christian people could have also fullfilled this role as sholars, counselors and shepards and moral judges of the people. But it was not other people. So we have over thousand years of history seen through mostly christian perspective. In many countries the biggest charity-organisations still are funded by church (Caritas).
Its just fact, that we have strong christian roots in Europe. The only question is: do we want to cut those roots out and neglect everything of the past or do we accept our history with all the bad and also the good things, that have been?
First things first, a huge part of the laws that we find necessary today do not come from christian, but from universal values shared by all humanity.
Christians refer to those "universal values" as Natural Law. The idea is that all humans are born with an innate understanding of good and evil inherited from Adam and Eve after they ate the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. Whether they choose to follow good or evil based on that understanding is based upon their own free will, however.
Yeah, and I refer to ethics as a natural phenomenon that appeared because it is an evolutionary advantage. All cultures have myths that explain such things.
... We'll never know for sure how morality and ethics came about because they weren't documented as they occurred.How about deduction from anthropological findings?
How about deduction from anthropological findings?
What deduction from anthropological findings?
Evolution is just another myth of another culture, though. The only difference is that evolution is a more modern myth. We'll never know for sure how morality and ethics came about because they weren't documented as they occurred.
It is a "myth" that can be observed in nature. Like all scientific "myths".
You didn't say evolutionism before.
What deduction from anthropological findings?The question was not about a specific deduction, but deduction as method to determin and validate anthropological knowledge. As you stated
... We'll never know for sure how morality and ethics came about because they weren't documented as they occurred.I think, moral is not something you are born with, but you are imprinted in with by your parents and over time by experiences. By what we find at excavation sites, we can deduct behaviour, traditions and therefor deduct further values, morals, ethics, religious believes. In agypt we have the pyramids, huge monumental graves for their god kings. The old agyptians pharaos had been around for a while and due to many findings the hiroglyphs had been translated and lots of the past culutre been learned.
So from there to we are born with morals is not a big stretch right?
...The idea is that all humans are born with an innate understanding of good and evil ...
I thought that's what we were talking about. What did you think I was talking about?
I think, moral is not something you are born with, but you are imprinted in with by your parents and over time by experiences. By what we find at excavation sites, we can deduct behaviour, traditions and therefor deduct further values, morals, ethics, religious believes. In agypt we have the pyramids, huge monumental graves for their god kings. The old agyptians pharaos had been around for a while and due to many findings the hiroglyphs had been translated and lots of the past culutre been learned.
Nevertheless you now would answer my first question, here another one.
TurmoilTom do you support and believe the concept of the original sin?
What deduction from anthropological findings?http://forum.melee.org/general-off-topic/thoughts-on-religion-and-the-state/msg904837/#msg904837
Evolution is just another myth of another culture, though. The only difference is that evolution is a more modern myth. We'll never know for sure how morality and ethics came about because they weren't documented as they occurred.
Were the Egyptians proven to be the first society to have ethics or morals?
Yes, although I don't believe it for itself. I simply believe in the Bible and original sin is one of the subjects in the Bible. To explain why I believe in original sin I need to explain why I believe in Christianity and that is going to take a little bit of writing. I adopted Protestant Christianity as my religion because I found the existence of the universe and the way it functions to be sufficient proof of the existence of a deity and the Bible properly explained all of my questions.
Here's why I find the universe itself to be sufficient proof of a deity:
All events take place as a reaction to previous events that have taken place. A simple example would be child-birth. A child cannot crawl on the carpet until it has been born. It cannot be born spontaneously, it must first be conceived. A husband and wife must each first be conceived, born, and grown to be able to conceive their own child. Eventually, actions and reactions are traced so far back into time that one of two events occur. Either the chain continues into infinity or the universe begins at some point in the past. I'll address the former first.
If the world has existed forever, then an infinite number of events can occur with an infinite amount of variation. It stands to reason that if infinite kinds of events occur an infinite amount of times, then the event that causes the end of the universe has to have already occurred.
Imagine as if the world has existed forever. Every event that has taken place within our recorded history has already taken place in the exact same place and manner that we have observed.
It's not far-fetched at all to say that the universe must have already destroyed itself if the universe is infinite in time-span.
Now I'll address the latter. A beginning to the universe necessitates one of two things. Either it spontaneously began to exist or some action was made by an entity to create the world despite no previously existing events to make that action a reaction. The spontaneous generation of the universe stands contrary to reason because we know that nothing is nothing. Something cannot come out of nothing. The Bible stresses the timelessness of God's existence and how he is infinite and good in all ways. He is not restricted by time or space. The debate discussing how God himself came about is pointless in nature because a finite existence implies an infinite creator. Finite existence necessitates an entity that can begin the chain of events on its own without outer influence. Christians call that entity God.
Infinite existence implies nothingness. Finite existence implies design.
Here's why I find the way the universe functions to be sufficient proof of a deity:
Information regarding how our world functions is acquired through scientific study. Science is essentially accumulation of measurements regarding changes in an environment and using those numerical measurements in mathematics to find patterns. Science is just applied mathematics. Mathematics is just logic with numerical representation of data. Logic is... Well, something. We are able to use our reason and logic to discover details about how the universe functions but we are unable to find why the universe functions based upon rational principles.
Why does the world make sense? Weird question. Very simply worded. Not a trick question. Not complicated.
But there's no good answer. There's no observable force that we can observe that makes the universe function on laws of reason and logic. I couldn't find a good answer, but I got a decent one:
"Reason can't exist in a world that exists for no reason."
Finite existence implies design. Design implies purpose. Purpose implies reason.
We are finite. We are designed. We were made with a purpose. Our rational capabilities necessitate these qualities of our existence.
Who is the designer, then? Some don't call Him anything. I call Him Lord, God and Savior.[/font][/size][/color]
Why does the world make sense? Weird question. Very simply worded. Not a trick question. Not complicated.
But there's no good answer.
The Bible stresses the timelessness of God's existence and how he is infinite and good in all ways.
I adopted Protestant Christianity as my religion because I found the existence of the universe and the way it functions to be sufficient proof of the existence of a deity and the Bible properly explained all of my questions..
Also: anthropic principle.In other words ...
In other words ...
Is a forest still a forest when there wouldnt be a someone to call it a forest.
... (?)
No. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principleyes i did read that before i wrote what i thought could be an analogy.
All analogies are by definition not identical, but I don't see how what you said has anything to do with the anthropic principle.
...observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it.
...
Is a forest still a forest when there wouldnt be a someone to call it a forest.
...
"Observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it" means that of course we live in a Universe compatible with life, however unlikely those conditions are. Nothing to do with a forest being a forest if nobody's there to call it a forest.
Observed? I don't recall the general human anatomy changing significantly within recorded history. Care to provide some info? All of the evolutionist studies I've read have been contrary to recent findings or had problems in their methodology.
visitors can't see pics , please register or loginhttp://forum.melee.org/general-off-topic/age-guessing-game/msg976587/#msg976587
Can someone explain to me why so many people keep going on about "thread necromancery" and "necro-posts"? Who the fuck cares? Why does it matter? Is it not better to keep these things in one thread instead of having 100 "age guessing games" because the last one was inactive for an undefined, arbitrary time?
So, Aliens build the pyramids and are the Gods of Old.
And the reason for Vikings having less 'omnipotent' Gods is because the actually attacked and fought the Aliens back then and as mighty warriors from the North, they actually managed to kill or hurt a few - therefore their Gods tend to be more 'human' in power...
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
visitors can't see pics , please register or login(click to show/hide)
What a lame necro. Current drama not enough?Hit a nerve? LOL
Guys, don't forget this thread. A search led me to this treasure trove again.
http://forum.melee.org/general-off-topic/thoughts-on-religion-and-the-state/msg904055/#msg904055
Jarold, an actual Creationist, presents the worst arguments in the history of cRPG forums. Yes, that bad. Behold as he doesn't know what a theory is and how he thinks Jurassic Park was a documentary. It's a wild ride.
Jarold, fam, any updates? Still Creationisming like a champ?
You don't need to read through 25 pages of conversation to understand a picture (one assumes).now you tell me after 25 pages pffff :rolleyes: