Discuss
Printable View
Discuss
Allright, very good.
I have one problem though with the vid:
I like the delusional!!
I think the world would be a sad and boring place with out a little oddness and unreality. Do we as LDers not constantly check which reality we are in, always hoping that when we do we find we are actualy in the unreal?
I am surprised at you. You are a Discordian! a Chaote! What would the maker of this video say if he came across you performing the lesser banishing ritual while wearing a gorrila suit and wielding a large inflateable bannana??? "You are delusional" he might say. You would of course laugh at him and say something like "But of course! What of it? Did you seriously think I was aiming for austere?!?"
I assume you are well versed with the works of Wilson and Hyatt? What fun would life be without all the dogma addicts out there that you can manipulate for amusement and gain - yet enriching their lives by waking them up from time to time with a little injection of oddness and chaos???
I like to embrace my reality and unreality in equal measure.
Sadly, all this is fine except of course when lots of like minded dogma junkies group together and start passing laws to make you live according to the standards of their delusions. As long as everybody is free to pursue their own delusions then I am fine. Why is oral sex still banned in almost half the US states?!?!? - Because the puritants that founded the country hundreds of years ago thought it was nasty and sinful! I say we rise up! Take to the streets and go down on each other in a glorious display of mass civil disobedience until these wrongs are righted!!!
Now its Friday the last time I checked - arent you supposed to be eating hot dogs in reverance to the Origional Snub or out and about fnord hunting or something???
The world needs the delusional - they just shouldnt be allowed to pass laws.
Why would the world be sad and boring without delusions? I don't see the logic behind that. And even if it were the case, you're saying people who hold such delusions can't be allowed to create and pass legislation for governments and nations.
How do we know who is delusional and who isn't? We could be electing anyone into office, and if we usually elect those who share the same beliefs as us, so the odds of electing someone delusional to a position of legislative power would be pretty self-defeating in regards to that argument.
What is wrong with someone not having delusions? For the most part, I'd find the world to be a clearer and happier place to live in if that were the case. If such people are sad and boring, then why on Earth would we elect them to positions of power? That'd be akin to giving the potentially-unstable the power to determine the fate of the rest of humanity.
EvilDoctor, you are my favorite new member.
Delusion in the form of religion has given us jaw droping works of art and architecture. True it has given us some gruesome wars. But then we the people would still find plenty to fight over, and feeding the war machine has arguably been the main driver in the investment in research and therefore the progress of science.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Danciu
The world would be boring without the diversity of culture - and religion like it or no is a big part of this.
Delusion in the form of religion is BAD when the prevailing religous dogma gets to set the rules for everybody else regardless of whether everyone buys into the religion. I beleive in the total freedom of the individual - so for example am a keen advocate of euthanasia. I resent and seethe at the fact that I do not have the right to die with dignity at a place and time of my choosing all because the presiding delusion in the USA is that it is actually the right of the "big beardy invisible guy in the sky" to decide when I clock out. I lived in Belgium for a few year - a very devoutly catholic country. All shops are closed Sunday in Belgium - if you are a non-chatholic that owns a shop or would like to go shopping then you are screwed.
Politics is another primary source of dogma - and therefore delusion. This is not the forum for politics - but try telling me there is no delusion in politics and try keeping a straight face - bet you cant. One of my favorite quotes is by Arthur C Clarke, he said something like "HE who activley seeks political power over others is THE LAST person society should allow to weild it." SOmething all politicians share is the delusion that the world would be a good and happy place if everybody else thought exactly like themselves.
Even sports!! I am a Packers fan. Based on their amazing performance in the preseason I was sure they were going to go to the superbowl this year. Alas they suck. However, deep down in my heart every Sunday I am full of hope and faith that they will make good - so every week I delude myself all over again.
Dont forget its the irrational parts of our human nature where hope and faith come from. Logic will only take you so far - we are not robots yet.
And as to "how do we know who is delusional and who isnt" - we dont! Cool! So to battle we go!
The world the way it is is already incredible, delusion or no.
Who isn't amazed by the fact that we have machines that weigh tons and
can still fly? Particle physics? Powergrids? Individual perception of the world
in which we live? Every real element of our universe on its own warrants
amazement.
I feel I must watch the video, having posted in this thread, though it does
not apply to me. Later.
1.Why not? Well why so? He may not heal them, but he helps them. God let's nature work the way it was made to work. He doesn't
ignore the prayers, but that doesn't necessarily mean he will heal the lost limb. God still has a perfect plan for their life, and
can see the bigger picture that others cannot see. How can one know that path the amputee may have treaded had he not lost the
limb? Perhaps he would have died.
2. Yes people are starving! Why don't you help them? Seems to me that God has given us PLENTY of money to help starving countries.
Instead of wasting money on the fancy computer you're using right now, why didn't you use it to buy food? Why would God worry
about a Christian's raise when there are starving children in the world? Guys, think about it. That's good stuff right there. The
thousands of dollars that an average person will waste on luxuries COULD be put to good use.
3. All those verses are in the old testament, and were given as laws to the Jews. This was done before Jesus' death, and was the
only way for one to be able to be saved in the future. It's tough, but that's why Jesus had to die to keep us from following so
much. We no longer have to obey those judgments, but should still obey the commandments.
Trivial offenses? They might be trivial in the physical realm, but they sure aren't where God is.
4. What? Those aren't anti-scientific. Yes, God made the world in six days, six thousand years ago....why is that ridiculous?
Yes, a flood covered mount Everest, before it ever even became a mountain. (There is enough water in the oceans alone to cover the
world in a mile of water)
What about Jonah living in the belly of a fish? I don't even recall that God said he lived through that.
The Bible doesn't say God created Adam from a "handful" of dust. You yourself knows that Plants get nutrition from the soil.
Animals get their nutrition from the plants, humans get nutrition from both. Ultimately, all elements required to produce a human
exists in soil, or as the Bible says, the dust of the earth.
5. Yeah, but the Bible's definttion of slavery is a liiiiitttle bit different than ours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deuteronomy 15:12-15 9 (King James Version)
In other words, slaves were treated quite well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ephesians 6:6-9(King James Version)
6.Bad things to good people?
7.No evidence? What kind of evidence do you want? Jesus turned water to wine. Exactly what kind of evidence do you expect to find?Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke 18:19(King James Version)
A fossilized pot of water? The kind of miracles Jesus performed wouldn't necessarily leave behind evidence. Especially after 2,000
years worth of decay. Bread crumbs tend to mold after that kind of time.
8. Because Jesus isn't a wish granting machine. He isn't a genie that can be summoned, and commanded. He won't appear in the
physical realm until the second coming. Prayer is communion. It's a relationship, and one can become spiritually close to him
through prayer.
9. We don't eat his flesh, or drink his blood.
In other words, bread is symbolic of his body, the drink was symbolic of his blood, and he commanded that when they ate, or drank that they do it in remembrance of him. It wasn't literally his body, or his blood.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1st Corinthians 11:23-26
10. Because:
a.They are imperfect humans.
b.You can claim to be a Christian without being a Christian
c.You can also be a Christian that makes mistakes
We live in the age of Laodicea church. Half hearted, lukewarm Christians. It's sad indeed.
What about people that will never even hear the name Jesus in their life time? How are these people supposed to be saved? Surely god would not deny these people hearing their saviour's name once in their lifetime, would he?Quote:
Originally Posted by Noogah
Does God favour people living in the vicinity of Christian churches? Why would he do such a thing?
NO. Try again later.Quote:
(There is enough water in the oceans alone to cover the world in a mile of water)
It contradicts all of modern knowledge. Hence, it is untrue. We have moved on to newer and more correct theories.Quote:
Yes, God made the world in six days, six thousand years ago....why is that ridiculous?
This whole clingy, conservative mindset represents EVERYTHING that is WRONG with the world.
But as what was exactly told in the video, you begin to talk about how god have this "special plan" for them. How exactly do you know he helps them, anyway? And in which way? And how do you know god have a special plan for them? Oh and, perhaps he wouldn't have died. When you start to extend the actual question you just add on a lot of new material and unanswered questions without actually addressing what was first asked in a clear manner. As I said, the way you addressed the answer was nothing but new statements extending the original question, but without really answering it, atleast in a way that leaves out as much subjective oppinions as possible.Quote:
Why not? Well why so? He may not heal them, but he helps them. God let's nature work the way it was made to work. He doesn't ignore the prayers, but that doesn't necessarily mean he will heal the lost limb. God still has a perfect plan for their life, and can see the bigger picture that others cannot see. How can one know that path the amputee may have treaded had he not lost the limb? Perhaps he would have died.
The question wasn't whenever or not we help them, it's why god WOULDN'T help them. He made the earth in 6 days after all... why wouldn't he wanna help himself? He is supposed to be an all loving god after all. Besides, you donating to organisations to supply food for the starving is all well and good, but the amount of starvation and suffering around the globe exceeds what could possibly be expected to be able to cover. Also it won't stop until the actual problem with the countries themself are addressed. An superior being as god could help a whole lot, so would there be any reason as to why he wouldn't help? You didn't answer that question after all.Quote:
Yes people are starving! Why don't you help them? Seems to me that God has given us PLENTY of money to help starving countries. Instead of wasting money on the fancy computer you're using right now, why didn't you use it to buy food? Why would God worry about a Christian's raise when there are starving children in the world? Guys, think about it. That's good stuff right there. The thousands of dollars that an average person will waste on luxuries COULD be put to good use.
#3 I can't really answer as I don't really have any in-depth knowlegde of the area, but if I should atleast try to answer it...
You ask why the claim of an all superior being creating the world in 6 days, 6000 years ago disregarding all the evidence that points towards a planet that's waaaay older is ridiculous? Come on :PQuote:
What? Those aren't anti-scientific. Yes, God made the world in six days, six thousand years ago....why is that ridiculous?
Yes, a flood covered mount Everest, before it ever even became a mountain. (There is enough water in the oceans alone to cover the world in a mile of water)
What about Jonah living in the belly of a fish? I don't even recall that God said he lived through that.
The Bible doesn't say God created Adam from a "handful" of dust. You yourself knows that Plants get nutrition from the soil. Animals get their nutrition from the plants, humans get nutrition from both. Ultimately, all elements required to produce a human exists in soil, or as the Bible says, the dust of the earth.
And the part about all elements existing in plants/soil to produce an actual human being... are you on crack or something?
Slavery is slavery. It's essentially still forced work in which one human being is considered the property of another... why would god think slavery is okay? Why would it be needed? Again, you didn't address the actual question. <_< And even though I don't really have much to back this up... I bet slaves weren't threated as well as described in those texts :P Sounds like an implemented excuse to justify slavery or something, haha.Quote:
In other words, slaves were treated quite well.
About the no evidence left behind thing... can't really say much to that, maybe the question itself is worded a bit strange.
I'll address the others a bit later, I shall go have dinner now!
Are you saying that nature works in its place outside of God? God does not dictate nature?Quote:
Originally Posted by Noogah
The point is that God does not perform miracles of obvious distinction.
The point is that praying is pointless.
So, in response to, "Why does God let people starve?" you say that it is our responsibility to help them..?Quote:
2. Yes people are starving! Why don't you help them? Seems to me that God has given us PLENTY of money to help starving countries. Instead of wasting money on the fancy computer you're using right now, why didn't you use it to buy food? Why would God worry about a Christian's raise when there are starving children in the world? Guys, think about it. That's good stuff right there. The thousands of dollars that an average person will waste on luxuries COULD be put to good use.
By your logic, if my neighbor is starving his child, I should feed the child.
Why not beat the parents ass?
God still demands deaths of people in the new testament. The quotations are prolific and you ought to know this.Quote:
3. All those verses are in the old testament, and were given as laws to the Jews. This was done before Jesus' death, and was the only way for one to be able to be saved in the future. It's tough, but that's why Jesus had to die to keep us from following so much. We no longer have to obey those judgments, but should still obey the commandments.Trivial offenses? They might be trivial in the physical realm, but they sure aren't where God is.
Because evidence proves that it was not created that way. Do you need me to post the LHC video for you again?Quote:
4. What? Those aren't anti-scientific. Yes, God made the world in six days, six thousand years ago....why is that ridiculous?
No there was not. There is no evidence for this at all.Quote:
Yes, a flood covered mount Everest, before it ever even became a mountain. (There is enough water in the oceans alone to cover the world in a mile of water)
Because it is ridiculously stupid to believe someone lived in a fish. Do you seriously believe that?Quote:
What about Jonah living in the belly of a fish? I don't even recall that God said he lived through that.
Adam and Eve don't exist and never did.Quote:
The Bible doesn't say God created Adam from a "handful" of dust. You yourself knows that Plants get nutrition from the soil.
Animals get their nutrition from the plants, humans get nutrition from both. Ultimately, all elements required to produce a human exists in soil, or as the Bible says, the dust of the earth.
You're naive if you believe this. A simple review of your quotes alone shows; if it turns out your slave is hebrew, let him go. Also, slaves, do what your master says because he is, after all, christian.Quote:
5. Yeah, but the Bible's definttion of slavery is a liiiiitttle bit different than ours.
In other words, slaves were treated quite well.
You cannot seriously believe people treated SLAVES good. Do you?
Why do you not then believe the miracles performed by Mithras or Zarathustra? They are based on the same lines of proof.Quote:
6.Bad things to good people?
You missed the point. Please review it and try to be more insightful.
7.No evidence? What kind of evidence do you want? Jesus turned water to wine. Exactly what kind of evidence do you expect to find?
A fossilized pot of water? The kind of miracles Jesus performed wouldn't necessarily leave behind evidence. Especially after 2,000 years worth of decay. Bread crumbs tend to mold after that kind of time.
Prayer functions through self-fulfilling prophecy and confirmation bias.Quote:
8. Because Jesus isn't a wish granting machine. He isn't a genie that can be summoned, and commanded. He won't appear in the physical realm until the second coming. Prayer is communion. It's a relationship, and one can become spiritually close to him through prayer.
Your quote alone says that it is his blood.Quote:
9. We don't eat his flesh, or drink his blood.
In other words, bread is symbolic of his body, the drink was symbolic of his blood, and he commanded that when they ate, or drank that they do it in remembrance of him. It wasn't literally his body, or his blood.
Furthermore, you are ignoring the question; why is he asking you to do it, even symbolically?
You are still ignoring the actual question; if all of the people watching the marriages are the witnesses to praying to God for the marriages success, then should not there but a difference between religious and nonreligious marriages?Quote:
10. Because:
a.They are imperfect humans.
b.You can claim to be a Christian without being a Christian
c.You can also be a Christian that makes mistakes
We live in the age of Laodicea church. Half hearted, lukewarm Christians. It's sad indeed.
Pay attention.
~
How can one know the path a person may have taken had they not gotten sick? Perhaps they would've died painfully. Why are sicknesses and wounds healed, but not entire limbs? Why does God save people from paralysis, but won't give back a lost arm?Quote:
Originally Posted by Noogah
Why don't you? How are you typing this right now. The hypocrisy is astounding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noogah
Could be. But I don't have enough money to save all the starving children in 3rd world countries. Sure someone does, but some people are greedy. God knows that. I can't make the greedy people give away their money. I can't impose on freewill, and I don't have enough to do it myself as much as I may want to. So now the starving kids are essentially being punished and further suffering, why? Because a few rich people don't want to help, and those that do aren't rich enough? Now its our fault? God sure is a logical fellow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noogah
Ah. Right. He gave those laws to the Jews. Makes it all okay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noogah
Its alright if people die horribly, as long as its because of the Jews.
So let me get this straight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noogah
1. God creates flawed and faulty humans.
2. God creates some of these humans with a tendency towards "sinful" things.
3. God says people who do sinful things will be punished.
4. God tells people to kill people who do sinful things, even though killing anyone even if their sinful is sinful
5. God has a son and sends him to die so that we can do sinful things and not be punished for it.
Yeah, makes sense to me. God creates faulty humans, punishes them for their faults, has a son for the purpose of sending him to die because of the humans faults and then tells us that all the faulty people he told other people to kill deserved it because those laws were given to Jewish people before he sent his son to die for the faults of the people he created like that. I follow.
Yeah, I'm sure that sticking someones dongle up your asshole is a big deal in God's world. Its those starving children that are trivial.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noogah
By the processes of deduction, God lives in Bizzaro world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noogah
Because the idea that the earth is only 6000 years old goes against everything scientific.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noogah
Um, no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noogah
Quote:
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
So its okay to beat your slaves, as long as they don't die in 2 days.
Notice how they can get a male Hebrew slave to become a permanent slave by keeping his wife and children hostage until he says he wants to become a permanent slave. What kind of family values are these?Quote:
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
The following passage describes the sickening practice of sex slavery. How can anyone think it is moral to sell your own daughter as a sex slave?
So these are the Bible family values! A man can buy as many sex slaves as he wants as long as he feeds them, clothes them, and screws them!Quote:
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
Yeah, slaves were treated really well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noogah
A fossilized pot of water? The kind of miracles Jesus performed wouldn't necessarily leave behind evidence. [/quote]
Yeah, but because a book says he did it its all good and proven.
Ahhh, so this is why he chooses to miraculously heal someone with cancer, but not heed the prayers of children in sweat shops or locked in basements and utilized in the sex trade.Quote:
8. Because Jesus isn't a wish granting machine. He isn't a genie that can be summoned, and commanded. He won't appear in the
physical realm until the second coming. Prayer is communion. It's a relationship, and one can become spiritually close to him
through prayer.
Thanks Noogah. Christianity finally makes sense now!
You're making excuses for an omnipotent being, just as the video predicted. Do you realise how insulting that should be? An omnipotent being needs an excuse? LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Noogah
You're using a computer too, you don't live on the necessities of life while working a 9-5 job giving everything you don't need to charity. That makes you a hippocrate.Quote:
2. Yes people are starving! Why don't you help them? Seems to me that God has given us PLENTY of money to help starving countries.
Instead of wasting money on the fancy computer you're using right now, why didn't you use it to buy food? Why would God worry
about a Christian's raise when there are starving children in the world? Guys, think about it. That's good stuff right there. The
thousands of dollars that an average person will waste on luxuries COULD be put to good use.
How come the christian bible isn't just the new testament with footnotes about the old testament where required?Quote:
3. All those verses are in the old testament, and were given as laws to the Jews. This was done before Jesus' death, and was the
only way for one to be able to be saved in the future. It's tough, but that's why Jesus had to die to keep us from following so
much. We no longer have to obey those judgments, but should still obey the commandments.
Trivial offenses? They might be trivial in the physical realm, but they sure aren't where God is.
Have you ever been to a science classroom?Quote:
4. What? Those aren't anti-scientific. Yes, God made the world in six days, six thousand years ago....why is that ridiculous?
I'll humor you...Perhaps if all the water was sucked out of the ocean and the land was wrapped in plastic and the water was dumped in this would happen.Quote:
Yes, a flood covered mount Everest, before it ever even became a mountain. (There is enough water in the oceans alone to cover the
world in a mile of water)
You don't recall what god said? Do you have 2 way convo's with him often? I'm pretty sure he gets out according to the bible...Even the fact that he lived in the belly of a fish, which would contain digestive acids...You know what those do?Quote:
What about Jonah living in the belly of a fish? I don't even recall that God said he lived through that.
Lol, exobite has sufficently covered this.Quote:
5. Yeah, but the Bible's definttion of slavery is a liiiiitttle bit different than ours.
In other words, slaves were treated quite well.
8. Because Jesus isn't a wish granting machine. He isn't a genie that can be summoned, and commanded. He won't appear in the
physical realm until the second coming. Prayer is communion. It's a relationship, and one can become spiritually close to him
through prayer.
Oh, so all the sudden symbolism is meaningless....Quote:
9. We don't eat his flesh, or drink his blood.
In other words, bread is symbolic of his body, the drink was symbolic of his blood, and he commanded that when they ate, or drank that they do it in remembrance of him. It wasn't literally his body, or his blood.
But of course you are non of the above.Quote:
10. Because:
a.They are imperfect humans.
b.You can claim to be a Christian without being a Christian
c.You can also be a Christian that makes mistakes
We live in the age of Laodicea church. Half hearted, lukewarm Christians. It's sad indeed.
Well, I'm not going to pay attention to anybody here except for O'nus because
1.I can't respond to everybody.
2.O'nus brings up the best points.
3.I owe him one anyway, because I closed my last thread before responding.
Go will interfere but he will not often directly break a law of natureQuote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Yes. God gave us fat and lazy Americans an amazing abundance of resources that we waste and abuse every day. Why should you sayQuote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
"There are kids in starving countries! God should help them!" when you can get up and do it yourself?
No. Your neighbor has more than enough oppurtunity to feed his child. Tell the officials. Africans sometimes cannot no matter how
much they want, and that's the point.
Ya know what? Go read the Bible. I'm getting sick of all these assumptions.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
No. First off, no. No evidence for something million year old world. No, that video provides a bunch hogwash labeled as evidenceQuote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
that has already been debunked many times.
Sure there is. Go watch a Kent Hovind tape. YES, YES, I KNOW! The guys had problems, alright? But that doesn't mean he didn't haveQuote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
some good points. Especially when it came to evidence for a flood.
The Bible never said he lived through the experience, as I said before.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
[/QUOTE]Adam and Eve don't exist and never did.[/QUOTE]
Prove it.
In the 1800's? No. In Jesus' time? No. But that isn't the point. The point is, God does not condone treating a slave poorly.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Because this is the first time I've heard of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
This really makes me mad. You have no perception of prayer, and until you actually can learn how to participate in it, I don'tQuote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
want to hear another false judgement about it. I KNOW prayer, you don't. You make assumptions on it. I know for a fact that prayer
works. You don't. You can't prove it, and neither can I. I can prove it to myself, though.
It says that it's bread.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
In rememberance of him.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
He does try to make it work, but humans have to do their part also. Fact is, most modern Christians just want it fast, cheap, andQuote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
easy, and so therefore do not.
(I hope I didn't sound too agressive in this debate. It sometimes comes out that way.)
What are miracles then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Noogah
The point is that he is letting them starve - not that he should do something about it. Why is God allowing it to happen in the first place if he is loving?Quote:
Yes. God gave us fat and lazy Americans an amazing abundance of resources that we waste and abuse every day. Why should you say "There are kids in starving countries! God should help them!" when you can get up and do it yourself?
Still does not make sense - you say that we ought to fix other peoples wrongs? Why should I go do my best to help the suffering people in the east if God could save them himself? As a note, praying does not help either (as it still happens).Quote:
No. Your neighbor has more than enough oppurtunity to feed his child. Tell the officials. Africans sometimes cannot no matter how much they want, and that's the point.
Also, is not God an authority? THE authority?
Okay, you want it, I will give it;Quote:
Ya know what? Go read the Bible. I'm getting sick of all these assumptions.
First of all, Jesus himself says that you ought not ignore the old testament;
+ Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Here they are;
Spoiler for Killing in the New Testament:
If it was debunked, they would not be pursuing the research. Please provide this random nonsense you are saying because it is clear that you have no rebuttal with substance and just make stuff up.Quote:
No. First off, no. No evidence for something million year old world. No, that video provides a bunch hogwash labeled as evidence that has already been debunked many times.
Second of all;
The video you still seem to disregard which proves you wrong.
He is abundantly proven wrong. You ought to know this. You ask me to go read your bible, which I have, now respectfully do the same and avoid being a hypocrite.Quote:
Sure there is. Go watch a Kent Hovind tape. YES, YES, I KNOW! The guys had problems, alright? But that doesn't mean he didn't have some good points. Especially when it came to evidence for a flood.
Evidence of the Earth being 600 million years old;
+ http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&l...idence&f=false
Evidence of Human Fossils Being 3 Million Years Old:
+ http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../245/4924/1343
If you read your bible properly, you would see (Jonah 1:17-2:10) that it says he lived in there for at least three days.Quote:
The Bible never said he lived through the experience, as I said before.
That is impossible.
Not a problem!Quote:
Prove it.Quote:
Adam and Eve don't exist and never did.
Humans Dynamic Skeletons that are 3 Million Years old:
+ http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../245/4924/1343
The Ascension or Evolution of Man Through Other Animals and Chimpanzee's
+ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...fa51501d644eaa
Genetic Display of Humans Relation to Other Animals
+ http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vo...16_238_F1.jpeg
Genetic Relation to Chimps
+ http://www.wired.com/news/images/ful...himp_dna_f.jpg
There was no Adam and Eve.
Wrong.Quote:
In the 1800's? No. In Jesus' time? No. But that isn't the point. The point is, God does not condone treating a slave poorly.
It abundantly states you can do whatever you want with slaves. If you read the bible, you would know this. I will give you passages now;
Spoiler for New Testament and Slavery:
You make a good point - if you heard them first.. you'd likely be indoctrinated to their system of beliefs instead.Quote:
Because this is the first time I've heard of them.
It can be proven and has been. You can do it yourself. Watch the video to see how you are deluding yourself.Quote:
This really makes me mad. You have no perception of prayer, and until you actually can learn how to participate in it, I don't want to hear another false judgement about it. I KNOW prayer, you don't. You make assumptions on it. I know for a fact that prayer works. You don't. You can't prove it, and neither can I. I can prove it to myself, though.
Praying does nothing but offer subjective emotional feedback. It cannot affect anything in the outside world. The only thing prayer does is equivalent to meditating.
Pay attention; I said that your quote alone says that the blood is his blood. I said nothing about the bread.Quote:
It says that it's bread.
Also, you are still avoiding the question.
Not surprising. I would avoid certain questions to if I desperately wanted to hold onto my religious beliefs that are in the face of undeniable proof.
That is not answering the question; why did he choose to symbolically eat him and drink his blood? Why not just pray? A mundane point really.Quote:
In rememberance of him.
If he does try, then why is there no difference in the divorce rate between religious and non-religious?Quote:
He does try to make it work, but humans have to do their part also. Fact is, most modern Christians just want it fast, cheap, and easy, and so therefore do not.
Another point as to how prayer does nothing. In this respect, even for individuals.
Thank you for your modesty, but you ought to know that it does not bother me. I will tell you when I am getting emotional.Quote:
(I hope I didn't sound too agressive in this debate. It sometimes comes out that way.)
~
Noogah, Kent Hovind doesn't know the first thing about physics or biology, he's a complete idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noogah
These are some earlier videos by thunderf00t which explain Hovind's stupidity in good detail.
interesting...
Oh boy. I've got my work cut out for me.
Fortunately though, it's the weekend. I am getting to this AFTER the weekend.
Don't waste time telling me not to, because I won't be checking this thread until AFTER the weekend.
I love how this kid plays the same tune over and over.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noogah
*Ridiculous claim*
*Forum cries* Nuh-ah, that's ridiculous and wrong
Noogah: Prove it!
*Forum replies in droves*
Noogah: Too much reading, too many big words, ah my precious weekend, I must stall for time until this thread drops off the front page! I won't allow your logic and common sense to pierce my veil of blind faith!
And Noogah, if this offends you, prove me wrong. Just once. Watch every video in this thread, and answer the questions posed to you, not just the ones you choose to answer. I issue this personal challenge to you. If your faith is as strong as you profess it is, then it can stand up to ANY evidence to the contrary, because you 'know' you are right. Only the truth - the real truth - can stand up to hard scrutiny.
Don't be a hypocrite.
And just to see if he's telling the truth or not about not looking here until Monday: Last Activity: Today 05:09 PM. 3 hours after your last post.
Just wanted to point out one particular funny thing I stumpled upon..:
Do you know what a miracle is? :DQuote:
God will interfere but he will not often directly break a law of nature
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle
A miracle is a perceptible interruption of the laws of nature
Just saying...
You could also apply it to events such as surviving a natural disaster (as the wiki article gives as example), although indirect events like this is just in no way a "proof" of miracles in the first place, as there could be a lot of other reasons as to why it happened, thus making it a whole lot easier to dismiss than a leg growing back out :P
Sigh...
Nooguh, how long can you play these games over and over? I can't imagine someone retaining their sanity by continuing to believe in something false while everyone around you is telling you what is scientifically correct. You have to come to grips with the FACT that science is right, and Christianity is wrong...at lest from a scientific point of view.
Please show us how all of Onus' evidence has been debunked. Provide us with unbiased articles, information, videos, whatever. www.creationists.com does not count as a credible source.Quote:
No. First off, no. No evidence for something million year old world. No, that video provides a bunch hogwash labeled as evidence
that has already been debunked many times.
You are making assumptions that he does not know prayer. It seems like he knows what prayer is more than you do. That is, confirmation bias. Prayer is nothing more than a one way conversation with an imaginary character. Sometimes he helps you out, other times he is "working in mysterious ways"...... :rollseyes:Quote:
This really makes me mad. You have no perception of prayer, and until you actually can learn how to participate in it, I don't
want to hear another false judgement about it. I KNOW prayer, you don't. You make assumptions on it. I know for a fact that prayer
works. You don't. You can't prove it, and neither can I. I can prove it to myself, though.
1. He does. People with missing legs can still walk and move around in most cases. Being cured isn't regrowing your leg, but regaining the ability to walk again. Anything that allows you to walk, helps you. If you just use your arms to walk around, you are still walking. So it is possible for an amputee to get relief, even if they do not regenerate.
2. People are starving because of the direct result of other human beings. There is enough food in the world for everyone to eat. The limiting factor is due to human interference such as politics. God doesn't directly enforce his will over people, people have to decide to follow him on their own.
3. The bible isn't the word of god, but the interpretation of it by humans, some of which were not good people.
4. Ditto
5. Ditto
6. Bad things happen to everyone. God doesn't promise ever lasting life, until you are in heaven. There is no claim saying bad things will never happen to good people.
7. Was a very long time ago.
8. I like noogahs answer. "Because Jesus isn't a wish granting machine. He isn't a genie that can be summoned, and commanded."
9. It is just a representation of people trying to get closer to god.
10. Its a promise made by human in front of a god, and not a promise made by god himself. Meaning that as humans, people can follow it or not follow it.
None of the answers I gave, are crazy or weird or overly silly. The video only works for people who believe the bible is 100 percent accurate, and that god activity interferes in the life of all humans. It makes no attempt at all to refute a Christians religion, if that Christian believes that the bible does have mistakes and that prayers are answered spiritually and not physically.
In the last 24 hours Noogah has posted 24 posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alextanium
Lying for Jesus, one day at a time.
I'm kinda confused about what exactly you're trying to say god helps with here? And the walking around with your arms is a lousy example as it is deffinately not something an ordinary person could use as any sort of help on a day-to-day basis in a modern society. Nowhere in your explanation do you justify the fact that it is god himself "healing"(whatever meaning you put behind that word) amputees.Quote:
He does. People with missing legs can still walk and move around in most cases. Being cured isn't regrowing your leg, but regaining the ability to walk again. Anything that allows you to walk, helps you. If you just use your arms to walk around, you are still walking. So it is possible for an amputee to get relief, even if they do not regenerate.
As Nogaah you start to blame humans, of course it is in the end our fault as that is a result of our existence, BUT that is still not what the question is about, it's why God wouldn't wanna help them. What you just did is as the video described, you came up with an excuse on behalf of god to explain why he wouldn't do it. It also adds to the belief of power of prayer, as not helping them would mean that he's ignoring their prayers. And for the people that believe in the power of prayer, why would he ignore their prayers, and at the same time fulfill your own? (awesome video supplied by O'nus by the way:))Quote:
People are starving because of the direct result of other human beings. There is enough food in the world for everyone to eat. The limiting factor is due to human interference such as politics. God doesn't directly enforce his will over people, people have to decide to follow him on their own.
Then what source do you use for the actual words? How do you know what they really are then? It's hard to argue about something that isn't properly defined in the first place. And more importantly, why would god allow his own official words to be twisted and misused to something of such importance? He really should publish his own goddamn book :DQuote:
The bible isn't the word of god, but the interpretation of it by humans, some of which were not good people.
Did he tell you that personally or? <_< How exactly would you know? Again, it's an excuse on the behalf of him as to why he wouldn't do it.Quote:
I like noogahs answer. "Because Jesus isn't a wish granting machine. He isn't a genie that can be summoned, and commanded.
7, 9 and 10 and actually don't have anything to add to right now.
At the same time it also adds another interesting point which is that religion is so loosely defined with millions of religious people having their own ideas about how it all works, in which ways god work and so on, that it becomes hard to apply one set of arguments to frequently asked questions like those of the video. I guess in the end it becomes impossible to argue against because it isn't even properly defined in the first place.Quote:
None of the answers I gave, are crazy or weird or overly silly. The video only works for people who believe the bible is 100 percent accurate, and that god activity interferes in the life of all humans. It makes no attempt at all to refute a Christians religion, if that Christian believes that the bible does have mistakes and that prayers are answered spiritually and not physically.
So it is not a blessed union, one that cannot be broken once it has been agreed upon, in the name of god? Why there are then so much fancy words about how this marriage is fortificated by faith and the creator?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
I would be pretty upset if somebody swore on my name and then go around breaking that vow. Luckily, imaginary beings rarely execute vengeance.
But if Bible do have mistakes, it rules out the possibility ofQuote:
Originally Posted by Alric
a) an all-knowing god
b) the fact that bible should be a word of god.
now if the bible isn't authentic word of god, rather than the translation by humans and therefore written by humans. Well, bucket lost it's bottom really. How can you be sure what else is false?
The bible isn't the only source of religious teachings for the religion, and even if it isn't perfect, you can still learn from it, so its not an entire waste.
My main point, is that religion is supposed to be a spiritual matter. Praying for physical things will get you no where. You can't regrow limbs, you can't fly and no matter how much you want to live forever, your eventually going to die.
So what are spiritual things that you can pray for, and that can be granted? Well you can pray for understanding and insight, you can pray for help to overcome obstacles in your life, you can pray to remove your fears and to become a stronger better person. So while you can't pray for god to regrow your legs, you can pray to him for the strength to walk again, and you can walk again, even if its using your hands. And people do get around doing that, some very well.
Now it is easy to say, well all that stuff is subjective and might just be in your mind. It might very well be true, though there is no way to prove or disprove any religious or spiritual thing a person may believe in.
Saying all religion and spiritual stuff is a disillusion isn't fair at all. It all serves a purpose in society, and helps people through hardships and to become better human beings. It might be more accurate, to say that religion is a crutch, something a person relies on for support. Some people may not need it, and can accomplish the same things on their own. If you believe strongly in yourself, you may not need it. However some people use it as a tool, to focus them self and it works very well. Perhaps becoming a far better person or accomplishing far more within their life because of it.
So when he says all people who believe any religion is delusion and hurting them self and everyone around them, I have to call him on that. Because it is simply not true. It is possible for a rational person to believe in a religion. Religion can do great things for some people. Religion can help people live together and form communities. He probably has the point that the stereotypical form of god probably doesn't exist, however he makes a huge mistake when he then claims that no form of god could ever exist, and all religion is delusion.
As you said, it is all subjective within your mind. The point is, you don't need any religious or spirtual guidance to cope with life. Some people do, but for me it is merely sign of weakness. The greatests feat of strength is to walk on the void, without faith, thus surviving on your own capabilities.
Why do you need hope for something that doesn't probably even exist? For what do you need faith for? Cannot you live with the resources you already have, instead of generating external, uncertain visions of something grander? Be a human and carry responsibility of your own actions, don't throw the burden to someone else, human or otherwise. What are you all afraid of?
I don't generally want to take source of relief and hope out of people. If they want to live within illusions, they are free to do so. Yet, they should do it inside their heads, never ever talking to others or creating organized religions or affecting society with their religious ideals.
There are people here who believe in stuff like astral projection. Are you going to tell them to keep their mouth shut and keep their delusions to them self as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by Unelias
Better that way if you want to avoid problems.
that's ridiculous unel. people should be able to share.
i believe in god, yet i am trying APing. i share it with my fellow friends and such.. is that wrong? no
i think that if you want to be religous and such learn to test your beliefs/faith, if not then why follow them?
Oh, and now that the weekends over, I didn't lie.
I didn't say that I wouldn't post, I said I wouldn't post here.
I'll get to this soon.
Nobody wants an update of whether you are going to reply or not. Just do it or don't do it.
Delusions are delusions.Quote:
Originally Posted by aorozco
It all starts with these little innocuous things but then these people are manipulated by others to get money, work, and even worse.
Let us not forget;
+ http://www.heavensgate.com/
This cult prayed on the intellectually deluded and they killed themselves for it.
If your child believed that he could heal away his cuts and wounds instead of seeking medical help, what would you say?
Let us say that you are in court for the murder of your family and the murderer says, "I astral projected to your deceased love ones and they say forgive me" - what would you do?
It's all nice fantasy games - but when it is applied to real life (which it eventually does) - then it is destructive and delusional.
~
Most religions are about what happens after you die, and morals and ethics you should have during life. In other words, its philosophical in nature. There really is no harm, and a person can hardly be delusional because they have a philosophical belief that is simply an opinion that can not be proven or disproven.
You do not need a religion or God to have a morality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Based on your logic here, are you saying that it is reasonable to believe in Heavens Gate? What about Charles Manson? Do not mistake what illogic's slippery slope can actually lead to.
~
Yeah, I understand that as well as agree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
At the same time though, does that mean that i should keep my mouth shut about my beliefs? People do fall into the traps of others, my mother is one of them, because they blindly accept everything that they are told...
Yes I know that, but that shouldn't keep everyone from sharing their beliefs or their experiences...
I believe in God yes. I still listen to other's opinions about him, or about other religions. I open my mind to outside things to sort of refresh my brain. That way I don't become a follower by mere blind faith. Made that mistake before.
Sorry I digress.. :P
My point is simply, don't hide who you are because of the possibility that it might rub off on someone else.
Maybe you missed my point then;Quote:
Originally Posted by aorozco
What if who you are that could rub off on someone else is a delusional personality?
What if what you truly believe is real is actually a destructive delusion?
Consider Heaven's Gate and Charles Manson; they truly believe what they said and say and many have died as a consequence.
Do you think that they ought to have done what they did then?
Acting on delusions is not a good idea.
~
You are just making silly claims. The vast majority of Christians still go to the doctors when sick and stuff. Out of all the people I have known, I have never seen a single person try to heal an injury with prayer alone.
The vast majority of Christians believe in an afterlife, and they believe that being kind and helping each other in life, and being humble to the creator of all things when give them a good afterlife. This is a philosophical opinion, and not delusional.
None of them believe prayers are magical wish granting machines. None of them think god will come down and smite anyone. None of them jump off buildings or anything, thinking that god will help them fly. All of that is silly nonsense.
You can't blame religion for what some crazy cult does. Even if there was no religion, the cult would still exist in some other way. Just because a crazy person happens to be Christian doesn't mean its the religions fault.
If I am religious and start to hear voices and they tell me to kill someone, then I do. It has nothing to do with religion. If it wasn't there, I might have heard a character from TV telling me to kill someone instead. Its the crazy person, being crazy that is at fault. Not the stuff around him.
The simple fact is, most Christian are not delusional, and their beliefs are logical and thought out. You might not agree with them, but as with many philosophical debates, people don't often agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Ahh... Okay I see. :) sorry I did miss your point the first time.. :P
If someone has not the ability to decipher what they believe in on their own, and fall into a delusional state, or thus have a "delusional" person rub off on them, well i can just say that sucks, and they should be just a little bit wiser.
O people in this world are either leaders, followers, or just passing through.
If my beliefs are delusional, or harmful in any way, then by all means, people should not follow my beliefs, but if they so choose too, then by all means, go for it.
I refuse to hold back my beliefs, simply for the benefit of someone else.
To people back in the "old days" Abraham Lincoln was delusional for wanting slavery gone. Should he have backed down?
People need to learn to pick and choose what they want, and if they have the inability to do so for themselves, then they can just choose to follow, or decline. It's their choice. I will not shove my religion into their mouths and down past their wind-pipe. :D
That is not true; there are far too many cases where people completely ignore blood transfusions or seeking psychiatry due to their religious beliefs that it is wrong or they can pray it away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Furthermore, are you ignoring the droves that come to see the Virgin Mary in the reflective glass of windows, rocks, and grilled cheese? There are millions of people that ignore medical help and simply bring their sick relatives to the waters of the apparent birthplace of Jesus and then just pray.
Just because you have not seen it, does not mean it is not reality.
As opposed to what?Quote:
The vast majority of Christians believe in an afterlife, and they believe that being kind and helping each other in life, and being humble to the creator of all things when give them a good afterlife. This is a philosophical opinion, and not delusional.
Is this not the truth that Christians be good for the sake of a terrible afterlife?
I do not believe in heaven in hell (because they are lies) and I do good things for no other reason than doing good. What does that make me?
So prayer is pointless then?Quote:
None of them believe prayers are magical wish granting machines. None of them think god will come down and smite anyone. None of them jump off buildings or anything, thinking that god will help them fly. All of that is silly nonsense.
There is no difference between prayer and meditation.
I am not saying that just 1 Christian is delusional.. I am saying that all Theists are delusional.Quote:
You can't blame religion for what some crazy cult does. Even if there was no religion, the cult would still exist in some other way. Just because a crazy person happens to be Christian doesn't mean its the religions fault.
And get it right; I am not calling you crazy.
What happens when people pray? What do they claim happens? What of those that wrote the bible a hundred years after he died? What of Joseph Smith? What of Muhammed? What of the Pope? What of preachers?Quote:
If I am religious and start to hear voices and they tell me to kill someone, then I do. It has nothing to do with religion. If it wasn't there, I might have heard a character from TV telling me to kill someone instead. Its the crazy person, being crazy that is at fault. Not the stuff around him.
All these people claim to have "felt and heard" God or Jesus. And certainly many Christians have to. You are just a different brand of Theism because it is abundantly evident that Christianity and Theism in general have no universal characteristics but just manifest certain defenses in order to save face when encountered with the reality of their delusion.
All Christians are delusional.Quote:
The simple fact is, most Christian are not delusional,
What do you call someone who believes in something regardless of the fact that there is no proof, reason, or justification for it?
You can use the same reasoning for pink elephants and cotton candy fairies.
No they are not; they are indoctrinated and regurgitated. Even right now you are likely just repeating what a preacher or the bible has taught you.Quote:
and their beliefs are logical and thought out.
All Christianity is based off of scripture and yet you say it is thought out? All your answers and thinking have been done for you already; how is that thought out?
It is not that I do not agree with them; it is that they are false and I find it amusing that people will argue something that is abundantly wrong.Quote:
You might not agree with them, but as with many philosophical debates, people don't often agree.
Just like how I find it amusing and intriguing to read accounts for Charles Manson, Heavens Gate, and other delusional people.
At least you are not a drug addict that has had drug induced spiritual journies that convinced you drug addictions and spirituality are the cure for everything. Those people are the most deluded.
I agree - people ought not to simply buy into others beliefs or allow their children to be indoctrinated.Quote:
Originally Posted by aorozco
Wait.. you are not blaming others for your delusion are you?Quote:
O people in this world are either leaders, followers, or just passing through.
If my beliefs are delusional, or harmful in any way, then by all means, people should not follow my beliefs, but if they so choose too, then by all means, go for it.
I refuse to hold back my beliefs, simply for the benefit of someone else.
Is this the same as saying;
"I am delusional. Thus, if you choose to listen to me, it is your own fault."???
In that case.. I am not surprised to hear that from a deluded person. I hope you have the sanity to see what is wrong here.
You are equivocating my point now.Quote:
To people back in the "old days" Abraham Lincoln was delusional for wanting slavery gone. Should he have backed down?
That was delusional in a political and ethical means. I am not speaking of those. Please stick to the proper subject matter.
So.. it is not your fault if others believe your delusions..? What does that say about you?Quote:
People need to learn to pick and choose what they want, and if they have the inability to do so for themselves, then they can just choose to follow, or decline. It's their choice. I will not shove my religion into their mouths and down past their wind-pipe.
~
I think the guy in the video is delusional. He thinks having a collage degree, makes you educated.
Obviously it is a means to a credential.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Don't be coy. You cannot seriously argue that having a degree means that you are not educated, do you?
Consider that;
+ The more educated people are (in University and College) - the less religious you are, the higher economic quarter you are in, and higher intelligence quotient.
Furthermore, Atheists more often have a higher intelligence quotient than Theists (I can and have proven this before in other threads; can do again upon request).
What do you think ought to be done to establish a premise of "I think you are smart because you likely.. or have.." instead?
That they ought to consider the world around them and question the world?
What exactly is he doing in the video again..?
Maybe you should look in a mirror.
~
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
But O who are we to stop them from doing somethingg they think is right? in this case they are harming themselves yes, but they chose it to be that way..
[/QUOTE]Furthermore, are you ignoring the droves that come to see the Virgin Mary in the reflective glass of windows, rocks, and grilled cheese? There are millions of people that ignore medical help and simply bring their sick relatives to the waters of the apparent birthplace of Jesus and then just pray.
Just because you have not seen it, does not mean it is not reality.[/QUOTE]
Once again, it's their belief... Should everyone just drop their beliefs because they don't coincide with yours O?
[/QUOTE]As opposed to what?
Is this not the truth that Christians be good for the sake of a terrible afterlife?
I do not believe in heaven in hell (because they are lies) and I do good things for no other reason than doing good. What does that make me?[/QUOTE]
It just makes you a good person. you don't have to be a christian to be good, or great...
[/QUOTE]So prayer is pointless then?
There is no difference between prayer and meditation.[/QUOTE] Some may view it that way. I see prayer not as a way to ask for miracles, but a way to let God know how i feel. a way that I can talk to him, not him to me.
[/QUOTE]What happens when people pray? What do they claim happens? What of those that wrote the bible a hundred years after he died? What of Joseph Smith? What of Muhammed? What of the Pope? What of preachers?
All these people claim to have "felt and heard" God or Jesus. And certainly many Christians have to. You are just a different brand of Theism because it is abundantly evident that Christianity and Theism in general have no universal characteristics but just manifest certain defenses in order to save face when encountered with the reality of their delusion.[/QUOTE]
Yes they do claim that. No one has to believe this O. I do, because i just do. I have no concrete evidence, but those are just my beliefs...
[/QUOTE]All Christians are delusional.
What do you call someone who believes in something regardless of the fact that there is no proof, reason, or justification for it?
You can use the same reasoning for pink elephants and cotton candy fairies.[/QUOTE]
Hmm. Using your logic, yes all christians are. I am okay with being called delusional for my belief. It takes alot of faith to believe in what i do. I am okay with that. It just gives me more reason to keep trying to learn more.
[/QUOTE]No they are not; they are indoctrinated and regurgitated. Even right now you are likely just repeating what a preacher or the bible has taught you.
All Christianity is based off of scripture and yet you say it is thought out? All your answers and thinking have been done for you already; how is that thought out?[/QUOTE]
Same as most science and school teachings would you not agree? I am sure that most of your thoughts have been "regurgitated" and that you are mostly repeating what many others have said. Shall we not believe in science as well?
[/QUOTE]It is not that I do not agree with them; it is that they are false and I find it amusing that people will argue something that is abundantly wrong.
Just like how I find it amusing and intriguing to read accounts for Charles Manson, Heavens Gate, and other delusional people.
At least you are not a drug addict that has had drug induced spiritual journies that convinced you drug addictions and spirituality are the cure for everything. Those people are the most deluded.
~[/QUOTE]
:) agreed in a way. you may be absolutely right that we are wrong, or you may be absolutely wrong... We won't know until we are there right? :P
Well the quotation thing didn't work... lol i'll bold yours...
Some people say there are some 2 billion Christians in the world. So 'millions' of people, is actually a tiny percentage of the total amount. 20 million is only 1 percent. So there may very well be millions of people who avoid medical care because of it, however, they are such a tiny percent they hardly make up an accurate representation of the religion as a whole.
In fact, in the US like 80 percent of the population is Christian. If the vast majority of people in the US refused medical care, I think we would all know. The simple fact however, is that it is simply untrue. Only a tiny percentage of people are like that. Most Christians will get as much care as anyone else.
They are not delusional. If you are faced with a question and there is no answer or proof, then all you can do is take your best guess. If a persons best guess is that religion is true, then that is simply their best guess in the face of no proof for anything. They do have reasons for why they might feel one way or the other but in the end it is still just a guess and so it can't be delusional.
That's the problem I have. Why would you take a "best guess". It's to illogical. Here we have this amazing, the most amazing mystery of existence itself, but guess what, I'll just take a "best guess" that it's all about a few bearded men in a cloud city of Valhalla, who are obsessed with honour and warfare... I mean wtf is that? How can people be so plain, it's such a depressing concept. For me at least, so unsatisfactory. Maybe it's just me being indoctrinated into thinking for myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
That is how science works. You make a hypothesis based on your best educated guess. Or are you saying, you should never make a decision unless you have absolute proof on something? If that is the case, you will find you have problems in most of your life, trying to decide on things.
Yes. That's what people should do. That would get them rid of the delusions built by whoever or whatever made them the way they are. "That would be hard to live with", isn't an excuse if we only look at the matter at hand.
My point was that the guys argument was flawed, because he made the claim that there could be no logical answer to the questions he listed. However there are logical answers to all of the questions. He doesn't even attempt to ask questions that apply to all Christians. He makes a good argument, but it only really applies to people who believe strongly in God actively interfering in human activities through prayer. So it doesn't even address Christians with other beliefs than the ones he used, yet he makes the claim that they are wrong regardless of that.
If you are making strange or random excuses, then he is right. You need to reevaluate what you believe. This could mean switching to atheism, or simply doing more research into your own religion. If you however, come up with a logical reason that makes sense, then no one should judge you for it.
I don't know how far you can go with logic in relation to religion and still stay religious. I've seen it a bunch of times, when it comes to defining what you really believe, no answers are given. If you can't answer why you believe without inquiring at the nature of belief, then you really aren't after the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Well you can say you don't think someone has a logical answer, but if they provide a logical answer, that would make you wrong. Just because something is logical doesn't mean it is true. Which is why two people can come to two different conclusions, why both of them being logical. Especially, in a topic like this where there are so many levels of understanding to it.
Christians become atheists, and atheists become Christians. Some people bounce back and forth between them as they learn more and experience life. A reasonable person could logically come to either conclusion, without being delusional or stupid or anything.
You are the rest of civilzation; if someone is delusional and convinces others of delusions, then they are a danger to others. Charles Manson epitomizes this. Do you think we ought to have let him free roam?Quote:
Originally Posted by aorozco
You do not even know what my beliefs are so do not try to be coy with me.Quote:
Once again, it's their belief... Should everyone just drop their beliefs because they don't coincide with yours O?
Are you trying to defend yourself by attacking me? I will stick with Charles Manson; do you agree then, based on your logic, that he ought to stick to his beliefs about Helter Skelter?
Right - and you may find intrigue in the psychology of religion that asserts that what you are describing is the only reason religion exists; to offer emotional feedback to the person when no other attachment figure can do the same.Quote:
Some may view it that way. I see prayer not as a way to ask for miracles, but a way to let God know how i feel. a way that I can talk to him, not him to me.
Furthermore, this only deters the power of God as it is supposed to be responsive.
Unless you are Deist.
Again; what do you call someone who believes something regardless of no reason or proof?Quote:
Yes they do claim that. No one has to believe this O. I do, because i just do. I have no concrete evidence, but those are just my beliefs...
So you think you are delusional and choose to believe it anyway... why?Quote:
Hmm. Using your logic, yes all christians are. I am okay with being called delusional for my belief. It takes alot of faith to believe in what i do. I am okay with that. It just gives me more reason to keep trying to learn more.
And tell me - what is the point of peer-reviewed scientific journals?Quote:
Same as most science and school teachings would you not agree? I am sure that most of your thoughts have been "regurgitated" and that you are mostly repeating what many others have said. Shall we not believe in science as well?
These numbers are really arbitrary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
When do you consider it "significant"? And my numbers are obviously arbitrary; I know that many have gone. Regardless, it is still a lot of people that are being mislead into something fatal.
Again, the numbers here are arbitrary and the point is still that it does happen when it shouldn't. Only a small amount of people followed Charles Manson.. should we forgive him on that account?Quote:
In fact, in the US like 80 percent of the population is Christian. If the vast majority of people in the US refused medical care, I think we would all know. The simple fact however, is that it is simply untrue. Only a tiny percentage of people are like that. Most Christians will get as much care as anyone else.
So if you do not know the answer, you are saying that you ought to presume the answer and live as though it were true? Are you ignoring the fact that the majority of atheists are still open to the idea that there could be a God?Quote:
They are not delusional. If you are faced with a question and there is no answer or proof, then all you can do is take your best guess. If a persons best guess is that religion is true, then that is simply their best guess in the face of no proof for anything. They do have reasons for why they might feel one way or the other but in the end it is still just a guess and so it can't be delusional.
~
I'm waiting for this logical answer to make me wrong. In the meantime, I wasn't talking about someones idea or belief in relation to the truth, I was talking about the human perception of knowing and the implications on belief. This is what separates those who think they are thinking and those who actually think... or should I say the sheep and the people who form their own perception of reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
It is not arbitrary to say that a fraction of a percent doesn't make a good representation of the whole. .005% isn't an accurate representation by anyone's definition. My definition of significant number doesn't really matter, when we are speaking of such a tiny percent.
To make the claim that religion is dangerous, you would have to show that there is an increase in people acting poorly because of religion, when you have shown nothing of the sort.
According to the video, if you are an atheist who is open to the idea of a god, you are delusional. Which was my point, that he is calling everyone delusional, including people with belief systems he didn't even talk about. He made a poorly made generalization of everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
I was saying the numbers were arbitrary..Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
What is it with people and being unable to properly set forth arguments without screwing it all up?
http://www.keyboarddevil.com/blog/wp...6/athgraph.pngQuote:
To make the claim that religion is dangerous, you would have to show that there is an increase in people acting poorly because of religion, when you have shown nothing of the sort.
Do you really want more evidence of this? Because there certainly is.
No it doesn't - where does it say that? You're screwing it up again, pay attention.Quote:
According to the video, if you are an atheist who is open to the idea of a god, you are delusional.
Now this is just sad; you're really mis-representing what he has said and not even properly saying what he said. Is that really the best defense you got? Because that is not what was said in the video.Quote:
Which was my point, that he is calling everyone delusional, including people with belief systems he didn't even talk about. He made a poorly made generalization of everyone.
Even if it was, that is not what I am saying and the rest of the content remains valid.
~
How about some evidence, such as a source instead of random images? And yes, the video clearly states that if you even believe in the possibility of a god, then you are delusional. The video is very clearly on that, that there can be no wiggle room. It claims to prove god can't possibly exist, and so even considering it, makes you delusional. If you don't believe me, watch the video again, to the end.
It doesn't say there is no god, it says god doesn't care about or interfere with humans.
...Nooguh...Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeDreamer
Funny, you think O'nus would just post random pictures?Quote:
How about some evidence, such as a source instead of random images?
I've seen similar statistics hundreds of times before, they may not be 100% accurate, but there is a common trend.
Thanks for the update!Quote:
Originally Posted by Noogah
So you do recognize that there is a problem when people start behaving as though the untrue things they have imagined are true and go on to do things which affect others' lives? In this case, you actually have just as much of a problem with the delusional as anyone else here.Quote:
Originally Posted by evildoctor
Probably because they know that god will not magically heal them. You'd have to wonder why they'd pray at all if they ask things like "Please help me recover in a way which could happen without your assistance. But it's okay if you don't." It almost makes you think that maybe they know somewhere deep down that god isn't real.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
"Being kind and helping each other in life" is not a quality inherent to nor only found in the religious. If you agree with that statement, then you must recognize that such qualities don't have a religious basis. If you ask them, I'll bet you most of them would tell you something like "If we were all kind and caring to each other, the world would be a much better place." or something like that. There's no delusion there, that's just a simple logical deduction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Right, that's kind of the point, isn't it? But the question is, if god does occasionally answer prayers and does occasionally heal people, why does he do these strange things like ignore the amputees? Why would he be unwilling to restore their limbs? The point the video is trying to make is that so long as you think that there is a loving god who sometimes answers prayers, there's really no good answer as to why he wouldn't do this. Why shouldn't they be magical wish granting machines in at least some of these cases? Because according to some, that's what they already do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
The cults would not exist without delusion, however.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
lulQuote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Or you could be honest and say those magic words "I don't know." The delusion enters when you are confronted with facts which don't fall in line with your belief and you create rationalizations (that is, excuses) for it. This is the point the video makes. Delusional thinking is destructive and dangerous even if specific conclusions arrived from it are not dangerous (or even happen to be true.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
i dont know how to do the mini quote things... :p
My answer to this would be, we have a justice system for this... I'm not going to sit here and bash on him for his beliefs, i'll simply disagree and that's it. since it did involve physical distruction, i would indeed have legal action taken to prevent injury or death from occuring, but I can't change someone's belief simply for it not coinciding with mine...Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
~[/QUOTE]You do not even know what my beliefs are so do not try to be coy with me.
Are you trying to defend yourself by attacking me? I will stick with Charles Manson; do you agree then, based on your logic, that he ought to stick to his beliefs about Helter Skelter?~[/QUOTE]
uumm... Okay? Sorry for not wanting to assume what your beliefs were?
I am not attacking you I am merely stating what i think... He should believe in whatever he wants.. Yeah i'd rather him not believe that, but once again, we have a justice system for things like that.
~[/QUOTE]Right - and you may find intrigue in the psychology of religion that asserts that what you are describing is the only reason religion exists; to offer emotional feedback to the person when no other attachment figure can do the same.
Furthermore, this only deters the power of God as it is supposed to be responsive.
Unless you are Deist.~[/QUOTE]
Huh... Interesting, thanks for birging that up. I don't know much about the psychology of religion.. I'll have to look into that. Well i'll do my best... lol
what i can say is that, I personally do not think that religion is only existent to offer emotional feed back. It may seem so to many, but well not to me...
God has noneed to be responsive... He gives us the power to help one another. Tell me O, what bad is the christian church doing? Katrina, who responded even before the government? Churches. A church helps the community, rather than destroy it. -sigh- People just choose not to see that. It's okay though i guess...
~[/QUOTE]Again; what do you call someone who believes something regardless of no reason or proof?
So you think you are delusional and choose to believe it anyway... why?~[/QUOTE]
In your definition, yes I guess I am delusional. I don't choose to believe in God. I just believe. I just.. Know.
~[/QUOTE]And tell me - what is the point of peer-reviewed scientific journals?~[/QUOTE]
The bible as well was reviewed by many people... Not just the disciples... Everyone comes up with different translations, or meanings but they all point to the same point it means.
Can I ask you something? What evil is the church doing? I don't mean cults and such I mean, like the Christian church... Please tell me.
Well the video says 3 out of 4 doctors, think miracles happen. So if people want to believe they do, I suppose they have reasons to back them up. If your doctor tells you its a miracle, then you wouldn't be delusional because you believed them. If you say that a person knows god won't heal them, then what exactly are they delusional about? It sounds like they are reasonable and sane, and thinking entire logically. Just because they believe in an afterlife, doesn't make them delusional.
Being nice isn't limited to religion, but no one ever made that claim did they? Religion teaches people to be kind and to help each other. Just because other things also say that, why should we limit our self?
By your logic, if someone is faced with questions and they come up with logical answers, which are not just excuses, then they are not delusional. Which was my point. You can answer the questions within your religion, without making up excuses.
Oh, they have their reasons. Well, you should have just said so in the first place. :shakehead2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
You would in the event that you know that the belief is not true but make up excuses to justify it anyway. What exactly are you saying, here? That just because a doctor tells you your recovery was miraculous, he's right by default?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
First of all, let me stress the fact that anyone can delude themselves and most people do it all the time for many reasons. It isn't something exclusive to the religious or insane. Secondly, my point is that they aren't behaving delusionally in those instances since their behavior has a rational rather than religious basis. I do not contend that absolutely every person who deludes themselves about a specific thing is delusional in every other regard. Please read closer to what I'm actually saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Yeah, sure. Why not believe things we know aren't true? My point is that we don't need to turn to religion, and that religion is inherently delusional. Non-delusional, logical beliefs are the only valid alternative and we don't call them "religious beliefs." If something is reasoned, logical and is shown to be true via evidence, it is called science.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Really, you can? Can you provide an example of an answer such a religious person as the kind the video was addressing would provide to explain why god doesn't heal amputees?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
I did quite a bit of searching into it and here are some results that you may find interesting;Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
+ Males often use religion to justify crime
- Countries dominated by male powerful religions (eg. Islam) are most violent
+ Females more often use religion to deter crime
- However there are really no countries powered by females that can give a statistic for female country ran crime rate
+ Meta-analysis of crime rate and religion more often show that, the more religious a country is, the more violent it is
- This varies a lot every year
- It is hard to claim a lot of crime as it is dependent on reports (we cannot statistically know what crimes are not being reported)
- There are many countries that report false claims (eg. Islam and Iran have significantly skewed data from different political groups and even databases)
I retract my statements as I cannot empricially prove it but I can say that religious men are more often more violent than nonreligious men.
I could source this for you, but this is honestly from a meta-analysis and my own reading. I hope you can see that I am honest here and please not ask me to copy and paste over 600 articles that this meta-analysis included. I would if you really wanted but my hope is that you see that it seems to be reasonably difficult to assert either way apparently.
It is not speaking of believing in God in general; it is speaking of believing in God via praying and praying in general. Pay attention.Quote:
And yes, the video clearly states that if you even believe in the possibility of a god, then you are delusional. The video is very clearly on that, that there can be no wiggle room. It claims to prove god can't possibly exist, and so even considering it, makes you delusional. If you don't believe me, watch the video again, to the end.
Considering this, are you to say then that Charles Manson ought to be let free? Remember, he did not kill anyone, he simply convinced others to do it for him based on the idea of Helter Skelter.Quote:
Originally Posted by aorozco
So please.. tell me that Charles Manson ought to be set free.
So, you do not have any beliefs of your own then - the justice system ought to do the thinking for you.Quote:
uumm... Okay? Sorry for not wanting to assume what your beliefs were?
I am not attacking you I am merely stating what i think... He should believe in whatever he wants.. Yeah i'd rather him not believe that, but once again, we have a justice system for things like that.
You are not answering the question so much as relaying me to another person to do the thinking for you.
In which case then, you ought to agree with me as the justice system does in the case of Charles Manson.
Firstly, I'm not going to argue against you by utilizing the psychology of religion; I just wanted you to know that it is being studied.Quote:
Huh... Interesting, thanks for birging that up. I don't know much about the psychology of religion.. I'll have to look into that. Well i'll do my best... lol
what i can say is that, I personally do not think that religion is only existent to offer emotional feed back.
It may seem so to many, but well not to me...
God has noneed to be responsive... He gives us the power to help one another.
It seems you did not watch my video. A lot of functions of God and prayer is via self-fulfilling prophecy and confirmation bias.
Imagine the sense of autonomy without a God dictating for you.
I will not deny the good it can bring people. However, we can also say that poison or radiation can do good to. This is applicable to Atheism and science as well; it is all about the individual.Quote:
Tell me O, what bad is the christian church doing? Katrina, who responded even before the government? Churches. A church helps the community, rather than destroy it. -sigh- People just choose not to see that. It's okay though i guess...
However, when it comes to enlightenment, you must realize that if a certain person lives a certain way then they could be vulnerable to other nativities.
Think of those that followed Charles Manson (choosing him again to remain consistent if you decide to research it); these people were weak minded drug addicts and already susceptible to his manipulation.
Think of the Crusaders and what state of mind they had to be in in order to be convinced to fight for God.
I am not using the Crusade as a "Religion does evil" argument but using it to demonstrate to you that religion is a very easy way to ease people into fighting for a country; in the name of God.
However.. how many wars do you hear in the name of Science?
I must assert to you that I am Atheist because of my deep kindred with science.
Right; just like the Heavens Gate people, Islam, Jews, Buddhists, and Charles Manson.Quote:
In your definition, yes I guess I am delusional. I don't choose to believe in God. I just believe. I just.. Know.
But how do you know your knowing is better than theirs?
Do you not see how this is the modern equivalent of Greek vs Roman Gods?
When you speak to me; please remain on topic. Pay attention.Quote:
The bible as well was reviewed by many people... Not just the disciples... Everyone comes up with different translations, or meanings but they all point to the same point it means.
You said to me;
"Same as most science and school teachings would you not agree? I am sure that most of your thoughts have been "regurgitated" and that you are mostly repeating what many others have said. Shall we not believe in science as well?"
Please consider my question again as I am not using this proposition against you but in my defense.
+ Scientific oppression and suppressionQuote:
Can I ask you something? What evil is the church doing? I don't mean cults and such I mean, like the Christian church... Please tell me.
+ Suffering of those in Africa (Pope declares no condom usage)
+ Deterring abortions and free choice
+ Deterring sexual orientation (and dictating it)
+ Manipulating voting public (vote for me is a vote for God)
+ Deviation from real problems (the economy is failing.. let us pray)
+ Indoctrination of children (children forced to believe what their family does for fear of family ostracism)
+ Invading public classrooms with religious agenda's (Intelligent Design)
The list goes on.
~
I am not saying anyone is right or wrong. I am just saying, if you have a valid reason to believe something, then your not delusional. Being right or wrong doesn't make you delusional. It is being wrong, and knowing you are wrong and still thinking you are right, that is delusional. Someone could believe something is correct, based on the evidence they have seen, and turn out to be wrong, but that doesn't make them delusional.
As for the amputees, I already addressed that. Amputees can both be cured of other illnesses, and can overcome their amputations. If you lose both legs, and you learn to walk again, then you are walking. You can't cure a missing leg, but you can cure the inability to walk.
I would probably agree that dictators often use excuses to gain power. Things like religion work well, for distracting the people so that a dictator can come to power. However, this normally isn't a reflection of the religion being bad, or the general population being more violent. But that dictators will do anything to gain power.
The point of the thread was about rational intelligent people after all. Gullible and naive people, can be lead astray by anything. Just because someone uses religion to trick them, doesn't mean religion is at fault. They would have gotten fooled and tricked by anything. If its not religion, then simply something else.
As for the video, I know it speaks entirely about believing in God via praying and praying in general. The conclusion of the video however, is a large generalization that no one should ever believe in god. Which is my problem. It all works, except everything he is speaking about, fails to match up with the conclusion he made. Which was my problem.
You seem to be failing to see the point I am making to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Charles Manson's points were sound but that does not mean that they were true and especially not ethical.
Using strict logical definitions, religion is not valid; it is sound. If it were valid, then we would all believe in it as it would have undeniable evidence and reason for it. However, that is not the case.
Are you blind to what you are saying?Quote:
Being right or wrong doesn't make you delusional. It is being wrong, and knowing you are wrong and still thinking you are right, that is delusional. Someone could believe something is correct, based on the evidence they have seen, and turn out to be wrong, but that doesn't make them delusional.
Of course no one willingly chooses to believe something if they think it is wrong. The delusional are those that think they are right even though there is clear evidence that they are wrong (eg. Charles Manson and Theism).
I did not mention amputee's myself but;Quote:
As for the amputees, I already addressed that. Amputees can both be cured of other illnesses, and can overcome their amputations. If you lose both legs, and you learn to walk again, then you are walking. You can't cure a missing leg, but you can cure the inability to walk.
What you are doing here is a real desperate plea to defend the praying and miracle debate. You are missing the point.
If praying and God can make miracles happen, then why are not amputee's healed? Hopefully you are insightful enough to see the point this time.
Perhaps you are neglecting the possibility that dictator's often believe what they are professing. Let us not forget many of the pasts horrible dictators and their beliefs.Quote:
I would probably agree that dictators often use excuses to gain power. Things like religion work well, for distracting the people so that a dictator can come to power. However, this normally isn't a reflection of the religion being bad, or the general population being more violent. But that dictators will do anything to gain power.
Let us also come back to Charles Manson; he truly believed what he said and so did those that joined him. This is because they were delusional and the information was skewed just enough with truth to make it seem valid.
Of course; it is undeniable that pseudo-science is very appealing to the delusional (eg. parapsychology).Quote:
The point of the thread was about rational intelligent people after all. Gullible and naive people, can be lead astray by anything. Just because someone uses religion to trick them, doesn't mean religion is at fault. They would have gotten fooled and tricked by anything. If its not religion, then simply something else.
However, it is still up to science to help debunk these things. This is why something like www.skeptic.com exists and why peer-reviews exist.
Please tell me.. what is the religious equivalent..?
You are likely referring to "God is imaginary".Quote:
As for the video, I know it speaks entirely about believing in God via praying and praying in general. The conclusion of the video however, is a large generalization that no one should ever believe in god. Which is my problem. It all works, except everything he is speaking about, fails to match up with the conclusion he made. Which was my problem.
This is because, as of now, God is imaginary. There is no proof or evidence of God. Therefore, it is an imaginary concept.
Even gravity was imaginary at a point of time. So was other planets.
Realize that science still ventures to prove or disprove imaginary and other hypothesized truths while updating previous facts.
~
Sound and valid mean the same thing. Both implying that a person could reasonable believe either of them. However, killing a bunch of people is neither sound or valid.
The problem, is that there is no clear evidence any of it is wrong, so people are not delusional in believing it. If they are wrong, then they are simply wrong and needed more information.
Back to the amputee thing, that goes back to my original post. That a person can believe in prayer for guidance and insight, which can lead to overcome challenges and do things they couldn't before. A person can be a Christian and believe that, without also believing that people can spontaneously heal. The video only applies to Christian who believe in praying and direct interference by god in the physical world. To the people who do not believe that, the video really says nothing. As for why I bring it up, a person can pray to be able to walk again, and find guidance and courage to find a way around their handicap and walk. It is possible for people to do this on their own, though for some people it may not be. They might need that extra push and the help.
oh man. ha. hehehe. oral sex is banned?Quote:
Originally Posted by evildoctor
You are ignoring the point. By this time I'm starting to believe you're being willfully ignorant. If you aren't, please try and answer why a god would not regenerate their limbs. I can't cure a missing leg, but why would god not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Either god doesn't exist, he doesn't care, or he doesn't interfere with the physical world. I already answered that question, in the very first post, when I said that god did the last one. Which is why you get things like spiritual guidance and insight, but never any physical help. And even if god can make you live forever, its not until you leave the physical world, as you most assuredly die here. Which is why religion is a philosophical matter, as it deals in things you can't prove one way or another, and you can only really take your best guess based on your experiences and things you see around you.
All you've done is restate what you've already said. I want to know why a loving god who does occasionally heal people would not regrow a limb. You said earlier that this belief could be understood rationally and without delusion. Can you provide an explanation as to why such a god would behave this way?
I'd like for you to explain to me how this question can be answered within the context of a religious belief that god does sometimes answer prayers and heals people without making an excuse. If there is no way to make sense of it, and those people continue to make excuses and believe it anyway it is delusion.Quote:
By your logic, if someone is faced with questions and they come up with logical answers, which are not just excuses, then they are not delusional. Which was my point. You can answer the questions within your religion, without making up excuses.
I didn't say that. I said the question doesn't apply to all Christians, because not all Christians believe is spontaneous healing from prayer. Then I gave examples of how a Christian can not believe in prayer and still be a Christian, and how you can believe in prayer, while not believing in spontaneous healing from prayer. There is many other choices as well. My entire point, was you can't lump all Christians into one big pile then call them all delusional. Especially when the 'proof' doesn't even apply to all Christians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark75
There are a lot of things wrong with these sentences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Firstly, from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy;
"...valid, that is, the conclusion follows deductively from the premises."
+ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-consequence/
Secondly, taken from philosophypages.com;
"A sound argument both has true premises and employs a valid inference; its conclusion must therefore be true."
+ http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/s7.htm#sound
There is a difference between the two words; otherwise there would not be two words. Your ignorance of plain logic speaks testaments to the rest of our conversation, but let us continue as it helps us both learn.
You say that killing is neither sound nor valid but you are misusing the words; killing can be sound if you need to kill someone in order to save someone else. Whatever examples we can come up with does not really matter.. the point is that I was strictly sticking to logical definitions and you screwed it up. You cannot say that it is both invalid and unsound to kill when you obviously believe it is right to kill some times (ie. euthanasia or if someone is threatening to kill your family, etc.).
If someone from the 700's came here and acted the way they do in how they treat God; what would you say to them? Let us say that this person holds that the sun is a God. You then show them pictures, videos, and miraculous evidence that it is actually a ball of fire, etc. Now what would you call this person if they said, "No, you're wrong, it's God!". Now let us say we brought this man, somehow (it doesn't really matter how) to the sun and showed him it right in front of him and said, "See! It is just a ball of fire - not God" and he replies, "No! You are wrong IT IS GOD!"Quote:
The problem, is that there is no clear evidence any of it is wrong, so people are not delusional in believing it. If they are wrong, then they are simply wrong and needed more information.
What would you call this person?
Miraculously, and thankfully, we do not need to do this when it comes to the same beliefs, from the same time, that are only contained within our minds.
But please, answer my above question and try to be insightful to my point. As you will see, I will try to be insightful to yours in a moment.
Quote:
Back to the amputee thing, that goes back to my original post. That a person can believe in prayer for guidance and insight, which can lead to overcome challenges and do things they couldn't before. A person can be a Christian and believe that, without also believing that people can spontaneously heal. The video only applies to Christian who believe in praying and direct interference by god in the physical world. To the people who do not believe that, the video really says nothing. As for why I bring it up, a person can pray to be able to walk again, and find guidance and courage to find a way around their handicap and walk. It is possible for people to do this on their own, though for some people it may not be. They might need that extra push and the help.
I will keep these two quotes together as they are roughly about the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Firstly, if God does not care, then he is not all loving. If he doesn't want to interfere with the physical world, then he is not in control of all things or there are flaws in our logic of how he is omnipresent (ie. he ought to be involved and interfering with everything if he is everything).
Edit; I should note a little more on the amputee's. To those that do believe in God miraculous power and intervention in our lives, it ought to prove them wrong.
However, it appears to me that you are a Deist.
If you are not a Deist, you ought to highly consider it, but my assumption is that you are.
In this case, I want to speak in point form for brevity;
+ Deists do not need scripture to believe what they believe
- Christians do
+ Deists tend to be more scientific minded and open to the idea that God could possibly not exist, but they are choosing to willingly live as though he does
- Christians presume that he does exist and completely ignore the possibility that they could be wrong (or are wrong).
+ The Deist and Christian God are very different.
- It is like comparing Buddhism to Vikings.
What I am trying to get at here is that I understand that you are trying to take a stance of let others live the way they wish and believe what they wish to believe.
However, if what others believe is destructive to themselves or others around them, what then? What if they are delusional? (eg. believe that condoms are wrong? Or blood transfusions?)
Religious beliefs are guilty of causing fatalities.
Science is guilty of curing them.
How many times have you heard of a case when someone has avoided medical treatment because of their belief in science? How many times has there been a death cult in the name of science? How many deaths can you attribute to science?
The best bet is to assert; Atheist =/= Science. This comes up a lot but the truth is simple; there is no scientific reason to believe in a God. However, this does not mean it is impossible. Science can still prove God is real! It is just simply not that fact at this juncture. Believing otherwise actually deters us from proving the ideal God or ideal enlightenment.
~
Please don't insult me. I was going to say something rude back, but instead I am just going to leave it at this. I was using the common English version of the words, while you were using whats in a philosophical encyclopedia. If you look up valid in the dictionary, the one of the common definition of the word valid is sound. If you look up valid in a thesaurus, you would see they are synonyms. Synonyms are two different words that mean the same, or very similar things. It is so common for multiple words to have the same meaning, they even got a special word for it. So don't even go there.
Now before we get into debating how much a 'bunch' of people is, the point I was trying to make was that killing a lot of people is always going to objectionable. And the point before that was that it is reasonable for a person to believe in religion without believing in spontaneous regeneration.
I do agree, if someone believes in everything assumed by the guy in the video then they are delusional. That guy from 700 years ago, would be delusional. However disproving limb regeneration, doesn't count as proof to someone who doesn't believe in regeneration to start with.
As for what I believe in. Well to keep it short, I believe there is probably an afterlife. I believe there might be a god. I believe any being that can create a universe could be considered a god even if its not consciously aware of it. I don't think it really matters if there is a god or not, and I live my life the same regardless of that fact.
I could say sciences kills a ton of people with weapons, such as the atomic bomb. However that is silly. The atomic bomb doesn't equal science. However my point is, a cult doesn't equal mainstream religion either. Religion and science are ideas, cults and bombs are objects and things. One could say Christianity is just a large cult, but there is a problem with that. Its so big that everyone believes something different, and there are so many branches. You simply can not lump them all together. It just doesn't work very well. Which is what my problem, with people trying to lump them all together and calling them all delusional. It really isn't fair, or accurate. Especially since good things do come from religion, a lot of good things.
Please name one good thing that a religious person can do that a secular person can not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Now please name one wicked thing that a religious person can do that a secular person would not.
If you come up for an answer to the first one, Christopher Hitchens would like to hear it, and so would I :)
Hmm.. that's a good point. psychological damge can be represented in physical damage as well, i.e brainwash=harm oneself, so No i don't think he should be set free. I know that would seem to contradict what I said earlier, but it doesn't. I clearly said, that it is within that person's right to share their beliefs with people and not be in the wrong for doing so, but forcing one's beliefs on someone would clash with our rights as americans, thus seperation of church and state-blahblahblah, and so it gives us the right to share such beliefs, just not neccessarily force it. "Brainwashing" someone does/ can cause physical/psychological harm, which i consider psychological damage, physical, because it lead to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
That's not what I said, I said, that I cannot take the law upon my own hands and do "justice" by bashing someone mentally or physically as "justice." That is not my job.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
~[/QUOTE]Firstly, I'm not going to argue against you by utilizing the psychology of religion; I just wanted you to know that it is being studied.
It seems you did not watch my video. A lot of functions of God and prayer is via self-fulfilling prophecy and confirmation bias.
Imagine the sense of autonomy without a God dictating for you.~[/QUOTE]
Yes and I was simply thanking you for bringing that up, it's nice to hear new things that I can think about, and even research. :)
I did see your video. Assuming that everyone who is a christian believes that prayer is for miracles, or that God has to answer their prayer is not a good thing. Too often people assume that God will answer all prayers and that he needs to. Such a silly thing. Seriously, the majority of christians may think so, but then again, the minority such as I will tell you no.
I see your point about the weak people being susceptible to manipulation. In that case then should we not assume resaponsibilty to help people out in the streets and to help them get clean, have a place to stay and teach them so that they maybe educated? We are so quick to judge them, and say how weak they are and poor weak minded people, yet we can't assume responsibility. funny how that works. That I know of, science hasn't been a main reason to go to war. No. And that's cool, I like science, I believe in evoluton to a degree.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Well first of all, I am not killing people or manipilating them to kill themselves, so on so forth... I have told you plenty of times, I don't care what religion, cult, whatever you beieve in. That's simply your beliefs. I will not sit here and bash someone for it. no matter how f-d up their beliefs may seem. But when their beliefs do interfere with people's safety, then it is time to interfere. Please remember that. I am tired of re-stating it.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
okay? I'll take it into account...Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Okay. as for the oppression/suppression, How so? We simply have out own opinions. We aren't stiffling growth in this area.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
suffering in Africa, That's what I mean by using the legal system. Just sucks that they don't really have one. Just adds on to my point that, it's people's beliefs, and if legal action could be taken, then it should be.
Dettering abortions.. Well I don't see how that's bad... but I refuse to get on that topic, seeng as I will never succeed with it. :P sexual orientation, hmm.. well I guess I am a "bad" christian, but I personally say, if you're happy with your sexual orientation, then be it so. I understand that churches havve the opposite thinking, but as long as they aren't harming anyone I don't see the badness. I mean yeah it sucks becasue alot of people can't get married, but leagalities are the issue here. manipulation of the public. well I understand how that can be a problem, but to be honest, once again, if you let such things persuade you so easily, then whatever, to each his own.. Once again, no physical.psychological damage, and i see no stiffling of anything with this, simply as, it's still that person's vote, just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong... the prayer stuff is BS. sorry, but my church actually has programs to help not only fellow members deal with financial struggles, but also classes to teach on to deal with such problems. So I see no stifling there.. Indoctrination of children. That is a good point, and I agree that children should make up their own mind, but sometimes are not really allowed but then again, How did you or anyone else come up with their morals? by the teachings you've encountered. thus, you in a way are brainwashed right? I personally grew up in a christian home, left the church for 4 years to "find" myself, and made up my mind to be where i am now... Well don't know what to tell you about ID. I haven't taken the class so couldn't tell you much about it. Evolution and such aren't taught min most schools for the same reason as God isn't. because it would be forcing opinions into youngsters mind. besides, neither evolution nor creationism are scientifical facts, thus they shouldn't be taught in a classroom.
Hmm.. that's a good point. psychological damge can be represented in physical damage as well, i.e brainwash=harm oneself, so No i don't think he should be set free. I know that would seem to contradict what I said earlier, but it doesn't. I clearly said, that it is within that person's right to share their beliefs with people and not be in the wrong for doing so, but forcing one's beliefs on someone would clash with our rights as americans, thus seperation of church and state-blahblahblah, and so it gives us the right to share such beliefs, just not neccessarily force it. "Brainwashing" someone does/ can cause physical/psychological harm, which i consider psychological damage, physical, because it lead to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
That's not what I said, I said, that I cannot take the law upon my own hands and do "justice" by bashing someone mentally or physically as "justice." That is not my job.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
~[/QUOTE]Firstly, I'm not going to argue against you by utilizing the psychology of religion; I just wanted you to know that it is being studied.
It seems you did not watch my video. A lot of functions of God and prayer is via self-fulfilling prophecy and confirmation bias.
Imagine the sense of autonomy without a God dictating for you.~[/QUOTE]
Yes and I was simply thanking you for bringing that up, it's nice to hear new things that I can think about, and even research. :)
I did see your video. Assuming that everyone who is a christian believes that prayer is for miracles, or that God has to answer their prayer is not a good thing. Too often people assume that God will answer all prayers and that he needs to. Such a silly thing. Seriously, the majority of christians may think so, but then again, the minority such as I will tell you no.
I see your point about the weak people being susceptible to manipulation. In that case then should we not assume resaponsibilty to help people out in the streets and to help them get clean, have a place to stay and teach them so that they maybe educated? We are so quick to judge them, and say how weak they are and poor weak minded people, yet we can't assume responsibility. funny how that works. That I know of, science hasn't been a main reason to go to war. No. And that's cool, I like science, I believe in evoluton to a degree.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Well first of all, I am not killing people or manipilating them to kill themselves, so on so forth... I have told you plenty of times, I don't care what religion, cult, whatever you beieve in. That's simply your beliefs. I will not sit here and bash someone for it. no matter how f-d up their beliefs may seem. But when their beliefs do interfere with people's safety, then it is time to interfere. Please remember that. I am tired of re-stating it.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
okay? I'll take it into account...Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Okay. as for the oppression/suppression, How so? We simply have out own opinions. We aren't stiffling growth in this area.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
suffering in Africa, That's what I mean by using the legal system. Just sucks that they don't really have one. Just adds on to my point that, it's people's beliefs, and if legal action could be taken, then it should be.
Dettering abortions.. Well I don't see how that's bad... but I refuse to get on that topic, seeng as I will never succeed with it. :P sexual orientation, hmm.. well I guess I am a "bad" christian, but I personally say, if you're happy with your sexual orientation, then be it so. I understand that churches havve the opposite thinking, but as long as they aren't harming anyone I don't see the badness. I mean yeah it sucks becasue alot of people can't get married, but leagalities are the issue here. manipulation of the public. well I understand how that can be a problem, but to be honest, once again, if you let such things persuade you so easily, then whatever, to each his own.. Once again, no physical.psychological damage, and i see no stiffling of anything with this, simply as, it's still that person's vote, just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong... the prayer stuff is BS. sorry, but my church actually has programs to help not only fellow members deal with financial struggles, but also classes to teach on to deal with such problems. So I see no stifling there.. Indoctrination of children. That is a good point, and I agree that children should make up their own mind, but sometimes are not really allowed but then again, How did you or anyone else come up with their morals? by the teachings you've encountered. thus, you in a way are brainwashed right? I personally grew up in a christian home, left the church for 4 years to "find" myself, and made up my mind to be where i am now... Well don't know what to tell you about ID. I haven't taken the class so couldn't tell you much about it. Evolution and such aren't taught min most schools for the same reason as God isn't. because it would be forcing opinions into youngsters mind. besides, neither evolution nor creationism are scientifical facts, thus they shouldn't be taught in a classroom.
A secular person can do anything a religious person can do, good or bad. However the point isn't that its possible, but that people involved in a religion to do it to higher degrees.
A secular person could be nice and talk to their neighbors everyday and get to know everyone, however it doesn't happen in a lot of places. However, people going to church often form better communities and get involved in stuff.
I would like to know what you base this on, and what you mean by "better" communities.Quote:
A secular person can do anything a religious person can do, good or bad. However the point isn't that its possible, but that people involved in a religion to do it to higher degrees.
A secular person could be nice and talk to their neighbors everyday and get to know everyone, however it doesn't happen in a lot of places. However, people going to church often form better communities and get involved in stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVbLb...eature=related
Can't say I applaud those kind of communities <_< (I know not everyones like that, merely an example of a community strongly favouring one idea over another :P )
The neighbourhood I live in, after countless of get together parties and such, are mostly atheists and others just very neutral to the whole deal, but we all get along perfectly well and are involved with each other to the degree that neighbours should be. If some communities grow stronger together based on one shared idea, it doesn't always have to mean it's better, or for the best.
Religion doesn't just get people together, it also fiercly tears people apart.
I didn't mean, one community is better than another. I meant, it gets them into the community, which is better than sitting at home and not talking to anyone. The default position in a lot of places seems to be, that most people don't really get involved in their communities and don't really talk to each other very often. Things like church gives a place for people to gather and help form a community. Obviously you don't need religion to do that, but its a very common thing among religion. Not just any one religion, but all of them help people get together.
Ah, I see:) The way you worded it just made it sound like it would make the communities "better" in some other way or another, than other forms of communities.
Join the neighbourhood watch. Go to the local football games. Volunteer for your council.
There are plenty of things you can do to get involved in your community that aren't chin-wagging at the local parish.
I specifically said in my post that I was using strict logical definitions. It is not my fault if you are not paying attention to details such as this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
See, I am ignoring other things said because it seems irrelevant to you.Quote:
As for what I believe in. Well to keep it short, I believe there is probably an afterlife. I believe there might be a god. I believe any being that can create a universe could be considered a god even if its not consciously aware of it. I don't think it really matters if there is a god or not, and I live my life the same regardless of that fact.
I was arguing against the typical Theistic approach to miracles and praying. If you wish to debate them from a different approach, then it is likely that we will not debate anything much. There is little difference between praying and mediation; that was all my point was and you seem to agree.
Calling something a cult does not necessitate it being unique or negative. Christianity is technically a cult - but that is not something I am using to denigrate it or use a specific word to deter it. The fact is that there are promises made if you make certain sacrifices; that is the basic premise of a cult and religions are more or less just organized cults. The line is very thin and we could easily get into semantics here but I just want to tell you that it is not really a concern of mine. I just want you to know that I do not think calling it a "cult" is a bad thing.Quote:
I could say sciences kills a ton of people with weapons, such as the atomic bomb. However that is silly. The atomic bomb doesn't equal science. However my point is, a cult doesn't equal mainstream religion either. Religion and science are ideas, cults and bombs are objects and things.
As it seemed to me to be a semantics thing with you, I just want to make it evidently clear that I see no difference between cult and religion other than size and it is really of no consequence either way.
You try to use the diversity of belief as a defense for Christianity. I find that very strange. If it is meant to be a universal belief system with fundamental beliefs based on holy scripture, then how is it so diverse? You know, usually people use that point you used against Christianity.Quote:
One could say Christianity is just a large cult, but there is a problem with that. Its so big that everyone believes something different, and there are so many branches. You simply can not lump them all together. It just doesn't work very well. Which is what my problem, with people trying to lump them all together and calling them all delusional. It really isn't fair, or accurate. Especially since good things do come from religion, a lot of good things.
Personally, I don't care - it is not my point what the structure of the religion is. If someone believes in something that they are told without reason or evidence, then they are delusional. Especially worse if they are explicitly shown evidence too.
Don't forget, good things can come from people like Charles Manson too; he helped some people feel better and enlighten others. He also helped some writers make a writing career. Does that mean he is suddenly good? No, of course not.
His beliefs and how he utilized them are far worse and there are much better things that can do much more good for people.
What is the good that Theism does that non-Theists cannot do?
You are really missing my point and it's really hard to explain it to you now because I think it is something you are not considering;Quote:
Originally Posted by aorozco
What of those that manipulate others by telling them their delusional beliefs and the naive people accept it? What about those that truly believe wrong things and convince others that it is right (eg. Charles Manson)?
You seem to be missing the point entirely; Charles Manson did not force his beliefs onto people, he simply told them it. Then, they killed people. A lot of people.
According to you; he was allowed to do that.
You should note now to people that you are part of the Manson Family.
The point is that the justice system uses a sense of justification for what they do and I am asking you what you think it ought to be. You are simply excusing yourself and saying that it is not your job? Come on now; don't be lazy; you are able to think for your self.Quote:
That's not what I said, I said, that I cannot take the law upon my own hands and do "justice" by bashing someone mentally or physically as "justice." That is not my job.
Then what's the point of praying that is not the main point of meditation?Quote:
I did see your video. Assuming that everyone who is a christian believes that prayer is for miracles, or that God has to answer their prayer is not a good thing. Too often people assume that God will answer all prayers and that he needs to. Such a silly thing. Seriously, the majority of christians may think so, but then again, the minority such as I will tell you no.
Don't be so sanctimonious. Of course we would love to help all these people out and we try our best as resources allow. The fact of the matter is that there will always be those in need; you cannot develop a utopia.Quote:
I see your point about the weak people being susceptible to manipulation. In that case then should we not assume resaponsibilty to help people out in the streets and to help them get clean, have a place to stay and teach them so that they maybe educated? We are so quick to judge them, and say how weak they are and poor weak minded people, yet we can't assume responsibility. funny how that works. That I know of, science hasn't been a main reason to go to war. No. And that's cool, I like science, I believe in evoluton to a degree.
Furthermore, that is not the type of people I am even speaking of.
You realize how many people vote for someone just based on, "He's Christian"? Do you not consider that this is a tool to manipulate people? Ever since Constantine has religion been a political tool; and that is all that it is.
Are you ignoring how many problems that religions can have on others? Do you really need me to re-state it? Because you are clearly not paying attention.Quote:
Well first of all, I am not killing people or manipilating them to kill themselves, so on so forth... I have told you plenty of times, I don't care what religion, cult, whatever you beieve in. That's simply your beliefs. I will not sit here and bash someone for it. no matter how f-d up their beliefs may seem. But when their beliefs do interfere with people's safety, then it is time to interfere. Please remember that. I am tired of re-stating it.
Religion is a major cause of violence and a very popular reason for homicides, wars, and violence. Tell me what the war over Jerusalem has been ever since human recorded history has existed?
All I will do is mention Galileo as evidence. To think that parallel's are not apparent today is simply ignorant.Quote:
Okay. as for the oppression/suppression, How so? We simply have out own opinions.
Perhaps you could explain to me how it is a bad thing to "brain-wash" your kids into thinking for themselves and being skeptical of being brain-washed? Perhaps you could tell me the best thing to teach your child and how it is better than teaching skepticism or the scientific approach to knowledge.Quote:
We aren't stiffling growth in this area.
suffering in Africa, That's what I mean by using the legal system. Just sucks that they don't really have one. Just adds on to my point that, it's people's beliefs, and if legal action could be taken, then it should be.
Dettering abortions.. Well I don't see how that's bad... but I refuse to get on that topic, seeng as I will never succeed with it. :P sexual orientation, hmm.. well I guess I am a "bad" christian, but I personally say, if you're happy with your sexual orientation, then be it so. I understand that churches havve the opposite thinking, but as long as they aren't harming anyone I don't see the badness. I mean yeah it sucks becasue alot of people can't get married, but leagalities are the issue here. manipulation of the public. well I understand how that can be a problem, but to be honest, once again, if you let such things persuade you so easily, then whatever, to each his own.. Once again, no physical.psychological damage, and i see no stiffling of anything with this, simply as, it's still that person's vote, just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong... the prayer stuff is BS. sorry, but my church actually has programs to help not only fellow members deal with financial struggles, but also classes to teach on to deal with such problems. So I see no stifling there.. Indoctrination of children. That is a good point, and I agree that children should make up their own mind, but sometimes are not really allowed but then again, How did you or anyone else come up with their morals? by the teachings you've encountered. thus, you in a way are brainwashed right?
Wrong; evolution is scientific fact.Quote:
I personally grew up in a christian home, left the church for 4 years to "find" myself, and made up my mind to be where i am now... Well don't know what to tell you about ID. I haven't taken the class so couldn't tell you much about it. Evolution and such aren't taught min most schools for the same reason as God isn't. because it would be forcing opinions into youngsters mind. besides, neither evolution nor creationism are scientifical facts, thus they shouldn't be taught in a classroom.
Apparently you are also not educated but this does not surprise me from people who argue it.
I have a profound amount resources I can call upon; what evidence do you need to see to see that evolution is fact? I ask because it seems that if I do so on my own, people ignore it and completely disregard me.
So I will leave it at;
What evidence can I provide you to prove to you that evolution is fact? (Because it is).
In addition, I ignored several points within the paragraph because you again failed to see the point. I was listing those problems that I see religion can cause and you did nothing but try to justify and defend the claims. I do not want to really argue those things but simply illustrate to you that I hold a confident argument for each of them. We can start individual threads for almost every individual one. I just want it clear to you that I am confident in the truth of each one.
What do you think...?
~
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Okay. When I started "discussing" this with you, I knew I wouldn't win. No matter how much logic I may use, I have no concrete evidence but the bible, but well that's just not good enough. Which is fine. ive become repetative in my points and it shows me that I am done. To insult me by saying I am part of the Manson family does not make me laugh. It's an unneccesary insult and a childish one at that.
Either way I tip my hat and say, to each his own.
One thing I will say is no. Evolution is not a scietific fact.
Definition of science by the oxford dictionary:
A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which includes trust-worthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain.
So for a theory to qualify as a scientific theory, it must be supported by eventd, processes, or properties which can be observed, and the theory must be useful in predicting the outcome of future natural phenomena or laboratory experiments. The theory must also be capable of falsification.It must be possible to conceive some sort of expriment, the failure of which would disprove the theory.
Creationism as well has not been witnessed, and an experiment cannot be conceived, thus creationism is not a scientific, theory, let alon a scientific thought. But wait, what else fails to be able to conceive such an experiment? Evolution. Have people witnessed evolution? No one has has ever observed the origin of species by natural occuring processes. Evolution has been postulated, but it has never been observed.
There are my two cents. Take it, leave it, research it. It's all good with me.
Yes it is: Organisms evolve. The specifics and mechanics of that statement s what the Theory of Evolution is, and is open to expansion and correction.Quote:
Originally Posted by aorozco
The theory of evolution is a broad term and encompasses many ideas and predictions. One is common ancestry, which is clearly depicted in the fossil record. Evolution can also be falsified:Quote:
So for a theory to qualify as a scientific theory, it must be supported by eventd, processes, or properties which can be observed, and the theory must be useful in predicting the outcome of future natural phenomena or laboratory experiments. The theory must also be capable of falsification.It must be possible to conceive some sort of expriment, the failure of which would disprove the theory.
The problem is that creationism is unfalsifiable and relies on blind faith in the idea rather than evidence and logical deduction.Quote:
Creationism as well has not been witnessed, and an experiment cannot be conceived, thus creationism is not a scientific, theory, let alon a scientific thought.
Not even going to bother with this; O'nus has tons of sources throughout the forum. I'd just like to point out that you are saying that simple faith in a bronze-aged idea even comes close to explaining what hundreds of years of biology would otherwise. This amazing ignorance leads me to wonder why you accept other scientific achievements without question and take them for granted...?Quote:
But wait, what else fails to be able to conceive such an experiment? Evolution.
Also, experimentation would show how organisms evolved, not that they did. Most experiments do this, though several have been conducted to test divergent evolution on the large scale, such at the 20 year island lizard experiment, which is just more proof on the pile.
Evolution is a general idea and one part is that selective pressures working on a population of reproducing entities that share common structures will cause certain advantageous traits to become defined. This has been observed.Quote:
Have people witnessed evolution? No one has has ever observed the origin of species by natural occuring processes. Evolution has been postulated, but it has never been observed.
Also, evolution answers the question of extinction. If species die off (Which is an observed phenomenon...), then how do new ones arrive? Divergent evolution. How does a large group of organisms (Such as humans) retain basic characteristics even when found all over the world? Genetic Drift. Why did Hominids evolve so quickly in Africa? Punctuated Equilibrium; essentially the opposite of genetic drift.
Or, you know, you could just cover your face and ignore all of this in a stubborn huff. It's all good here.
What do you mean "win"? What is this? I do not want to win - and I do not want anyone to lose.Quote:
Originally Posted by aorozco
I don't care. But when people say outrageous things, I want to learn if I am missing something or perhaps offer enlightenment.
Mutual enlightenment is all that I am after - not winning or losing. Come on now.
Don't get mad at me for what you said. You said it was okay for him to express his views and have others follow it. You then illogically said he should stay in jail though and did not think for yourself and just said, "Oh let the justice system handle it"Quote:
No matter how much logic I may use, I have no concrete evidence but the bible, but well that's just not good enough. Which is fine. ive become repetative in my points and it shows me that I am done. To insult me by saying I am part of the Manson family does not make me laugh. It's an unneccesary insult and a childish one at that.
Don't get mad at me for your obvious incapability to think for yourself.
It is fact.Quote:
Either way I tip my hat and say, to each his own.
One thing I will say is no. Evolution is not a scietific fact.
What evidence do you need to be shown that it is fact?
Evolution is systematically demonstrated and observed empirically.Quote:
Definition of science by the oxford dictionary:
A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which includes trust-worthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain.
What evidence do you need to be shown that evolution is fact? (I have made a thread for this as it seems many people are too cowardly to face this question - please prove me wrong)
Evolution is all of this.Quote:
So for a theory to qualify as a scientific theory, it must be supported by eventd, processes, or properties which can be observed, and the theory must be useful in predicting the outcome of future natural phenomena or laboratory experiments. The theory must also be capable of falsification.It must be possible to conceive some sort of expriment, the failure of which would disprove the theory.
So I will ask again; what evidence do you need to see?
Don't fret; I have a profound amount of resources to call upon on your request. Furthermore, you can research my old posts to likely find them as many people have ignored them in the past.
Instead of sharing it, I am just going to ask what you need to see.
Because I am strongly confident I can provide it - as it is true.
You are clearly ignorant to evolution. I realize that you may take that as an insult but the fact is that ignorance is when you do not have the knowledge of it and you are speaking as though you do not.Quote:
Creationism as well has not been witnessed, and an experiment cannot be conceived, thus creationism is not a scientific, theory, let alon a scientific thought. But wait, what else fails to be able to conceive such an experiment? Evolution. Have people witnessed evolution? No one has has ever observed the origin of species by natural occuring processes. Evolution has been postulated, but it has never been observed.
Here's a starting point (that I would bet $100 on that you would not watch, even if the bet was with you);
Evolution is observed.
Evolution is fact.
Evolution is real.
Live with it.
Take your own advice.Quote:
There are my two cents. Take it, leave it, research it. It's all good with me.
~
There is a huge difference between sharing experience and debating. I don't mind the first one. I am fascinated by all the beliefs humans have generated through the ages, it is an absolute show of our genuine imagination and longing to explain things we don't understand through mystique.Quote:
Originally Posted by aorozco
But if someone tries to claim diehard that something that is based on faith is real and tries to convert you... well I could decapitate them with no further thought. That is a greatest insult for individual thinking.
As you said, you can believe in anything you want. That is also freedom. Freedom is only "value" I appreciate, because it is the basic blockstone of life. We all have our freedom. You have freedom of believing and I have the freedom of not listening ramblings about your faith.
Sharing is not wrong. Sharing is good. But after the other guy says he has got enough, it is polite to stop, before you are locked into fight.
Hmm... Interesting. You're right, I didn't know that. Thanks for the enlightenment.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
potholer really does make great videos. It is amusing though that as you watch his videos from oldest to newest he gets increasingly more irate about ridiculous claims.
That's a common trend apparently. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alextanium
I'd just like to point out that this here, this quote, is a rare and precious thing. To evaluate evidence critically, and then have the courage to admit when you're mistaken is a sign of great integrity and intellectual honesty. I commend you aorozco.Quote:
Originally Posted by aorozco
It would be rarer if Noogah did it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alextanium
I won't be holding my breath for that.
Me neither. I have never seen anyone who runs on blind faith revoking their beliefs for sake of evidence.
That would still redeem human race a bit in my eyes if someone did that.
Would you agree that a person who believes in a loving god that occasionally answers prayers and heals people is deluded when considering that amputees do not get their limbs back when prayed for? If you don't agree, can you explain without making excuses how that god could possibly exist and behave like that when considering what we observe?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Logical reason would be that god is like humans. Didn't he make humans as his image? So rationally he is as chaotical and impulsive as we are. Too bad, his faithful cannot stand the idea he isn't some kind of supreme and higher being we cannot understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark75
He is probably stoned most of the time and uses roulette to decide what prayers he will bring to truth.
Logical, isn't it?
Sure, if you want to talk about a different god than the one I mentioned. Please read a little closer next time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Unelias
Defining traits of the god I'm talking about:
- Is 'loving' i.e. actually cares about the well-being of humans.
- Listens to and answers to prayers and:
- Occasionally heals human's diseases and helps them in all sorts of other ways.
It follows that a god who cares about the well being of humans wouldn't leave their fate up to chance.
Besides, he's gonna know the outcome anyway, isn't he?
Sorry, I'll fix it.
SARCASM FILTER /ON
I figured you were joking, but sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between a joke and poor reading comprehension/idiocy.
~ I forgive you. ~
Yes, after all sacrasm is a form of humour which requires intelligence to understand.
~Thanks and bows~
That was a pretty basic yet misleading video. The argument is narrowly based on a single quote. God is like a milk jug in such a sense, however God is not like a milk jug by nature - hence why most people don't pray to milk jugs. That doesn't mean "I can't see God" is the same as "I can't see you". The funny thing is, it is not even an optical illusion! "Yes", "no" and "wait" are merely arbitrary self-conclusions. They don't have any external existence. Got any other silly arguments?Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
You seem to argue from a naivete of what prayer and meditation are. For one thing, prayer and meditation can be similar yet they are not always the same. It depends on what kind of prayer or meditation, and it depends on the purpose and practice in which they exist.
However, it is true that many people misunderstand that prayer is a way to "get" things from God. In most cases this is selfish. True prayer is only for the good, not for personal gain.
Prayer generally is not a self-fulfilling prophecy and confirmation bias - that is merely what your argument above is, alone. Prayer is a way of influencing the results of so called "events" or "states" (etc.) by intention, devotion and faith. When people pray to God for serious issues, He responds. What does this mean? When we really pray, we change ourselves. It is paradigm higher than provability, so there's no way to truthfully understand it intellectually and perceptually, it comes from experience. When we truly pray to get through something, we find the inner strength. When we pray for something transitory and fruitless, it is a much weaker prayer.
And for that matter, one which requires intelligence to execute properly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Unelias
Yes, in the sense that both can be said to be answering prayers with the criteria for what could be considered an answer the video provides. It is "narrow" in that it is specific in dealing with a specific idea of god, yes, however it is no less relevant for this narrowness.Quote:
Originally Posted by really
Actually, by this specific definition of god, in regards to answering prayers as defined in the video, the milk jug and god are indistinguishable in their nature. You may hold other ideas about what god is, but the video is totally relevant and valid in its demonstration.Quote:
Originally Posted by really
Exactly what part of receiving $1,000 is not objectively verifiable? I suppose we might need to be more rigorous in our definition and our prayer and specify that we want to receive $1,000 in USD in an unexpected way within a single payment so that we might exclude the possibility that god has us on a divine under-the-cushions payment plan 25 cents at a time. We could even go further and pray to receive it on a particular day. Then it's just a matter of checking your pockets and your bank account on or after that day to see if you're $1,000 richer. The criteria for "yes" and "no" is pretty clear in that case. But then again, the vagueness that's allowed with these answers is kind of the point the video makes, isn't it? That we could rationalize that god is giving it to us in small payments or that he just said no or wait. And therein lies the illusion since this vagueness means that praying to any conceivable thing could produce these "answers".Quote:
Originally Posted by really
What do you consider praying for good to be? Do you think god responds to these prayers and interacts with the world in consideration of things people have prayed for?Quote:
Originally Posted by really
This is why I say it is a confirmation bias, because God and a milk jug are comparable in no other way apart from the specific idea that was mentioned. God is not an object, God is non-dualistic. There is no praying "to" a God out there and waiting for an "answer." There is praying and that's its own reward. The answers become obvious, yet we don't invent them or project arbitrary meanings (sad to say, this is uncommon). We're grateful for the influence of prayer but realize it doesn't "cause" anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark75
Just because the function can be seen as universal, it doesn't negate the Reality of God. The problem is more of the languaging. I might even say that Christianity.com has simplified the reasoning as to be obscure, but it's still valid in essence, because after all, this better falls within the understanding of karmic unity - whereby every thought and action is registered in the universe and gives rise to certain circumstances and conditions.
The skeptic may say that prayers are futile, powerless, purposeless and/or don't "do" anything, but the skeptic has trouble recognizing context - the paradigm of God, which alone allows the "rules" for all "events" and "happenings" to take place - all of which are not applicable to a milk jug (as Creator of the Universe, etc).
It is totally relevant on its own, but just like every other argument that exists. However, it is invalid because it doesn't take into account the meaning of God. Put it into context, and you find that it doesn't work out: a milk jug was just a made up, random fantasy. God is much less than a made up, random fantasy, for the reason why prayer is even valid from the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark75
I agree, but it doesn't mean praying is false, it means people basically just want to make up reasons for everything. I don't agree that God "answers" prayers in such ways. Plus, it could be "yes" and "no" at the same time. What if you got a $1000 dollars and then somebody stole it? "Yes then no?" It doesn't mean anything; they're just words. So I guess the problem is actually the Christianity.com's quote of prayer's being answered is misleading to skeptics. I think we should consider that prayers are effective, however not within an intellectual understanding. Understandably, this is difficult for most intellectuals. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Mark75
Praying for the "good" is for the better of everybody, and therefore within a cosmic, karmic unity. This involves no human judgment and traditionally all qualities of God are worthy to be brought into the world. If I pray for a sick person to get better, it most likely influences the results, but those results are not predictably or logically causal from the prayer. If the person recovers, I don't need to say "my prayer was answered", although it may be convenient. If the person dies, I don't need to say "my prayer was ignored", nor if the person stays sick for the rest of my life do I need to conclude that my prayer is "on hold." With a prayer there is an intention, and if it is strong it emanates of its own nature, not because it is "causing something", but because it contributes to the potential for something to change.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark75
When somebody has a prayer for world-peace, world-peace may not suddenly fall out of the sky one day, but the person may devotionally contribute peace to the world in more ways than they will expect. When I pray earnestly to God for inner strength, I will certainly find it, as the "Father is within me". If I pray to a milk jug, I will never have that strength because the belief is intrinsically a fantasy, regardless of how much I believe it is true. The faith in God will always transcend all other fantasies because of its intrinsic, all-inclusive affirmation. The only problem that the majority mankind shares is how to recognize God and not confuse Him with something external or limited.
^ Not cool... :?
Yet it shows pretty much the way people utilize beliefs and religion to achieve their personal goals.
Or don't you agree?
The fact if it's cool is completely irrelevant. I personally find it hilarious.
You seem to be confusing the pertinence of the subject to yourself rather than those it is intended for; those who say God does answer and listen to every prayer and that things come of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by really
Otherwise, it is the equivalent to meditating. How is praying for the sake of just praying any better than simply meditating? Not even a fundamentalist scientist will dispute the benefits of meditating (sitting there relaxed, I mean).
So now you are saying that these things will manifest in some way.Quote:
Just because the function can be seen as universal, it doesn't negate the Reality of God. The problem is more of the languaging. I might even say that Christianity.com has simplified the reasoning as to be obscure, but it's still valid in essence, because after all, this better falls within the understanding of karmic unity - whereby every thought and action is registered in the universe and gives rise to certain circumstances and conditions.
Do not forget that even inane thoughts have impact but that doesn't mean that they are at all significant. Even if you sit there and think of shit you are still manifesting a thought pattern and emitting a minor electrical signal from your brain; but that does not mean a thing.
It is how you manifest your thoughts through your actions that matters; not in thinking that your thoughts are in some unison with the universe. That is nonsense and it is nonsense because you cannot know if your thoughts actually do anything or not.
The better thought is to take power in the idea of chaos. I am a strict adherent of chaotic theory in that the most minor of thoughts that manifest into actions do take effect in the world; and that is undeniable.
However, I wouldn't take away the beauty of that by using some vague and ill-defined concept as "karma".
You have missed the point.Quote:
The skeptic may say that prayers are futile, powerless, purposeless and/or don't "do" anything, but the skeptic has trouble recognizing context - the paradigm of God, which alone allows the "rules" for all "events" and "happenings" to take place - all of which are not applicable to a milk jug (as Creator of the Universe, etc).
The point was that if praying to a certain deity does something, then if I pray to something as nonsensical as a jug of milk; there ought to be a difference. But, there is no difference. Why is there no difference?
From what you said, it is then pertinent to ask; what is the difference between praying and simply meditating? (sitting there relaxed and calmly breathing)
This quote illustrates your complete lack of understanding of the argument. Perhaps considering the above you will now notice a difference.Quote:
It is totally relevant on its own, but just like every other argument that exists. However, it is invalid because it doesn't take into account the meaning of God. Put it into context, and you find that it doesn't work out: a milk jug was just a made up, random fantasy. God is much less than a made up, random fantasy, for the reason why prayer is even valid from the first place.
If God is some divine being that has any interaction at all with prayers, then there ought to be a difference if a person prays to even a rock.
The video is primarily intended to those that do agree that God answers prayers in such ways but here you are bringing your own opinion and trying to denigrate a thread anyway - something you have a history of doing.Quote:
I agree, but it doesn't mean praying is false, it means people basically just want to make up reasons for everything. I don't agree that God "answers" prayers in such ways. Plus, it could be "yes" and "no" at the same time. What if you got a $1000 dollars and then somebody stole it? "Yes then no?" It doesn't mean anything; they're just words. So I guess the problem is actually the Christianity.com's quote of prayer's being answered is misleading to skeptics. I think we should consider that prayers are effective, however not within an intellectual understanding. Understandably, this is difficult for most intellectuals. :D
Yes and no can function in utility - something else that you have had a tendency to misunderstand. In utility, an answer ought to be answerable in an affirmative or negative fashion; even energies if you will.
It seems to me that you think you ought to not think for this to work.
I understand that if you are willing to admit that only those that do not think will comply with its function. It makes sense to me considering that spiritualists and religious are stupider than nonreligious and atheists (something that is provable - and I have in other threads).
What would work better;Quote:
Praying for the "good" is for the better of everybody, and therefore within a cosmic, karmic unity. This involves no human judgment and traditionally all qualities of God are worthy to be brought into the world. If I pray for a sick person to get better, it most likely influences the results, but those results are not predictably or logically causal from the prayer. If the person recovers, I don't need to say "my prayer was answered", although it may be convenient. If the person dies, I don't need to say "my prayer was ignored", nor if the person stays sick for the rest of my life do I need to conclude that my prayer is "on hold." With a prayer there is an intention, and if it is strong it emanates of its own nature, not because it is "causing something", but because it contributes to the potential for something to change.
- Praying for karmic spiritual intangible [insert other vagaries here] for the good of someone
or
- Acting for the good of the person by taking manifest actions (ie. giving them medication or reassuring them)
When it comes down to it, prayer is no different than meditation; completely selfish.
What say you of someone, like me, who dedicates there life to the ideal that random inane actions have chaotic effects in the world? That is much more beautiful and intriguing than something that requires you not too think to make sense.
Is it not better to seek this form of self-confidence without the apparent need of some supernatural or third-party influence?Quote:
When somebody has a prayer for world-peace, world-peace may not suddenly fall out of the sky one day, but the person may devotionally contribute peace to the world in more ways than they will expect. When I pray earnestly to God for inner strength, I will certainly find it, as the "Father is within me". If I pray to a milk jug, I will never have that strength because the belief is intrinsically a fantasy, regardless of how much I believe it is true. The faith in God will always transcend all other fantasies because of its intrinsic, all-inclusive affirmation. The only problem that the majority mankind shares is how to recognize God and not confuse Him with something external or limited.
If I do not believe in spirits, Gods, or anything supernatural - tell me how you think that I rationalize all my actions as good and helpful to mankind?
What do you honestly think I tell myself to justify that all my actions are meaningful and to good for people?
It seems to me that you are completely neglecting that ideal....
..or are you just not intelligent enough - as you have said?
~
p much what he said.
Care to elaborate? You think it's not a confirmation bias? The power of prayer is shared equally between everybody. God does not answer every prayer logically, but it is we who project the answers in a word form. The mentalization of manifestation is not the manifesting nor the potentiality itself. Concepts can be applied wherever you see fit, but the context is what holds the importance and what makes them valid.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
I don't understand your point. "Sitting there, relaxed" is not meditation, it's "sitting there, relaxed." Meditation comes in a variety of specific forms, mostly to achieve states of higher awareness and clarity, but not to just sit there for the sake of it. Prayer is slightly different in that it holds an intention or devotion; there is a crossover point to meditation but they are not exactly alike. Prayer is more often supposed to be for others, whereas meditation is more often for oneself. Both are generally unselfish in true terms and help admit ones powerlessness.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
In a karmically united universe, yes, thinking "shit" does mean a thing, it means you think "shit" and bring about likely circumstances. Remember the unity means all-inclusiveness. As it was said in the Bible: "Why, even all the hairs on your head have been counted!" Nothing is left out. If you think that "thinking shit" doesn't mean anything, go ahead and do it for the rest of your life and see where you end up! Obviously that influences more than what is just logical to your own viewpoint, it influences the world around you. You might even get sent to a mental hospital. Everything you do becomes history, everything you are is what you have become.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
All thoughts/actions take effects in the universe and all is fair. That is karma. It doesn't matter how many different ways you word it, it's still the same. You do not "know about it" because it is not intellectual. You will only know it with a clear mind, otherwise you are claiming to be God out of pure narcissism.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
There is no difference because the context is ignored out of a confirmation bias. You'd know the difference if you knew the true meaning of prayer rather than judging its effects. The difference is, the jug of milk is an external fascination, but God is an inner certainty. If you want it to make sense, put it into context instead of playing with symbols.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
You won't notice the difference because you're just playing with concepts that are meaningless on their own. Praying to God represents an intention to that which is the Father of All Things. For that reason there is a letting go and giving up to God. Surrendering to a rock does not empower the heart, it merely may satisfy the mind. It is more powerful to see God as the All rather than the particular. If you see God as something outside yourself you have to make up some reason or justification for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
If I play a card game with someone there are a certain chances that I will win. If I play a card game with a blind person, the chances are the same but they are influenced by other governing factors that are not comprehensible. Is playing against a blind person therefore the same as a playing against a normal person? Only in narrow terms; only by irrelevancies.
You would save yourself some writing if you gave respect. Remember this is a forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
I am no different than others who pray with true intentions.
"Yes" and "no" are unnecessary judgments for the work of prayer. What's their purpose and utility? They seem to be a justification for people who have great expectations of prayers to work. Despite this, all prayers are answered in one way or another. Our comments are not needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Thinking is not required for prayer when praying from the heart. Thinking is irrelevant, and whether you do or don't for the purpose of prayer doesn't make the prayer better or worse, but its effects still exist in the universe.
You can't "prove" that, and besides, you miss the point by categorizing things instead of seeing them for what they are. That is the same problem in the milk-jug/rock argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
It depends on what you mean by "work better." Again, this is the importance of context. If you can get good medication that is reliable to work for a sick patient, then go ahead and get it. If something seems inevitable, such as your mother not being able to get successful medical help from the best of doctors, then pray for a miracle. Go and sit with her in hospital. It's all the same really; it's your intention that matters. Yet while it's obvious that being rational can be most assisting, other times, such as in the latter case described, it no longer serves a purpose. It takes some maturity, contrary to most skeptics. Being irrational or "non-thinking" doesn't always mean something is wrong, invalid, unsuccessful or ineffective.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Don't generalize, it depends on the persons intention. If you pray for a new car it is selfish, if you pray for the better of others it is selfless. People find to their disappointment that selfish prayers (for personal gain etc.) are weak anyway. That's childish.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
I say look further into it and don't decide it by what is more beautiful; by what is more intellectual.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
There's nothing third-party or supernatural about existence itself. It belongs to God, so we pray to God. They are one and the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Dedicate your life to love. Humble yourself. You can be rational at the same time.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
I don't know, you tell me. Why are you asking me?Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
It seems you lack the ability to watch videos and listen to them at the same time. My argument, and the videos, function on confirmation bias. This is precisely how prayer works for those people, but not you it would seem. Let us try not to equivocate it - which you are apt to doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by really
Furthermore, you might find that if you read my posts that I do not disagree with what you have said here.
Explicitly distinguish prayer and meditation for me then because it seems you are depending on a very thin line that's based on vagaries.Quote:
I don't understand your point. "Sitting there, relaxed" is not meditation, it's "sitting there, relaxed." Meditation comes in a variety of specific forms, mostly to achieve states of higher awareness and clarity, but not to just sit there for the sake of it. Prayer is slightly different in that it holds an intention or devotion; there is a crossover point to meditation but they are not exactly alike. Prayer is more often supposed to be for others, whereas meditation is more often for oneself. Both are generally unselfish in true terms and help admit ones powerlessness.
You completely fail to understand my point again. I am not surprised. It seems you like to get ideas in your head about others and just rant on about it.Quote:
In a karmically united universe, yes, thinking "shit" does mean a thing, it means you think "shit" and bring about likely circumstances. Remember the unity means all-inclusiveness. As it was said in the Bible: "Why, even all the hairs on your head have been counted!" Nothing is left out. If you think that "thinking shit" doesn't mean anything, go ahead and do it for the rest of your life and see where you end up! Obviously that influences more than what is just logical to your own viewpoint, it influences the world around you. You might even get sent to a mental hospital. Everything you do becomes history, everything you are is what you have become.
You might find that, again, if you read my posts, I do not disagree with this. In fact, I said it.
Why do you have to employ a vague and ill-defined concept of karma on something that is much more majestic on its own? Why do you feel the need to inject a fantasy and delusion onto something that is beautiful and perfect?Quote:
All thoughts/actions take effects in the universe and all is fair. That is karma. It doesn't matter how many different ways you word it, it's still the same. You do not "know about it" because it is not intellectual. You will only know it with a clear mind, otherwise you are claiming to be God out of pure narcissism.
Karma is not a defined concept and relies on delusional and un-intelligent thinking to understand. Yes, intellectuals have difficulty understanding, because you have to be stupid to believe in things that do not have definitions. But I am sure you will take that out of context.
Also, where the hell did I claim to be God?
I don't even know if I want to elaborate because you have already ignored my points. But, what is the difference between prayer and meditation is basically my response again.Quote:
There is no difference because the context is ignored out of a confirmation bias. You'd know the difference if you knew the true meaning of prayer rather than judging its effects. The difference is, the jug of milk is an external fascination, but God is an inner certainty. If you want it to make sense, put it into context instead of playing with symbols.
The point is that there is no difference. Even psychological studies (demonstrated by Lee A. Kirkpatrick) can demonstrate that prayer functions on the same basis as a relationship and attachment theory. It is based on its intention for support and consolidation but the methods are nothing but placebo. Hence, there is really no difference between praying to god or a rock, jug of milk, shit, etc. The results are all the same - and I am speaking of the internal and personal.Quote:
You won't notice the difference because you're just playing with concepts that are meaningless on their own. Praying to God represents an intention to that which is the Father of All Things. For that reason there is a letting go and giving up to God. Surrendering to a rock does not empower the heart, it merely may satisfy the mind. It is more powerful to see God as the All rather than the particular. If you see God as something outside yourself you have to make up some reason or justification for it.
Pay attention.
You would also save us a lot of bandwidth if you did not degrade so many threads into your own meandering nonsense rather than stick to topics and pertinent issues. But here you are again driving another thread into your own philosophy.Quote:
You would save yourself some writing if you gave respect. Remember this is a forum.
Maybe you should consider confirmation when you say things like this. Unfortunately, just saying these things does not make them true.Quote:
"Yes" and "no" are unnecessary judgments for the work of prayer. What's their purpose and utility? They seem to be a justification for people who have great expectations of prayers to work. Despite this, all prayers are answered in one way or another. Our comments are not needed.
Now let us examine what "praying from the heart" means.Quote:
Thinking is not required for prayer when praying from the heart. Thinking is irrelevant, and whether you do or don't for the purpose of prayer doesn't make the prayer better or worse, but its effects still exist in the universe.
Perhaps you could define that in a way that is not bias or perhaps confirmation or perhaps self-fulfilling prophecy. Some words which you use but apparently don't apply to yourself.
Also, it seems you fail to recognize the benefits of simply meditation and how it drastically helps people. People receive just as many benefits from no supernatural influence to supernatural influence. What do you think of that?
Of course if I was faced with proof that I did not want to accept, I would argue the definition of proof to.Quote:
You can't "prove" that, and besides, you miss the point by categorizing things instead of seeing them for what they are. That is the same problem in the milk-jug/rock argument.
But that is also the most desperate and pathetic argument you could make.
What argument or proof could be implemented then to prove you wrong?
^ This is something which spiritualists, theists, and all religious alike have a profound failure in facing. Even with me saying this, there will only be a vague response that does not actually have any substance.
This is bull-shit and you know it. The same amount of miracles happen for those that do pray for those that do not. What say you to that?Quote:
It depends on what you mean by "work better." Again, this is the importance of context. If you can get good medication that is reliable to work for a sick patient, then go ahead and get it. If something seems inevitable, such as your mother not being able to get successful medical help from the best of doctors, then pray for a miracle. Go and sit with her in hospital. It's all the same really; it's your intention that matters. Yet while it's obvious that being rational can be most assisting, other times, such as in the latter case described, it no longer serves a purpose. It takes some maturity, contrary to most skeptics. Being irrational or "non-thinking" doesn't always mean something is wrong, invalid, unsuccessful or ineffective.
I never pray and I would say I have had "miracles" (statistical in-normalities) - what of me then?
Don't be prejudice.Quote:
Don't generalize, it depends on the persons intention. If you pray for a new car it is selfish, if you pray for the better of others it is selfless. People find to their disappointment that selfish prayers (for personal gain etc.) are weak anyway. That's childish.
If you had any insight at all you'd know that what I mean is that they are selfish in the sense of how they are conducted. A person sits and thinks to them self. Although some people pray out loud, it is still a selfish act as it is talking your thoughts out loud.
I really hope you get the point.
I am looking further into it by asking you!Quote:
I say look further into it and don't decide it by what is more beautiful; by what is more intellectual.
I want to know if someone out there really thinks it is more beautiful to do good for the sake of doing good alone and no supernatural influence
or
If it is more beautiful to do good for the sake of a supernatural/spiritual/deity/divine influence.
Be honest now.
Stop using circular logic - you're smarter than that.Quote:
There's nothing third-party or supernatural about existence itself. It belongs to God, so we pray to God. They are one and the same.
You also completely ignored my point.
I have the respect to acknowledge your points, the least you could do is be mature and give that respect back.
Please re-consider what you quoted and consider that you are being incredibly hypocritical by not taking my question seriously.
This is a testament to your inability to think of others and be insightful - yet you tell me to go seek more and ask more questions.Quote:
Dedicate your life to love. Humble yourself. You can be rational at the same time.
I don't know, you tell me. Why are you asking me?
Maybe you should consider the idea that people can do good and be good without having the influence of anything but the idea of good.
I do not believe in prayer, Gods, spirits, characteristic entities, magic, divine influence, etc. But yet I still do good and dedicate my life to helping others.
Again, why do you think I do that?
Please, try to be a little more insightful this time and not so damn closed-minded.
~
O'nus, I don't mean to come across as disrespectful at all. I don't see what you have to get so defensive and offended about. If anything you've made more degenerative comments than I have. Settle down or something, have a Kit Kat. This stuff is not the easiest to understand, so be patient.
You ask for substance, but where's yours?Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Well I don't think "sitting there, relaxed" is a very good start. I don't know how much you know about the subject, but so far you sound naive. Tell me what is even the relevance of the "prayer vs. meditation" argument and why you have brought it up repeatedly?Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Meditation - Most often involves contemplation, introspection and purported for re-contextualization or resolving of beliefs, higher awareness (and transcending beliefs), relaxation and mental clarity, among other things. Although the psychological examples involve mantras, breathing techniques, postures, physical exercises and watching exercises and sensual rituals, the more pristine and simpler forms can appear to be passive. Actually, within them, there is typically a deep contemplation and watching and/or surrendering of thought systems. Eyes are often closed because the world is not pertinent and may be distracting. However, there are also meditation techniques that involve the world but on a different level than the ordinary, re-contextualizing the significance of daily activities. In some ways this can be a form of prayer but overall meditation is for the betterment of one's consciousness and awareness, typically for integrous spiritual purposes.
Prayer - Prayer is slightly different in that it is generally used to establish intentions for God and is not restricted to inner struggles or purposes, but can be directed outward into the world. Can also be done in group situations and to offer thanks or gratitude toward God, verbally or not. Other prayer forms include poetry/verse, hymns, songs and practical devotional acts (spinning prayer wheels, lighting candles, etc) but these are not exactly meditation. It is also a gesture toward God, oneself and others and helps focus one's intentions for the greater good. The naive think that prayer is used for praying for gain and money, but that is futilely self-centered and egoistic.
In this particular case, prayer is narrowed down to the desire or want for some external object, and further narrowed down by perceptual inference alone. The problem is in the interpretation of the Christianity.com quote, and further ignorance of context through confirmation bias. First of all, all prayers are "answered," but to pick-on the verbal conclusion misses the point of prayer. Just because all prayers are answered doesn't mean put it in the same category as a milk-jug prayer service. The argument actually furthermore fails to justify how the milk-jug prayer is the same, when it is actually very different. A milk-jug does not discretely answer prayers, and this was not explained at all but merely concluded without explanation. E.g. God is the source of the universe and so encompasses all possibility. A milk jug however, is sitting on the cupboard and has no way to answer your prayer unless some magical fantasy is invented. Even so, it is still contrary to praying to God. Also, see my card-game example.
That's confusing - you say I completely fail to understand your point, yet while you agree with and actually "said" what I did. Sorry, but you need to explain; tell me what you think I do not understand and what it is exactly you agree with.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
I have no idea where these notions are coming from, so you have to explain. What do you disagree with about karma and what is "majestic on its own"?Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Take it easy, I Googled Karma for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
If you're going to hold a negative prejudgment about this, I may as well stop posting to you. "...because you have to be stupid..." That's immaturity. Gimme a break.
You gave me such an impression by implying that everything is the way you think it is and if you can't think of it then it's nonsense. Don't take it too harshly though, it's an emphasis. What is the limitation of logical thinking?Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
The results are not actually the same. A jug is in no way comparable to God in that God is infinite, and the jug can merely sit on the cupboard or provide milk for a limited amount of time, for example. What you also ignore is the level to which faith and reason are managed - all of which cannot be proven and does not encompass probability equations in a linear fashion. Neither does the object of attention remain irrelevant. Has anyone reported miracles or the witnessing thereof from the praying to milk-jugs?Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
How can you prove something like this is a placebo, especially as a generality; especially when the results are intangible?
That's your opinion. Keep it to yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Then what was your point? Answer my question please: With regard to drawing verbal conclusions about prayers and their different responses/outcomes, what's their purpose and utility?Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Praying from the heart is praying out of love and compassion. The aim is forgiveness and relinquishment of preciously held belief systems that reject these traits. I got this from The Pathway of the heart, but really it helps to understand most prayers. This goes hand in hand with faith. Praying from the mind is not really how it works, because that brings about personal justification and intellectual criticism that is irrelevant and actually an obstacle to further growth.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
L-O-L is what I think of that. I could talk about the benefits of meditation for a lifetime. I don't care if you believe in supernatural influences or not because they are irrelevant in this case (in that they're not a requirement). Besides, God is not supernatural and neither is the nature of Self.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
I said you can't prove what you said, yet now you're asking me how you can prove me wrong? What are you talking about? I said you can't prove "spiritualists and religious are stupider than nonreligious and atheists...", which you claimed to, and then responded to me again with fluff.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Miracles happen to everybody because they're commonplace but are not obvious to ordinary perception. Prayer sometimes helps you witness them. Yet, simultaneously, miracles are not quantifiable because they're not intellectual or comprehensible. You pray for a miracle in casual sense, because for a deadly sickness to spontaneously resolve without any medical help or rational justification is quite extraordinary. The proclivity for this is far greater with faith, prayer and intentions for healing and love, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
That is meaningless. Miracles are not exclusive to praying, but you're lucky to witness them. Plus, what is an example of one of your "statistical in-normalities"? Things with low chances of occurrences are not miracles, although at first that is one of their apparent characteristics.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
You ignore the intent of praying for the good of others? You're still generalizing, and not all prayers are spoken; not all prayers are done alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Oh right! I am being honest, trust me. First of all, I'd bring up that mature spiritual inclination is not necessarily dogmatic and does not have anything to do with fantasies and supernatural entities.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
It is beautiful to seek the good for its own sake, and without glamorizing the ideas or motivations. Nevertheless, when somebody seeks the good that is basically all that matters.
I want you to post something substantial and of quality. You seem to generalize by thinking that all spiritual terms are supernatural, is that correct? Where the meaning of God is unified with the meaning of Self and the nature of Reality, is that supernatural? Also, I don't want to go too far off-topic. If that is upsetting to consider, you can pray "to Reality" but you must have reverence and true respect for everything that encompasses.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
See Perennial Philosophy.
You've made it obvious that you're not interested in anything irrational, improvable or that which is a "bias", etc. Apparently you quickly ascribe these things to spiritual terms. Yet I think you are not willing to see the simplicity and oneness these terms all have with what you already believe. The terms you superficially believe to be supernatural or fantasizing are actually more bare-boned, Self-evident and intrinsic than you realize.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Do you believe in the reality of love? Yes or no. You don't need to rationalize it in some intellectual form with incredible detail and academic excellence, that is not required for my question.
It gets the point across but Im confused on why the person wanted to kill him seeing as Jesus never meant for Christianity to become what it has today. It was twisted and mutilated in to its current form.Quote:
Originally Posted by Unelias
1. Cancer remissions are considered "Miracles". A cancer remission is not a miracle. It is simply the body fighting back at a malignant parasitical growth. That cannot happen to amputees. That is the simple truth, noogah.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noogah
2. If God truly cared, he would help them himself. Does this mean that people who DO help starving african children care more than your "God" does?
3. What kind of loving god would kill homosexuals, impudent teens, women who aren't virgins at birth et cetera? People can make their own choices with their lives. Any RATIONAL person would see that.
4. Yes, those ideals are scientifically irrational because a) The world is MUCH older than 6000 years. Anyone accepting the PROVEN scientific fields of Archeology or Carbon Dating would understand that. And b) The story of Jonah living in a whale for three days is about as credible as Pinnochio. The stomach acid would have dissolved him in that time, easily.
5. Slaves were treated well? Excuse me, but I think it says that they were released after 6 years of service. 6! I don't care how well someone is treated, if they're treated well at all, I would not want to provide labor for anyone against my will for that amount of time.
6. Yes, bad things to good people. There are some people tortured and executed for absolutely no reason at all. And yet, there are multi-millionare criminals at large in the world. What kind of loving, caring god would allow that, hmm?
7. It seems that they haven't found the holy grail yet, have they? Or the cross? Or even the boulder jesus supposedly moved? If you ask me, some of these religious artifacts should last a bit longer than 6000-X years.
8. According to the bible, prayer is based on a "Ask and you shall recieve" motto. Have you yet watched the milk jug video? And, with the proper delusions, you could develop as much a relationship to jesus as you could to Harry Potter. Jesus is simply a fictional character in a book, no matter how many people believe otherwise.
9. And yet, in the bible it is literally said that way. Rewatch the video, see if you change your mind.
10. It is supposed to be a sin to divorce your spouse. If god truly wished for this law to stand, he would've set different standards for the emotion of love, wouldn't he? Unless of course, he doesn't exist. Then it would make perfect sense. The same goes for homosexuals. Why would god create people with different sexual preferences if he did not want them to even exist?
Use reason. Even the ancient greeks understood the power and importance of reason. You'd think after many, many years of introspection modern society would realize the absurdity of religion. It seems that even with hard proof, people are still unable to escape traditional insanity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unelias
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Ohh, that's good. He preaches the same ideas that the bible does! :)
Why does the fellow narrating the video presume to know what I am doing?
He just assumes that I try to make excuses for God when really, I do no such thing. This is really very foolish and another vain attempt at making Christians feel stupid.
"God let's people starve."
No, people let people starve. Or in some cases, people let themselves starve.
"You think that God is performing miracles by curing poisons and cancers."
No, I don't. Who said that I did? Why does this man think that I believe such things? Again, people do these things, not God.
He says that I sit here behind my computer making all kinds of strange excuses as to why God does/does not do certain things, when really there is a simple answer:
My view, in simple terms:
God is an engineer and he created the things we describe and hope to understand using science (definitely not 6000 years ago). He/she/it is something I can't describe, obviously not humanoid or like any creature. Possibly like the Force (damn Star Wars, making me believe in dumb things.) Maybe God is the Big Bang. Whatever. What matters here in this discussion is what God is not. God is not a charity worker and he does not give handouts. The universe is in motion. The mission being fulfilled, God is asleep now. It is dangerous to go alone. Here take this. Period.
"Because the Bible does not make sense then we should not read it."
So then, because "The Cat in the Hat", "Go Dogs Go", "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles", "Star Wars", "Frankenstein", and "The Odyssey" all make no sense scientifically speaking, we should disregard them because there is absolutely no lesson or moral value to be learned in them, correct? They teach children and adults alike to believe in mythical creatures, cats that can talk, a woman who would remain faithful for 20 years (yeah as if - see Odyssey), sound waves in outer space, laser guns, laser swords, gong-fu knowing reptiles, etc.
PS: The Bible was written by humans. Not a deity. Therefore it should not be taken literally and those who cannot understand this need not apply. You can pick and choose all of the bad things but I bet if you looked some more you'd find some good stuff as well.
I was typing while listening to the video, but now that I've heard the entire clip, I'm really not impressed. He started out somewhat strong but still in the end committed himself to tossing insults at religious people. Pretty standard stuff. Honestly, I read better arguments on dreamviews, which is sad.
:arrow: Respect
Firstly, I want you to understand that I am accusing you of digressing the thread into a complete irrelevancy based upon your own philosophies. It takes away from the thread and you add condescending remarks to it. Just because skeptics question prayer and spirituality does not mean that they are stupider than you. Consider the possibility that you are wrong. No matter how right it may seem to you.
Spoiler for A:
:arrow: Substance
What you have provided:Quote:
Originally Posted by really
- Subjective and relative definitions of spirituality, meditation, and prayer with no support, evidence, or justification.
What I have provided:
- Justifiable arguments and valid objections to the functionality of prayer.
It must be noted that I think you are ignoring the fact that I fully acknowledge the power of positive psychology, placebo, and meditation. However, I do not think there is any need to implement supernatural or anything further out of the context.
I must note to you that you are consistently using circular logic. You assume that spirituality exists and then argue from that standpoint. You are not defining or justifying the existance of God, spirits, or anything else for that matter.
So when it comes to substance, you must really look at yourself.
:arrow: Semantics
While there seems to be a distinct difference between prayer and meditation, it is a central debate we are having right now.
However, you keep saying that God is not supernatural, and debating with my use over the terms of your God and divine influence, etc.
I am trying to use the most vague and broad terms to relate to you and you consistently change the context of the words I am using. You know what I am trying to convey to you; we both understand that your God is intended as an all encompassing perceiver and influence, etc.
Considering that the idea of Gods existence is the premise to all of your circular logic, I would love it if you tried to correct me and used definitive terms or even proved it.
But then again, I have no confidence that you can provide anything other than subjective arguments; and you lack the ability to see how that is a problem.
:arrow: Prayer v Meditation
Firstly, if you can accept what I am saying about the truth in these two things, than we can continue. The fact of the matter is that, physiologically speaking, these two things are exactly the same. Breathing rates, blood pressure, all drop and the person relaxes.
If spirituality or God makes prayer/meditation more potent, then ought there be a difference when an Atheist meditates?
I know that you would most likely induce an answer that begs the question here, (eg. "God is everything, so you just don't realize that it is happening to you anyway") but this does not make it valid. In fact, it invalidates it because of its unfalsifiability.
Furthermore, you can still meditate and think of others. I do it all the time. In fact, I often tell people that I need time to think to myself about how I can help them. This is because I feel that, in my meditative state, I am most able to be empathetic and able to relay my thoughts about that person. I try to go into the most phenomenological state possible and it works very effectively for me.
However, there is no need for a supernatural influence.
Spoiler for B:
:arrow: Your Confusion
You may find that I am constantly saying, "You are missing my point" or "ranting on". This is because I see that you have a tendency to make the wrong assumptions about my expressions (eg. meditation v prayer). Essentially, the only thing we disagree upon is that involvement of God or spirituality. Everything else I agree with (it's benefits and intents).
I should actually emphasize that the major difference between you and I is that I see absolutely no difference between prayer and meditation; even physiological evidence can support that. You cannot give any evidence otherwise because you rely on circular logic (eg. "God is everywhere and involved in everything; it is simply a matter of perceiving it") - which is invalid and illogical.
Your best hope is to argue the foundations of logic and if you do, then we give rise to anything illogical.
:arrow: Majesty
Let us stick with prayer and meditation.Quote:
I have no idea where these notions are coming from, so you have to explain. What do you disagree with about karma and what is "majestic on its own"?
Imagine for a moment that there are two views:
1) Meditation/Prayer is functioned by God and allows all these wonderful epiphanies to occur
or
2) Meditation/Prayer is functioned by individuals on their own and all the wonderful epiphanies occur on their own - autonomously.
I would like to ask which one sounds more amazing, but our answers are obviously bias, so let me elaborate. Is it more amazing that there's a supernatural influence on the epiphanies and wondrous things that happen in your life? Or is it more inspiring to know how much control and wonderful abilities you have on your own? You are the ultimate God of your own consciousness - not something else.
You seem to fail to see the point. I will try to explicitly state it.Quote:
The results are not actually the same. A jug is in no way comparable to God in that God is infinite, and the jug can merely sit on the cupboard or provide milk for a limited amount of time, for example. What you also ignore is the level to which faith and reason are managed - all of which cannot be proven and does not encompass probability equations in a linear fashion. Neither does the object of attention remain irrelevant. Has anyone reported miracles or the witnessing thereof from the praying to milk-jugs?
How can you prove something like this is a placebo, especially as a generality; especially when the results are intangible?
A) Prayer and meditation both have the same physiological and psychological effects.
+ A1) This is proven in the fact of slow breathing, heart rate, and attachment theory.
+ A2) This is also true as both have the same fundamental purposes.
B) If there is any differene, it ought to be between those that pray to a God and those that pray to themselves
C) There is no difference between those that pray to a God and thoes that pray to themselves
Thus,
- Prayer is a placebo and there is no difference between it and meditation
If you want scientific journals representing the fact that there is no difference, simply request it. But by no means think that I am not confident in calling up an army of journals; too many people think that asking such will cause me to be lazy and hopefully shut the argument down - that would not be the case, so do not make the mistake of thinking that I am bluffing.
I would not believe something unless I have given it careful thought and research. I expect others to do the same.
I have noticed that a lot of bias people use this "from the heart" argument but it's really just a fancy proverbial argument that means nothing more than "if you were bias..".Quote:
Praying from the heart is praying out of love and compassion. The aim is forgiveness and relinquishment of preciously held belief systems that reject these traits. I got this from The Pathway of the heart, but really it helps to understand most prayers. This goes hand in hand with faith. Praying from the mind is not really how it works, because that brings about personal justification and intellectual criticism that is irrelevant and actually an obstacle to further growth.
How is "praying from the heart" any different than "praying with a bias"? Also, is this not the very definition of placebo?
You again fail to see the point here.Quote:
L-O-L is what I think of that. I could talk about the benefits of meditation for a lifetime. I don't care if you believe in supernatural influences or not because they are irrelevant in this case (in that they're not a requirement). Besides, God is not supernatural and neither is the nature of Self.
I still agree with all the benefits - and there are a great many. However, there is absolutely no need (nor proof or justification other than tautological or circular logic) that a God needs to be involved.
You did not answer my question here. You simply said, "As long as they are doing good, it is good" but could you not say that it is better to do good for the sake of doing good than doing good for the sake of being told to? Or out of obligation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
Which is "more altruisitc"; a police officer saving a mans life, or a stranger saving a mans life?
Or, more pertinent; a man saving another man becaues he thinks God will reward him somehow or bring him closer to him. Or a man saving a man because he just cares about the man.
Again, I ask you, why do you think I dedicate my life to helping people if I do not share a shred of beliefs you have in spirituality and God and yet still "do good" for others?
You also still dodged this; you are using circular logic here. In order to believe or even begin to know that God is within your prayers, you must already believe so.Quote:
There's nothing third-party or supernatural about existence itself. It belongs to God, so we pray to God. They are one and the same.
I know you are smart - how are you unable to see the circular logic you are relying so heavily upon?
Are you really going to desperately argue me that I simply misunderstand and think too much over the idea of God being "revealed" to me once I stop thinking? Do you not see the problem in this?
:arrow: Intelligence and Spirituality
You said yourself:
You have said this often too. What is this implying? That you ought to give no thought to your beliefs in order to believe them?Quote:
I think we should consider that prayers are effective, however not within an intellectual understanding. Understandably, this is difficult for most intellectuals
Of course, you hold that it is in giving in and being able to see the world for what is given that gives rise to transcendental reasoning.
However, this is the key to delusion. If you do not question even your own cognizance, then you allow yourself to naively believe many things. Imagine if you never questioned yourself or your environment. Imagine if you just willfully believed all things you were told. Where would you be? You would be the most gullible and manipulable person about.
And this is why it is easy to send religious people to do monotonous tasks and contorl them as a society. It is without a doubt that Christianity and almost all religions have a heavy political interest. Furthermore, it deters thinking. If someone has already done all the questioning and thinking for you and you question it, you will most likely be told, "It is just this way; believe it or leave". What choice does a person have if that is their family or society?
Furthermore, what limitations is made on a person if their room for skepticism is bound? If you are not allowed to be skeptical, then what can that person truly learn?
This is a great illustration to your gross misunderstanding of me. I have clearly stated many times that I am open to many things. I simply need to have a good reason to. That does not mean systematically and empirical justifications; just a good reason. You have your reasons, I would like to think I have the same and that, given yours, I would have the same to. Unfortunately, you do not give any good reasons other than circular logic.Quote:
You gave me such an impression by implying that everything is the way you think it is and if you can't think of it then it's nonsense. Don't take it too harshly though, it's an emphasis. What is the limitation of logical thinking?
A delusional person cannot convince another person of their delusions is real if they are not real.
I think you are delusional.
You cannot prove me wrong - thus, I am right.
I hope you see the point in this. I would never really rely my argument based on that reasoning, but what could you say to it? It is a stupid argument - and yet here you are using the exact samething.
Furthermore, you ask the limitation of logical-thinking;
I am not sure what you mean by that. What are limits? Maybe you ought to consider the link on my signature "Experience and it's Unreliable..." to see my likely response.
:arrow: Not Believing in God = More Intelligent
Evidence speaks for itself;
Spoiler for Evidence:
There are more sources upon request. More specifically, the more education, the more Atheist one becomes.
I suspect that, in desperation of no other argument, you would debate the semantics of "intelligence" in which I ask, how would you define it? It is based on the ideal of answering surveys and questions and comparing the to others of the same physical age. IQ tests are an interesting thing to debate, but it is mostly agreed upon that comparing one to others is the best measure for normality and expected intelligence (eg. a 6 year old ought not to be expected to understand calculus, but if he did, it would be out of the norm and considered "very intellectual").
I really hope that nips it in the butt.
Notice that I am providing, not only substance, but actual evidence for my arguments.
Where are yours? Must we review hypocrisy?
:arrow: Thusly..
Firstly, just because there is a perennial philosohy or common theme amongst things, does not mean that all things are one and that all things are essentially meaningless to question.Quote:
You've made it obvious that you're not interested in anything irrational, improvable or that which is a "bias", etc. Apparently you quickly ascribe these things to spiritual terms. Yet I think you are not willing to see the simplicity and oneness these terms all have with what you already believe. The terms you superficially believe to be supernatural or fantasizing are actually more bare-boned, Self-evident and intrinsic than you realize.
Do you believe in the reality of love? Yes or no. You don't need to rationalize it in some intellectual form with incredible detail and academic excellence, that is not required for my question.
There has been leaps and bounds in knowledge and what we have learned. Imagine telling the ancients about the far galaxies, chemistry, string theory, etc. Sure, they have had thoughts about similar concepts and came close to idolising it - and that demonstrates our strong ability to think! However, it is also amazing to embrace how fragile and profound our tangible physical world is that does not involved any spiritual or unity of things. It is simply a vast story that we do not fully know yet. Don't ignore that.
I am learning a lot everyday and it is not from naive gullibility but doubt and skepticism. When I doubt things, I research it and question it. Sifting through the nonsense of things can actually reveal the truth in many others. Questioning my own cognition has taught me leap years of things about the way humans think.
How do you think the scientific endeavour functions; on the idea that all things are subjectively truthful in the right perception, or to doubt things and question their structure? Remember, science and logic is applicable to all things.
I do not think you give enough credit to Science.
Perhaps Noetic Science is more of your field. I humbly suggest you look it up. I think you'd much enjoy it considering your paradigm.
Also, I respectfully admit to you that I enjoy your debates as they provide my own venture into doubt;
But not doubt of you, doubt of myself. You make me doubt myself and that is why I enjoy trying to debate you because if I am wrong about something, then I have learned something.
My hope is to do the same in turn for you; but I sense a great resistance. I hope you see how.
~
Holy crap. I think that settles it. There is no god, only O'nus. :bowdown:
Sorry about the big post. Next time I will cut it down a lot!
Although I am not intending to sound condescending, I have to point out that the human mind sometimes has the tendency to over-complicate the simplest of matters. Such a simple argument has grown into a huge game of information, rather than a simple question for truth. I am not here to prove to you what I believe and cite my every conclusion. Take a wild paradigm shift. We are talking about what is experiential, not what is provable. If you come here to ignore everything that is not provable, this isn't going to be much help. Let me point out why this is different.
O'nus, I don't expect this to be new to you because we have been in so many similar arguments together. Nevertheless, let me elaborate. The spiritual world is the world of experience. It is firm within the subjective domain. It is based in context of experience rather than content, hence it does never change. Essentially, this is why it is the Absolute Truth, for that is entirely experiential as subjective reality through which any knowledge or experience whatsoever is known. The spiritual, subjective context is beyond all things, thoughts, ideas, terms, proofs, concepts, measurements, lack, limit and description. Remember, the context does not concern imaginings, fantasies, objects or special academic papers. Reality was here to mankind without any explanation, but no explanation is truly needed.
Through revelation and teachings/scriptures (etc.), the Self-Realized throughout history, to this day, all tell us that this is essentially the Divine Reality. Call it Bliss, God, Cosmos, Buddha, Mind, No-Mind, Self, Heaven, Enlightenment, Pure Consciousness or Reality. It is in no way supernatural or imaginary, though the terminology is sometimes confused as such upon brief examination or familiarity. Do not give this a brief examination, trust me. A brief examination may also see this as circular and unfalsifiable. Do not try to prove it, but realize how you can see it as true without proof. You'll find you don't have to change anything but your scope of awareness. Foreseeing the argument ahead, I'd ask if you know the importance of spiritual awareness, because it is out of awareness that Reality exists. Do you know what I'm talking about?
The digression of this thread through "my own philosophy" is entirely your own opinion. To think this is exclusively my own philosophy implies you don't even read my posts. If you mean I simply post in threads with my own view, you've ignored the purpose of a forum; picking me out through your own relative annoyance. Respect is something I think you need to have, more than anyone else in this discussion. You don't see me telling you or anyone else to "get out" with your degrading ideas, so again: Keep it to yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Do I also have to repeat that disrespect is not my intention? Where did I say skeptics are stupid? Don't put words in my mouth. Realize that I am arguing a point as anybody else would. If you can't directly quote my arrogant insults, I simply didn't say any. I don't know if you're paranoid or not, but I have no intention to imply these things either!
This just happens to dodge my question. If I ask for substance, it also means I don't see any solid ground behind your views - of which just happens to include your above stance as well. You complain to me, but don't expect me to understand what you're talking about without directly referring to the source of the problem. I.e. please make direct quotes instead of broad, over-simplified, generalizations.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Also, about my seeming relative, circular logic. This is not the case. If you understand the Perennial Philosophy, you understand the basics of what cannot be proven. Yet this is not relative at all. Neither are my descriptions of prayer and meditation; I think you're just trying to be difficult rather than actually consider where I am coming from.
Please don't assume I know or don't know what you're talking about. I don't change the context of your words, but actually I am asking you what it is the context of your words. What is your meaning of supernatural and why is it important? In what way does this relate to what I have said? So far I think you see supernatural as something that is unnecessarily applied, external and unnatural. But that has been misapplied to the nature of God, which I argue is a metaphor and attributed reference to Pure Consciousness (see third paragraph also), if you will.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Thanks for being more specific, but unfortunately it is now late in the argument and your position still remains weak. I still don't know why you're specifically arguing about this. Physiologically speaking, the amount of endorphins that are released during prayer and meditation can be quite different. Often meditation states inspire the so-called Kundalini energy to flourish, through which a significant amount of endorphins are released, leading to increased healing. This is actually one of the factors that contribute to spiritual awakenings, and you can check out Gopi Krishna for more explicit detail in this.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Yes because an Atheist does not meditate for the purpose of God, and if he/she does, they are unknowingly a Theist. If a meditating Atheist comes to experience death, followed by Absolute Peace, he has come to know God, but perhaps he was motivated by some other term or phrase, such as "the search for my true Self" However, they actually mean the same thing, and upon experience that is confirmed beyond doubt. The intentionality and purpose behind the meditation is important because it also motivates the degree to which the meditation is handed over to a higher power. However, all this depends on the kind of meditation. In this example it is the watching/surrendering of thought systems or attachment thereof.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Thinking to yourself is in not meditating. People think to themselves all the time. Do I really need to justify that? Even if you do meditate for others, you begin by searching inside yourself. But perhaps you should elaborate on the process of this meditation. Praying often is more direct and without personal activity or drawing own conclusions. Also remember the variety of prayers and meditations that are distinguishable from each other, as I had mentioned. No need to ignore that.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Whether or not something is more amazing is a matter of opinion and experience. What you mean is what is intrinsically more beautiful, but you assume that God is supernatural, invented or somehow external. The more you understand God, the more you understand your Self in Truth (visa versa), and you'd eventually find them as One and the same. However, this does not become a "better than" concept and it's not to be confused with egotistically inflated images and grandiosity. This is simplified below:Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
1) Position to give up to God; Meditation dedicated to higher Power.
2) Position to claim authorship via ego; Meditation exists within causal/dualistic system. If something happens autonomously of its own, it has nothing to do with you and our own personal abilities. It is impersonal.
A1) This is superficial and isn't specific enough to what is being examined. I can have low breathing and heart rate while watching TV, but it has no where near the same psychological or physiological effects as prayer; especially meditation. There are many other variables that are not considered, such as psychological effects on others who are the object/subject of one's prayer and the prevailing conditions of awareness, which may or may not persist. This is not provable, but it is verifiable by experience - hence the authority of those Avatars and spiritual masters/teachers.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
A2) Define the fundamental purpose.
B/C) These are also superficial because they're limited to the externalized definition of the prayer's object/subject and not the intention that follows. Nevertheless, how exactly is the proof of indifference justified? It is not suitable proof if it is derived from categories of outcomes or apparent characteristics alone.
Tell me what you think is important and what matters to the discussion. I do not wish to read an army of journals for something ridiculously simple, and besides, I value quality over quantity.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Do I have to tell you the difference between praying out of compassion and praying out of selfishness? Please consider this for a moment, slow down a little.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
There is absolutely no reason that God needs be involved because you're not seeking God, simple enough? Besides, like I said, it's not supernatural. It depends upon your intent, and that also defines the outcomes that can be proven or not. Ask God when all else fails, or if all has already failed. Otherwise, you're probably playing the waiting game, which does not recognize paradigm or own limitations.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
This is overcomplicated. Do you know the saying: "God is Love"? If you save someone out of care, love or for God there is no difference. The only difference is your intellectual position with God. And yes, you'd see that I did say it is better to do good for its own sake, if you read my post.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
As for your altruism question, I don't know what you're getting at.
Again, I answer you, because you do not wish to include anything redundant, bias, self-fulfilling, improvable - all of which you categorize God and spirituality. I see you are close to believing in God, although you try to justify otherwise through intellectualizing things out of your academic orientation. Nothing wrong with that, however there are limitations you may be unaware of. Just pointing it out. Perhaps, to some extent, you fear giving up your life for a belief set that merely seems to be contradictory to your own.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
By not being intellectual, I don't mean you have to be dumb or not be intelligent! You ought to give no thought to support those beliefs that see that thoughts are fruitless. This is one method.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
What I mean is again; limitation of paradigm. Why do we need to intellectualize the obvious? Is the Truth devoid of concepts? This goes back to the core of what I am saying, again straying slightly off topic into the overall philosophy.
This is not the key to delusion. Most people who are spiritually inclined are always questioning themselves and their environment, if not they have already long ago. The world, its thoughts and its science have become redundant and actually delusional when it comes so seeking something greater. Some may see this as uncomfortably "deep." It is the depth of paradigm that needs to be considered, and not as to be mistakenly categorized with superfluous fantasies. This does not negate science and reason, but transcends it. Remember, the context is the key here. What can worldly science not provide? The answers to the Absolute.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Sure, skepticism is healthy in some sense, but you must see its limitations. A humble skeptic does not make negative prejudgments, for one thing. A humble skeptic is critical but has an open, wise mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Limits of thinking are where thinking and logic becomes useless, inaccurate, misleading and false, etc. So wherefrom does this arise from thinking itself, then? It arises where the mind wishes to discern what is true from what is false. By its naturally dualistic structure, it has no capacity to do this and so must resort to concepts and ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
I wouldn't call this evidence, I'd call it a (vague) chart. I can go ahead and make such a chart with Excel right now. If you're going to post these images, source them properly and make sure they're a good enough resolution/size so others can read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
That's not what I meant by Perennial Philosophy. I posted it for some extra insight. Is a universal truth something I can prove?Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
It is naive to think science is applicable to all things, but you may mean all material (objective) "things". Science is useful in the world to form theories and experiments, to discover facts and draw conclusions. In the world of information and numbers, science is essential. However, ordinary science has no place in the spiritual paradigm, the subjective paradigm as there is no way to comprehend experience as it is, instead of as it is conceptualized. The Self-evident requires no proof, only awareness - and awareness is not susceptible to science's domain.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Just a little bit:offtopic:at this point.
This is something very important to note and I will likely bring it up again.Quote:
Originally Posted by really
Obviously this is digressive but let us explore it anyway.Quote:
O'nus, I don't expect this to be new to you because we have been in so many similar arguments together. Nevertheless, let me elaborate. The spiritual world is the world of experience. It is firm within the subjective domain. It is based in context of experience rather than content, hence it does never change. Essentially, this is why it is the Absolute Truth, for that is entirely experiential as subjective reality through which any knowledge or experience whatsoever is known. The spiritual, subjective context is beyond all things, thoughts, ideas, terms, proofs, concepts, measurements, lack, limit and description. Remember, the context does not concern imaginings, fantasies, objects or special academic papers. Reality was here to mankind without any explanation, but no explanation is truly needed.
I completely agree that spirituality is most definitely a personal and relative matter.
Do you know how many people in the lunatic asylum believe that they are God? Have you ever heard Charles Manson speak about the spirits within us all?
These people can also not be proven wrong. But this does not mean that they are right or in anyway more truthful because of that.
It is simply an experience and nothing is more convincing to a human being than experiencing something. You must realize how easily deluded people can be based on that very fundamental fact. I do not think we need to debate the power of experience.
Believe me, I have thoroughly explored many perspectives and continue to do so.Quote:
Do not give this a brief examination, trust me. A brief examination may also see this as circular and unfalsifiable. Do not try to prove it, but realize how you can see it as true without proof. You'll find you don't have to change anything but your scope of awareness. Foreseeing the argument ahead, I'd ask if you know the importance of spiritual awareness, because it is out of awareness that Reality exists. Do you know what I'm talking about?
The best way to answer this is to ask you; what importance can be found in spirituality that cannot be found in existentialism?
Obviously the idea of substance in arguments is central to our paradigm differences. With that said, I won't bring it up again but it is a result of the rest of our debate. "Substance" is very relative to what you view as qualified reasoning, etc. (even this sentence is debatable, I know.. but I think you see where I am going).Quote:
This just happens to dodge my question. If I ask for substance, it also means I don't see any solid ground behind your views - of which just happens to include your above stance as well. You complain to me, but don't expect me to understand what you're talking about without directly referring to the source of the problem. I.e. please make direct quotes instead of broad, over-simplified, generalizations.
I think you and I actually agree on a lot - I hope you see that. The problem is really in our significant difference in the involvement of "God" which may even just be semantics.Quote:
Also, about my seeming relative, circular logic. This is not the case. If you understand the Perennial Philosophy, you understand the basics of what cannot be proven. Yet this is not relative at all. Neither are my descriptions of prayer and meditation; I think you're just trying to be difficult rather than actually consider where I am coming from.
Let that sit for a moment and I'll continue on your next comments.
See, this is what makes me think this is a semantics debate in disguise.Quote:
What is your meaning of supernatural and why is it important? In what way does this relate to what I have said? So far I think you see supernatural as something that is unnecessarily applied, external and unnatural. But that has been misapplied to the nature of God, which I argue is a metaphor and attributed reference to Pure Consciousness (see third paragraph also), if you will.
It seems to me that what you described as God is what I may describe at Logos. The way of things, the trends, or, as the great Carl Jung ascribed, Zeitgeist. This is the spiritual or intellectual perspective of an epoch. Over time, it is the Zeitgeist of mankind (the perennial philosophy) as an average question.
I wonder if you agree..? I suspect the terms may need re-defined.
This is simply wrong. The amount of physiological activity is the same.Quote:
Physiologically speaking, the amount of endorphins that are released during prayer and meditation can be quite different. Often meditation states inspire the so-called Kundalini energy to flourish, through which a significant amount of endorphins are released, leading to increased healing. This is actually one of the factors that contribute to spiritual awakenings, and you can check out Gopi Krishna for more explicit detail in this.
You are speaking of certain cases and, of course, spiritual cases of healing and epiphanies during meditation are much more glorified than those without spiritual context.
Do you really need to hear about the amount of healing that happens to people without any prayer but just sitting in a hospital bed and thinking?
There is no statistical difference between spiritual healing and natural healing.
If you can really prove otherwise (because this is something you can prove) then please show. I do not mean the methods of healing, just the record cases. Then, let us compare them to normal ones.
This has been done often enough and I know that I could pull up the records. But, I do not want to be bias, so I want to see you do so. I want to know if it is even possible.
What? So I am a Theist without even knowing it? That does not even make sense. You are really being generous with the definition of "God".Quote:
Yes because an Atheist does not meditate for the purpose of God, and if he/she does, they are unknowingly a Theist. If a meditating Atheist comes to experience death, followed by Absolute Peace, he has come to know God, but perhaps he was motivated by some other term or phrase, such as "the search for my true Self" However, they actually mean the same thing, and upon experience that is confirmed beyond doubt. The intentionality and purpose behind the meditation is important because it also motivates the degree to which the meditation is handed over to a higher power. However, all this depends on the kind of meditation. In this example it is the watching/surrendering of thought systems or attachment thereof.
This is yet another reason why I suspect semantics because, by your logic here, everyone believes in God and just does not realize it. At least, your definition of God (which is not very well defined yet).
Perhaps you could explicitly define God to help clarify things.
What of those that are still open to the idea of God but have not experienced enough reason?Quote:
1) Position to give up to God; Meditation dedicated to higher Power.
2) Position to claim authorship via ego; Meditation exists within causal/dualistic system. If something happens autonomously of its own, it has nothing to do with you and our own personal abilities. It is impersonal.
Wrong; the breathing during TV is nothing relatively close to this slow breathing.Quote:
A1) This is superficial and isn't specific enough to what is being examined. I can have low breathing and heart rate while watching TV, but it has no where near the same psychological or physiological effects as prayer; especially meditation.
How about yoga? I can sit and slow breathe during yoga and, believe it or not, it has the same dramatic effects as the most powerful "praying" techniques.
Technically, yoga is overall healthier than meditation/prayer.
I mentioned Attachment theory and you ignored it. Prayer functions on attachment and the psychology of relationships to a "God". The same methods in which one prays to God are parallel to those ways in which we would speak to our parents (or care-giver).Quote:
There are many other variables that are not considered, such as psychological effects on others who are the object/subject of one's prayer and the prevailing conditions of awareness, which may or may not persist. This is not provable, but it is verifiable by experience - hence the authority of those Avatars and spiritual masters/teachers.
You're equivocating the point. You said that prayers from the heart are much more potent for the individual - I said why - you said because they are from the heart - and I asked how is this not any different than confirmation bias? Then you reply with this?Quote:
Do I have to tell you the difference between praying out of compassion and praying out of selfishness? Please consider this for a moment, slow down a little.
Equivocation in it's finest.
Why? I will never need to speak to God. So I don't understand what you mean by this.Quote:
Ask God when all else fails, or if all has already failed. Otherwise, you're probably playing the waiting game, which does not recognize paradigm or own limitations.
This is just unreasonable. Love is love. Do not muddle things up like that.Quote:
This is overcomplicated. Do you know the saying: "God is Love"? If you save someone out of care, love or for God there is no difference. The only difference is your intellectual position with God. And yes, you'd see that I did say it is better to do good for its own sake, if you read my post.
Do you see what I mean about ruining the majesty of things?
Let us take Romeo and Juliet. They love each other. This is because of;
A) God
or
B) because they love each other
One takes away the autonomy and real meaning of it (they are not choosing to love each other) whereas the other is giving ownership to their emotions.
Why do you ruin this?
This is highly relative to your semantic definition of God.Quote:
I see you are close to believing in God, although you try to justify otherwise through intellectualizing things out of your academic orientation. Nothing wrong with that, however there are limitations you may be unaware of. Just pointing it out. Perhaps, to some extent, you fear giving up your life for a belief set that merely seems to be contradictory to your own.
If you are willing to give one.
In the words of Socrates, "All that I know, is that I know nothing" it is also important that he was considered the smartest person in the world because others claimed to know.Quote:
By not being intellectual, I don't mean you have to be dumb or not be intelligent! You ought to give no thought to support those beliefs that see that thoughts are fruitless. This is one method.
Science can provide for anything and everything. You think spirituality seems to deep, I think Existentialism seem to frightening to you. As an Atheist Humanist Existentialist, I can apply science and logic to literally anything. Functioning on skepticism, it is also adaptable.Quote:
This is not the key to delusion. Most people who are spiritually inclined are always questioning themselves and their environment, if not they have already long ago. The world, its thoughts and its science have become redundant and actually delusional when it comes so seeking something greater. Some may see this as uncomfortably "deep." It is the depth of paradigm that needs to be considered, and not as to be mistakenly categorized with superfluous fantasies. This does not negate science and reason, but transcends it. Remember, the context is the key here. What can worldly science not provide? The answers to the Absolute.
Tell me.. how is spiritualism adaptable to change?
Of course - how am I not doing this? If I am, I would like to know as it contradicts how I want to live.Quote:
Sure, skepticism is healthy in some sense, but you must see its limitations. A humble skeptic does not make negative prejudgments, for one thing. A humble skeptic is critical but has an open, wise mind.
Ugh, I will make a thread for it later. Obviously it requires elaboration as it is difficult to swallow. I am simply lazy at the moment.Quote:
I wouldn't call this evidence, I'd call it a (vague) chart. I can go ahead and make such a chart with Excel right now. If you're going to post these images, source them properly and make sure they're a good enough resolution/size so others can read it.
No, science and skepticism is applicable to all things. Even the intangible. How is it not capable of it? Science does not need to be isolated to the material world.Quote:
It is naive to think science is applicable to all things, but you may mean all material (objective) "things". Science is useful in the world to form theories and experiments, to discover facts and draw conclusions. In the world of information and numbers, science is essential. However, ordinary science has no place in the spiritual paradigm, the subjective paradigm as there is no way to comprehend experience as it is, instead of as it is conceptualized. The Self-evident requires no proof, only awareness - and awareness is not susceptible to science's domain.
:arrow: Main Questions
This is to help maintain continuity (and congruity);
1) Can you please explicitly define God how you are using it?
2) How is your view distinguished from Existential Humanism?
3) How can spirituality ever be proven wrong or adapt to new forms of knowledge?
3A) Are you presuming that spirituality is already all encompassing even of those things we have yet to discover? (eg. spirituality could not fathom the depths of psychology even 100 years ago, or quantum string theory, etc. What part of its doctrine allows open input of new evidence?)
Let's stick with that for now.
~
Wow :shock: You guys are going at it Toe to Toe!! I love it! Hats off to you guys Really and O'nus. :bowdown:
Spoiler for Significance of Spiritual Paradigm:
The problem is of paradigm. Your first statement in the quote implies that you think spirituality is transitory or vulnerable. Contrary to your "agreement", that which is Absolute, universal and impersonal is not subject to change, nor is it subject to science or such proof, and by essential definition, this is not a relative or personal matter! This is because of the nature of Truth and subjectivity, not because of bias or that which is "supernatural" or magical. Radical subjectivity reveals that the entirety of Reality is subjective, and objects (thus objectivity) merely lies within that context, along with science and its jargon; those of themselves have no power and no intrinsic requirement to prove that which provides the capacity for their own existence.
So you should take into account there is no room here for anyone to be deluded, mislead or especially given up to that which is false, because of the nature of this Infinite Reality. Hence "God's promise(s)" and Divine safety is intrinsic to this. There is no room in the infinite context for any change or proving of "concepts." This is not a science as even thoughts themselves are redundant! There is no way for this to be proven wrong or right, because it concerns context! Skepticism and science are both naive here, but skepticism may be seen as more reasonable. This skepticism is ultimately, from your perspective "I must prove the existence of 'I' as Reality." It is an illusory problem that inevitably fails by its own limitations, redundancy and naivete. The search for the real "I" is the core of spirituality.
Spoiler for Effects of Meditation/Prayer:
The above bolded text is what I have to point out as ridiculous. The spiritual context is what gives the entire meaning, significance and devotion to it all in the first place! You also need to take into account that Self-Realization is quite profound and is not something you just categorize as a general epiphany. Enlightenment is extremely uncommon, and I have yet to hear of an "enlightened being" who was transformed and yet had neither a religious nor a spiritual orientation. This is because of the nature of spiritual understanding, inclination, maturity and devotion. Also, I'm not sure what it means to you (because you don't seem to answer my questions) but spontaneous healings are not supernatural, hence spiritual healings are also natural.
As for your "yoga" stance, you need to stop generalizing. Yoga can be practiced in the form of meditation and its comparative healthiness and effectiveness depends on the type of meditation/prayer and its integrity of purpose.
I said "if he/she does" meditate for the purpose of God. If a self-proclaimed "Atheist" meditates for Absolute peace and forgiveness but disbelieves in, hates or greatly doubts God, they are simply naive. If they understand Divinity, the essential negation of the name "God" may be acceptable in some cases, but typically that negation is unusual. Of course, I'm not talking the difference in languages (through culture), but the actual meaning of Divine Reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
I didn't ignore Attachment theory directly as such, I simply didn't think it was worth arguing about and hence, irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you form an attachment to God in this case, although it may affect the degree to which God is surrendered to (power given to God instead of personal will or logical thinking). It is of value/attachment and may govern one's life, but that does not invalidate its integrity or purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Spoiler for Love:
Let me ask again, how is motivation from Love as equally potent as motivation out of selfishness? The propensities of each are in the context of praying and prayer, and they're actually quite predictable and different. The faith and belief is sufficient and strong enough, and that shapes our lives and our perception as such. Love is self-fulfilling. How is the love that intends to nurture and protect no more potent than what intends to be satisfied out of self-interest? How does not one's prayer of love not positively influence the external world by virtue of its existence?
You think God is not Love, right? I would say Divine Love is not personal/emotional love, but I guess you may not be happy with that answer. So tell me, in what way is Love distinguishable from the Divine Reality as I explained in my first and second paragraph?
One reason is due to "C) Infatuation and romance/glamor", which you didn't provide. Nevertheless, "Romeo and Juliet" is completely irrelevant to the argument anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Yes, you could definitely say that! It helps one question real knowledge. Humility is the key.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
First of all, what is the relevance of Existential Humanism?Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Existentialism is not something I am frightened of, it simply does not work with or contribute to my belief set, etc. Secondly, if you can't already tell the difference between generic spirituality and the associated awakenings, it seems you have not been paying close attention. I'd ask you, is the state and the purposes of Divine Revelation/Enlightenment held within "Existential Humanism?" Does "Existential Humanism" essentially contribute to (or follow from) the greatest of world religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism? Is it characterized by meditation and devoted lifestyles as held my those seeking the Self - and does that term even apply to anything as it is capitalized?
I don't see the need to explain this, if you understand these definitions/qualities: Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Divine, Subjective, Non-conceptual, Non-dual, Infinite. And, as I said: Through revelation and teachings/scriptures (etc.), the Self-Realized throughout history, to this day, all tell us that this is essentially the Divine Reality. Call it Bliss, God, Cosmos, Buddha, Mind, No-Mind, Self, Heaven, Enlightenment, Pure Consciousness or Reality. Love. Peace. I see God as all these things and has all these qualities at once, and that is simple. I really hope it is that easy for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Haha thanks Ne-yo and thanks for reading. ;) Unfortunately we've kind of gone off-topic, so I've tried to simplify this and hopefully bring it back to the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
I didn't like the video the OP posted. Too many presuppositions, arrogant and misleading.
Well said. Thanks for the simplicity. :banana:Quote:
Originally Posted by ClouD
PROTIP: The video provides a very specific argument against a specific set of beliefs. Would you prefer he speaks in broad generalizations to try and encompass every belief or would your knee-jerk reaction just change to one of "Oh, he's just generalizing." Honestly, why is it these stupid comments always have to come up? It's either someone makes a specific case and he's being too narrow or he speaks broadly and is accused of unfairly generalizing. How about one of you do something novel and actually try and say something relevant and meaningful (like, I dunno, show how the argument is wrong) for once rather than just making dismissive hand-wave comments? If you don't have anything to add, just don't post.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClouD
He presupposes that every Christian has those set of beliefs, as well as extends his pseudo-interpretation of those even further, almost in a straw-man sort of way. Some of it doesn't even seem applicable to the people he's targeting, yet it's forced on, point upon point in the same smothering fashion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark75
I think you misinterpreted me.
No, I haven't misinterpreted you. I understand what you are saying, but you have not said why you think this. That's what I'm calling you out on. You've made your belief fairly clear but I'm challenging you to explain it. Can you provide examples of what you mean in the video in terms of your accusations of straw-man arguments, psuedo-interpretations and how "some of it doesn't even seem applicable to the people he's targeting"? I.e. make a constructive comment with some kind of content.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClouD
It was a comment of the general attitude throughout most of the video.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark75
To be nitpicky and specific, for your entertainment Mark, I will explain then.
The title itself is an example. Saying that someone must do something is not only demeaning, but in the context it is in a 'greater than thou' attitude.
Next, the college degree crap. Unnecessary, almost as if to fill up space and lay on the intelligence of Christians in a dramatic, almost satirical sense (in the context). It creates the expected atmosphere, he is setting up any Christians for the utmost contradiction, regardless of whether they actually have a college degree or the other crap he drills in on.
You are a smart person. That's more drilled supposition.
You know how the world works. More.
You know how to think critically. More.
The stupid pictures to the side enhance the effect.
Next, he suddenly seems to be addressing intelligent, educated Christians. Which of course you are because you have an ego, and he's just drilled into you that you are.
'Simple' questions, are they really also so simple? Setupsetupsetupalert.
As a Christian, you do not necessarily believe in the power of prayer.
There are more gray-zone Christians than fanatics or people who would even define Christianity with any definite requisite beliefs.
Next. As "Christians" we do NOT know that amputated legs don't regenerate in a spontaneous manner. In fact, the consideration of it most likely never crossed our minds until this statement. After certain analysis, you might possibly arrive at that opinion, but there's many other ideas you could get to instead, NOT BACKTRACKING to create an excuse for God, but as an initial thinking about the possibilities in a logical-to-you manner.
Mark, I can't find almost anything that isn't like this through the entire video. I'm not going to continue when I've pointed out some stuff already. The rest is just as obvious without the need for extended analysis solely to justify my initial opinion. It's also 4:20am, goodnight.
I'd guess it's probably more about getting their attention. Actually I wouldn't be surprised if this is the kind of reaction he was trying to create. People see it and think "Oh, yeah, that's dumb. What questions are those that this cocky little man thinks are so important?"Quote:
Originally Posted by ClouD
Relevant to the arguments? No.
What? How is he setting up anyone for a contradiction? Are you sure he's building a straw man and not just actually talking about a specific case of Christians? Are you suggesting that the subsequent points made are not at all applicable to anyone's beliefs?Quote:
Originally Posted by ClouD
Either that or he was being clear on who the video was aimed at. Personally I didn't feel insulted by the assumptions he made about me in the video because he wasn't actually talking about me. He was talking about an apparently common set of beliefs that specific types of Christians hold.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClouD
derpQuote:
Originally Posted by ClouD
Duh. Obviously what he said doesn't apply to every possible person. Again, this is a specific argument against specific beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClouD
Fair enough. But I think that's the point; That he's trying to get people to ask themselves questions they hadn't thought of before to get them to think about these kind of things.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClouD
The simple truth is that a lot of people do create excuses to deal with the incompatibilities of their idea of god. If that offends you, that's something you'll have to deal with.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClouD
So that's it? That's your problem with the video? You just don't like that he sounds cocky and that he uses the word Christian to refer to a specific set of beliefs that aren't necessarily representative of all Christians? Okay, I do agree, but I think that's entirely beside the point and really not relevant to the arguments he makes. Isn't it asking a bit much for someone to make an all-encompassing argument that disproves every notion of every possible god/gods in every conceivable religion? I'd say so. Probably makes a little more sense to go case by case and make specific arguments against specific ideas.
From the deist's viewpoint, I will answer Marshall Brain's questions.
1. Why won't God heal amputees?
Because God is not there to grant people favors. "God" is merely the concept used to describe the architect(s) of the universe: there is no one intelligent being "God" who is currently present in people's lives any more than there is a Santa Claus who brings children their toys on Christmas. Anyone who asks "God" for a favor will not be given what they want as the result of God; if they recieve what they want, it is mere coincidence or the work of a good-hearted man.
To suggest that "God" has some "plan" for a person is absurd. Tell that to someone who's dying of a glioblastoma multiforme and see what they have to say. I'd be like, "Fuck God's will and fuck your God, I'm gonna fight this damn brain tumor and if I lose, I'm gonna give him a big honkin' loogey to the face when I get up there." If cancer is God's will, I suppose we should just let the person die because satiating God's arbitrary plans is more important than people's lives.
2. Why are there so many starving people in our world?
Because dictators of third-world regimes like to stop aid trucks at the border and sell the goods for drugs and guns they use to terrorize citizens even further into impoverished submission to their oppressive state. This has nothing to do with God, this is the lack of democracy and westernization in other parts of the world.
3. Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people in the Bible?
Because the authors of the Bible, who were simply mere men, wished to push their interpretation of God onto the citizenry through fear out of ignorance. Lack of knowledge about diseases such as scizophrenia and epilepsy would lead people to believe delusions and hallucinations were divine signs from above and would record what their mind made up on paper. If anything, the Bible is the result of a mentally ill man's writings.
Picture: you're an individual living in medieval-era England. Someone comes up to you and tells you they have the "true word of God" and that this God will kill you and make you suffer for eternity if you don't give in. Being the poorly-educated peasant in the impovershed times you live in, what else are you going to believe?
4. Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense?
Because it was written by ordinary men in a pre-industrial era.
5. Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery in the Bible?
'Cause it's easier to push your agenda when you write something in a book and tell people it's what God said.
6. Why do bad things happen to good people?
Because there is nothing there to stop that from happening.
7. Why didn't any of Jesus' miracles in the bible leave behind any evidence?
Because there are no such things as miracles, and that the Bible is an erroneous interpretation of God written by mentally ill people. I can repeat this point ad nauseum.
8. How do we explain the fact that Jesus never appeared to you?
Assuming that Jesus was an actual person, it is impossible to appear to someone after one has perished.
9. Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood?
In all fairness, these were most likely written as symbols by the person(s) who authored these parts of the Bible.
10. Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians?
Because religion has little to do with the success of marriage. As i said, the Architect(s) of the Universe no longer intervene in our daily life. Therefore, there is no reason that marriage is sanctimonious in any way, shape, or form. Marriage is merely the profession that you love someone and will do so until the day you die. Sometimes people don't realize what they're getting into when they make these professions.
I'll be frank. What drove me away from mainstream interpretations of God was the unfairness. Why would someone be born with a better set of traits than another? What makes me so great that I get to be born into an upper-middle-class American household while someone else gets born straight into the sex trade?
The one thing that sent me off the edge though, was this idea that somehow we had to love God even if he struck our entire family dead and ourselves severely ill. This convoluted logic where somehow loving God was more important than the welfare of your fellow man. The only conclusion I could come to was that "God", whoever he/she/it/they are, wouldn't interfere in the interest of fairness, and that the Bible was merely one man's interpretation of this higher power due to its endless errors. Thus went my belief in miracles/magic/soul/afterlife, etc. If I die and there actually is a KIND and LOVING God afterwards, he should take me in because I had the audacity to call him out in the name of my brothers and sisters. And if Hell is merely the absence of God, is it any different than the fairly good life I live now? Who's to say there won't be anyone who would think Hell is alright? There's people on earth who enjoy eating shit on camera, for fuck's sake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mini0991
So basically, you're saying god does absolutely nothing? You believe in god, despite not accepting any part of the bible? So by extention, you're saying that god doesn't exist? Talk about hypocracy.
I don't believe in "God" as many people refer to him. I believe in intelligent design of some sort; this is the extent of my theology. Whether or not there is a God became irrelevant one second after the big bang.
The paradigm difference is where the truth manifests; internally or externally. I suspect that, in your paradigm, the truth manifests in all things (both internal and external). But, in my paradigm, the truth only manifests in the internal but within all of us. I do not make the leap to say it has an externally existing manifestation.Quote:
Originally Posted by really
Correct me if I am wrong.
It is easy to say that you are delusional about a concept that you cannot believe unless you need to have a hallucination to convince you of it. You cannot prove it to me, thus, you are delusional. Do you see how silly that reasoning is?Quote:
So you should take into account there is no room here for anyone to be deluded, mislead or especially given up to that which is false, because of the nature of this Infinite Reality. Hence "God's promise(s)" and Divine safety is intrinsic to this. There is no room in the infinite context for any change or proving of "concepts." This is not a science as even thoughts themselves are redundant! There is no way for this to be proven wrong or right, because it concerns context! Skepticism and science are both naive here, but skepticism may be seen as more reasonable. This skepticism is ultimately, from your perspective "I must prove the existence of 'I' as Reality." It is an illusory problem that inevitably fails by its own limitations, redundancy and naivete. The search for the real "I" is the core of spirituality.
You see, you presume that I do not believe in a self-realization. However, you fail to see the next step after the spiritual realization. The existentialist ought to tell you that there is no spiritual side to you and that it is just yourself realizing yourself - not a spiritual side.Quote:
The above bolded text is what I have to point out as ridiculous. The spiritual context is what gives the entire meaning, significance and devotion to it all in the first place! You also need to take into account that Self-Realization is quite profound and is not something you just categorize as a general epiphany. Enlightenment is extremely uncommon, and I have yet to hear of an "enlightened being" who was transformed and yet had neither a religious nor a spiritual orientation. This is because of the nature of spiritual understanding, inclination, maturity and devotion. Also, I'm not sure what it means to you (because you don't seem to answer my questions) but spontaneous healings are not supernatural, hence spiritual healings are also natural.
I am trying to integrate existentialism into this because that is what I abide to and to give terminology for you to work with against me (or with me).
I do not see how I am generalizing; meditation and prayer are all the same. The context is of course different, but that is just the psychological aspect that can still be ascribed with psychology. You give too much credit to spiritual things and not enough to the power of your self alone.Quote:
As for your "yoga" stance, you need to stop generalizing. Yoga can be practiced in the form of meditation and its comparative healthiness and effectiveness depends on the type of meditation/prayer and its integrity of purpose.
Let us put this to rest;
"Hypothesized that meditation (in particular, "transcendental meditation" [TM]) is an integrated response with peripheral circulatory and metabolic changes subserving increased CNS activity. Consistent with the subjective description of meditation as a very relaxed but, at the same time, very alert state, it is likely that such findings during meditation as increased cardiac output, increased cerebral blood flow, findings reminiscent of the "extraordinary" character of classical reports, apparent cessation of CO2 generation by muscle, 5-fold plasma AVP elevation, increased 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA) levels, decreased TSH levels, and EEG synchrony play roles in this response. Similarity of physiological responses during TM with those reported in earlier research on meditation supports a degree of congruence between the goals of various practices known as "meditation.""
+ http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiL...1993-04715-001
And what do you know...
[i]
"Both prayer and mantra caused striking, powerful, and synchronous increases in existing cardiovascular rhythms when recited six times a minute. Baroreflex sensitivity also increased significantly, from 9.5 (SD 4.6) to 11.5 (4.9) ms/mm Hg, P<0.05.
...
Rhythm formulas that involve breathing at six breaths per minute induce favourable psychological and possibly physiological effects. "
+ http://cardiocare.cn/cgi/content/abstract/323/7327/1446
Now you are being ridiculous here. How is it that I am naive if I simply meditate over how I can help others? What is making me naive about this?Quote:
I said "if he/she does" meditate for the purpose of God. If a self-proclaimed "Atheist" meditates for Absolute peace and forgiveness but disbelieves in, hates or greatly doubts God, they are simply naive. If they understand Divinity, the essential negation of the name "God" may be acceptable in some cases, but typically that negation is unusual. Of course, I'm not talking the difference in languages (through culture), but the actual meaning of Divine Reality.
Are you really that arrogant that you think only spiritualists can do such a thing?
The point of it was that you said nothing can describe the psychological affects of prayer or meditation; but attachment theory does. It also explains prayer and it's psychological functions. Lee A Kirkpatrick has done a great amount of research on this and has even won a Nobel Prize for it.Quote:
I didn't ignore Attachment theory directly as such, I simply didn't think it was worth arguing about and hence, irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you form an attachment to God in this case, although it may affect the degree to which God is surrendered to (power given to God instead of personal will or logical thinking). It is of value/attachment and may govern one's life, but that does not invalidate its integrity or purpose.
+ http://lakirk.people.wm.edu/
Love is a human psychological emotion. Nothing more than that.Quote:
Let me ask again, how is motivation from Love as equally potent as motivation out of selfishness? The propensities of each are in the context of praying and prayer, and they're actually quite predictable and different. The faith and belief is sufficient and strong enough, and that shapes our lives and our perception as such. Love is self-fulfilling. How is the love that intends to nurture and protect no more potent than what intends to be satisfied out of self-interest? How does not one's prayer of love not positively influence the external world by virtue of its existence?
You think God is not Love, right? I would say Divine Love is not personal/emotional love, but I guess you may not be happy with that answer. So tell me, in what way is Love distinguishable from the Divine Reality as I explained in my first and second paragraph?
Robert Sternberg has done extensive work in outlining the psychology human and manages to do so without the implementation of any supernatural, divine, or non-empirical concept.
+ http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&l...20love&f=false
+ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_theory_of_love
That would be B). Pay attention.Quote:
One reason is due to "C) Infatuation and romance/glamor", which you didn't provide. Nevertheless, "Romeo and Juliet" is completely irrelevant to the argument anyway.
You made it sound as though God manages all things, including love, which takes away the majesty of loving each other alone - without the implementation of anything else.
Tell me then.. what is it that you think you could be wrong on then?Quote:
Yes, you could definitely say that! It helps one question real knowledge. Humility is the key.
Simply my personal doctrine that I am exercising in my debate with you. Thus, I think it's completely relevant as it is what I debating you with.Quote:
First of all, what is the relevance of Existential Humanism?
There is a step of spiritual enlightenment in existentialism. And it is followed by the realization that it is a facade/delusion/lie/etc. All those things you hold dear about spirituality are easily applicable without the implementation of God, truth, or spirituality.Quote:
Existentialism is not something I am frightened of, it simply does not work with or contribute to my belief set, etc. Secondly, if you can't already tell the difference between generic spirituality and the associated awakenings, it seems you have not been paying close attention. I'd ask you, is the state and the purposes of Divine Revelation/Enlightenment held within "Existential Humanism?" Does "Existential Humanism" essentially contribute to (or follow from) the greatest of world religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism? Is it characterized by meditation and devoted lifestyles as held my those seeking the Self - and does that term even apply to anything as it is capitalized?
Tell me one good thing a spiritualist or theist can do that an atheist or existentialist cannot do.
You have done a lot of rambling but no defining.Quote:
I don't see the need to explain this, if you understand these definitions/qualities: Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Divine, Subjective, Non-conceptual, Non-dual, Infinite. And, as I said: Through revelation and teachings/scriptures (etc.), the Self-Realized throughout history, to this day, all tell us that this is essentially the Divine Reality. Call it Bliss, God, Cosmos, Buddha, Mind, No-Mind, Self, Heaven, Enlightenment, Pure Consciousness or Reality. Love. Peace. I see God as all these things and has all these qualities at once, and that is simple. I really hope it is that easy for you.
It was an easy request. Do not try and blame me for your incapability to define something central to your life.
~
I think some of the points he makes are very valid, just that the way he approaches it is manipulative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark75
The video is aimed at Christians, then assumes beliefs and attitudes which don't all apply (some not at all) to the target audience. I don't believe it's directed at intelligent/educated Christians only, and I'd say that's quite obvious. Maybe I am expecting too much, but that doesn't mean the video is not manipulative in broadly arguing against many Christians (even if it's just the intelligent/educated ones) and applying a strict belief set.
If it's arguing solely against the belief set, fine, whatever. Still the answers in saying "God is imaginary", half don't make sense and some aren't even directly applicable to the questions.
So that is why I don't like the video. Not that I don't like some of the points, it's the video in general.
No matter how I think of it, I cannot find one. It is quite opposite, since atheist or existentialist are not bound by any external authority, so they are able to do what they want. Not what someone else wants.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
O'nus you've got to stop ignoring my questions. I put the effort into answering yours, yet you seem to keep dodging mine. Stop responding with more trailing questions and at least consider the point.
Truth doesn't manifest. Explain how Truth can manifest; was it not present at some point or rather, do you mean that it was not recognized? Considering what I explained; Truth is neither external nor internal yet it is both, thus it is defined as non-dual. It is undefinable and improvable. Non-conceptulizable is probably a better adjective.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
May I ask if "all of us" is therefore describing what is only within? So there would be nobody outside, and therefore there is actually no "outside", and it follows that there is neither an inside, and therefore (if you agree,) your belief set in this concept is indifferent to mine. However, the difference is, in your view, existence precedes essence, in mine; essence is intrinsic to existence. I am talking about subjective awareness; consciousness, whereas you're probably talking about constructed meaning and personal motivations.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
You're just going off on a tangent now. My post already answers your question. That you need to have a "hallucination" to realize this, is your opinion. I don't need a hallucination; a hallucination is not a greater awareness.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
I didn't presume that, but I see that you don't understand its importance or way of transformation. I don't even know what you mean by "spiritual side", especially if I have already pointed out that it is nothing supernatural. And please let me ask again what you mean by supernatural for a third time, because it's important. I consider it as characteristic of something independent or separate from "natural" phenomena or Reality, but the spiritual Truth is not separate from anything, hence it is innate, natural and ever-present. Hence again, there's nothing to negate about pure spiritually or God because of what they represent.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
That is a generalization; open your eyes! You seem to miss the articulation that a context is what brings the significance in the first place, so your argument of what is the same while ignoring contexts is obviously irrelevant. You may as well say: "There is no difference between water skiing and boating, because both involve water resistance..." But that's very narrow, even considering your specification of similarities. I've already made other distinctions as well but you don't make any effort to respond to most of them. See the "Problems" spoiler below. E.g. How can they have different contexts while sharing the same "fundamental purpose", which you haven't defined?Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Spoiler for Problems:
Also consider that "spiritual things" are directly related, if not identical, to the discovery of inner power, and more importantly, the real Self. Again, nothing supernatural; nothing to negate - not a shred (within the scope of this argument).
Spoiler for Extracts:
I'm not understanding this or your point, are you just trying to look smart? Don't expect that everybody understands this right away, so any elaboration on your part would be great.
The naivete is concerning the understanding of God. I didn't say that you're naive about the purpose of meditating on helping others. However, you don't seem to grasp the point that this isn't what traditional meditation concerns, hence it is more likely classified as a prayer.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
It's not arrogance, it's common sense. Spiritual people meditate spiritually. Pilots fly planes. Truck drivers drive trucks. If an atheist meditates spiritually he I think he is naive to its core meaning and structure. The likelihoods of not recognizing this include science - in attempt to disprove the sovereignty and power of true devotion as "opposed" to praying to milk jugs and rocks, for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Then explain!Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
I didn't say "nothing can describe the psychological affects" - what? I said there are many OTHER variables/factors that are not provable or detectable, such as prevailing awareness and the power of the intentions. I'd add that many of these actually provide the initial importance.
Obviously not; you can't seem to answer my questions. Is it true that all "feelings" are emotions? What about those feelings that never change, that are unlimited and independent from all harm and force? The Love I'm talking about is not an emotional love that you can study, but it exists as a quality of existence itself. unfortunately there is confusion due to the ambiguity of the term, as "God."Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
That's great, but I remember you've brought this up once before, in a similar situation. I don't think it quite grasps it. There's no triangle in the game here.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
I'm not going to explain more about how "R&J" is a childish argument. You get the idea? I already explained about Love in the above paragraph, which you didn't completely address in detail.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
What are you asking? You could be "wrong" about everything until you come to the complete revelation of what Socrates said. It is really about what is real/true knowledge and what is false.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Sure, ok. I guess you will explain more soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Well that doesn't make sense. You always seem to want to negate the concept of Divinity/God. You need to be more specific now. Answer my previous questions and tell me what the "facade/delusion/lie/etc." is about. You may find similarities in these systems, as you've done with prayer and meditation, but the two arise from different backgrounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
You're missing the point; you need to look into these things yourself. "One good thing" relatively varies between each person, in this case. If you're trying to believe in God without believing in God, you're just playing conceptual, intellectual games. You're wasting your time. Furthermore, this is not about being "better than" something else, but that you seek "the good" for its own sake, as I've already said, and even you as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
I'm sure you can reach a conclusion with all those terms. Nevertheless, I guess I can repeat myself in different words, as that can help.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
In my faith, God is known as the Divine Reality; I'd define it as the Absolute subjective context through which all Reality arises. To discover this Reality is to therefore discover the Source of all that exists, for the True source must be identical to our nature of Self. As the Creator, Context and Truth that unifies all existence by its nature; all is God and thus is there only one Self. The conclusion and definition rests on the undefinable and timeless. It is not provable or conceptualizable, because it is transcendental to concepts and proof; a priori to all thinking and acting, moving, perceiving and argument, because it is within both existing and not existing; it is Reality as it is; Divine.
Tell you what; I won't even try to make a point anymore. It does not seem you are considering it, so I will just respond directly to yours. You ought to notice a difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by really
You see, I have already considered the idea that the truth is the non-dualistic "manifestation of everything" etc. in all its vague glory. However, I have found that there is much more exuberance in the internal. Something I do not think I can explain to you anymore because you seem to be engrossed in the non-dualistic fantasy. If you think I have dodged your question, it is because I have actually already answered it and simply have no desire to repeat it. I do not have any confidence that you really want to read it anymore.Quote:
Truth doesn't manifest. Explain how Truth can manifest; was it not present at some point or rather, do you mean that it was not recognized? Considering what I explained; Truth is neither external nor internal yet it is both, thus it is defined as non-dual. It is undefinable and improvable. Non-conceptulizable is probably a better adjective.
I actually think we completely agree here. I could not word it better, really.Quote:
May I ask if "all of us" is therefore describing what is only within? So there would be nobody outside, and therefore there is actually no "outside", and it follows that there is neither an inside, and therefore (if you agree,) your belief set in this concept is indifferent to mine. However, the difference is, in your view, existence precedes essence, in mine; essence is intrinsic to existence. I am talking about subjective awareness; consciousness, whereas you're probably talking about constructed meaning and personal motivations.
Of course it is not. But we have been over this before. I will try to simplify this, as I have not before;Quote:
You're just going off on a tangent now. My post already answers your question. That you need to have a "hallucination" to realize this, is your opinion. I don't need a hallucination; a hallucination is not a greater awareness.
Think of the reasons why you believe what you believe.
They are subjective.
Think of others who wish to believe what you believe.
Think of others who you wish would believe what you believe.
They cannot, for they must experience it subjectively.
Thus,
There is no reason to have confidence you can actually convince someone yourself of your beliefs. It is a subjective matter. All you can do is present the idea.
However, this is also a stepping stone into something else. My approach is what I would call humanist existentialist. Although, I do not have the confidence in many people in ever attaining a knowledge in it. I wonder how you do.
You have to realize that others who do not comprehend what you are talking about will categorize it as "supernatural". You may think it is a misunderstanding, but I am trying to point out to you what Derrik Parfit would call "the further fact".Quote:
I didn't presume that, but I see that you don't understand its importance or way of transformation. I don't even know what you mean by "spiritual side", especially if I have already pointed out that it is nothing supernatural. And please let me ask again what you mean by supernatural for a third time, because it's important. I consider it as characteristic of something independent or separate from "natural" phenomena or Reality, but the spiritual Truth is not separate from anything, hence it is innate, natural and ever-present. Hence again, there's nothing to negate about pure spiritually or God because of what they represent.
The further fact is simply that contextual thinking that is beyond our tangible knowledge and perception. It is the concepts that are out of context of what we normally speak of or can know empirically. Anything that we are usually unsure can be categorized into this.
For the very reason that spirits/truth/etc. are not factual is a reason why everything you speak of is a further fact. Because of that, we cannot speak of it beyond anything but subjectivity, even though it may represent more than that.
It is not a generalization. I have already shown you how, even the context, is accounted for in the similarity. Do not try to grasp so tightly on something already accounted for. The difference is null and void. I am not refuting the benefits of either, but I am certainly saying that the further facts involved are completely unnecessary for either to work.Quote:
That is a generalization; open your eyes! You seem to miss the articulation that a context is what brings the significance in the first place, so your argument of what is the same while ignoring contexts is obviously irrelevant. You may as well say: "There is no difference between water skiing and boating, because both involve water resistance..." But that's very narrow, even considering your specification of similarities. I've already made other distinctions as well but you don't make any effort to respond to most of them. See the "Problems" spoiler below. E.g. How can they have different contexts while sharing the same "fundamental purpose", which you haven't defined?
The naivete is concerning the understanding of God. I didn't say that you're naive about the purpose of meditating on helping others. However, you don't seem to grasp the point that this isn't what traditional meditation concerns, hence it is more likely classified as a prayer.
It's not arrogance, it's common sense. Spiritual people meditate spiritually. Pilots fly planes. Truck drivers drive trucks. If an atheist meditates spiritually he I think he is naive to its core meaning and structure. The likelihoods of not recognizing this include science - in attempt to disprove the sovereignty and power of true devotion as "opposed" to praying to milk jugs and rocks, for example.
Where you would say that an atheists prayer/meditation is no different than a theists because he unknowingly prays/mediates to God, I say there is no difference because there is no God. However, the problem here is that you make a preclusion on something that has the onus to prove itself. I am not making any presumptuous premise. You are the one now, in fact, that must prove the difference if you are going to make that presumption.
In addition, it seems that you quoted yourself saying something which I have already quelled, not only with my own words, but with scientific journals.
The fundamental purpose of both prayer and meditation is the same; internalized thoughts. In order to really prove that there is a difference between the two, you would have to prove God. Otherwise, the physiology is undeniably the same (and no, it is not the same as watching TV, don't be coy). Also, the psychological responses are the same; attachment psychology both explains the difference in the relational meditation and individual meditation. If you have the desire to learn, you can look it up. But to quote it warrants an entirely new thread due its profound content. We are talking about a lot of research and thinking here. I hope you consider it.
Yes but when you say "real self" you are using a very vague definition that, most likely, only you can really understand. Because of that, how can you really expect to represent it in a discussion?Quote:
Also consider that "spiritual things" are directly related, if not identical, to the discovery of inner power, and more importantly, the real Self. Again, nothing supernatural; nothing to negate - not a shred (within the scope of this argument).
Furthermore, you seem to be completely ignoring the fact that I agree that spiritual things are the path to the self realization. In my efforts, I try to show that spirituality is actually the stepping stone to existentialism. When one begins to realize that spirituality is actually a facade and meaningless dribble to glorify your existence, then you begin to enter existentialism. However, it is the most depressing step to take and many would never dare to even think of it for their entire life.
As I said above, I was giving evidence for my claims. If you need attachment psychology explored, simply ask.Quote:
I'm not understanding this or your point, are you just trying to look smart? Don't expect that everybody understands this right away, so any elaboration on your part would be great.
And I am not trying to be pretentious; that does nothing for me and especially nothing for you (which I am more concerned with).
Either you are trying to rely too hard on variables that are unfalsifiable to save your argument, or you are unwilling to accept how psychology explains and de-mystifies meditation and prayer.Quote:
Then explain!
I didn't say "nothing can describe the psychological affects" - what? I said there are many OTHER variables/factors that are not provable or detectable, such as prevailing awareness and the power of the intentions. I'd add that many of these actually provide the initial importance.
I will make a thread on attachment psychology on your request, but to put it simply in how it would relate;
- Would it not be better for a human being to be able to reap all the rewards of meditation or prayer by simply thinking individually?
Looks like I cannot speak to you about this. You are locked away in a world of unfalsifiable thinking and "no labels" and "no categorizations" in a world where "not everything is proved before your eyes". It seems I can only make a sarcastic remark because there is nothing I can say to demonstrate the flaws in this argument to you. You do not comprehend the problems of falsifiability and you also ignore the majesty of psychology.Quote:
Obviously not; you can't seem to answer my questions. Is it true that all "feelings" are emotions? What about those feelings that never change, that are unlimited and independent from all harm and force? The Love I'm talking about is not an emotional love that you can study, but it exists as a quality of existence itself. unfortunately there is confusion due to the ambiguity of the term, as "God."
I have already answered the idea of "God" and its ambiguous state around us, all encompassing. You think I am not answering but it seems you just want me to say, "Oh yeah, God is everything, I agree. Non-dual thinking is the best. I was wrong."
What else could I say? It is like speaking to someone who has their eyes glazed over while on LSD and enjoying the spiritual "trip". There is no way to convince them otherwise.
*Facepalm*Quote:
That's great, but I remember you've brought this up once before, in a similar situation. I don't think it quite grasps it. There's no triangle in the game here.
I'm not going to explain more about how "R&J" is a childish argument. You get the idea? I already explained about Love in the above paragraph, which you didn't completely address in detail.
You do realize that what Socrates said includes the idea of GOD?!Quote:
What are you asking? You could be "wrong" about everything until you come to the complete revelation of what Socrates said. It is really about what is real/true knowledge and what is false.
Sigh.. I already have.. but you just reply with unfalsifiable arguments. It is like debating with a Freudian.Quote:
Sure, ok. I guess you will explain more soon.
Yes, you are right - the two have their ideals from different things. This is also like saying love and hate are two different things.Quote:
Well that doesn't make sense. You always seem to want to negate the concept of Divinity/God. You need to be more specific now. Answer my previous questions and tell me what the "facade/delusion/lie/etc." is about. You may find similarities in these systems, as you've done with prayer and meditation, but the two arise from different backgrounds.
No, you are wrong - I am not necessarily trying to negate the divinity/God, but show how they are not necessary to believe in what you are speaking of.
If a God or Truth is necessary to accept unyieldingly, then you have made a premise on a leap of bounds of truth. You accept that there is an onus to prove it but ignore that and just accept it.
However, I do not do this.
Following that, all the benefits and rewards, all the good things, I can still somehow manage to do. How do you think that is?
Humanist Existentialism is what I utilize. Atheists are completely capable to do all the good and feel all the feelings that any spiritualist does.
Tell me one good thing that a spiritualist can do that an atheist cannot.
This paragraph is quite ironic. It seems you are convinced that I have not explored these ideas very well. However, here I am trying to show you how these beliefs I see as a facade into another step of self-transcendence; existentialism. You make the presumption that spirits and God existence based on no reason or justification at all; just explanation. Explanation is all that the desperate have ("I know it!" "It simply is!" "God is non-dual!" "God is unexplainable!").Quote:
You're missing the point; you need to look into these things yourself. "One good thing" relatively varies between each person, in this case. If you're trying to believe in God without believing in God, you're just playing conceptual, intellectual games. You're wasting your time. Furthermore, this is not about being "better than" something else, but that you seek "the good" for its own sake, as I've already said, and even you as well.
All things non-dualistic and unimaginably beyond our world can be conceptualized within our thinking.Quote:
In my faith, God is known as the Divine Reality; I'd define it as the Absolute subjective context through which all Reality arises. To discover this Reality is to therefore discover the Source of all that exists, for the True source must be identical to our nature of Self. As the Creator, Context and Truth that unifies all existence by its nature; all is God and thus is there only one Self. The conclusion and definition rests on the undefinable and timeless. It is not provable or conceptualizable, because it is transcendental to concepts and proof; a priori to all thinking and acting, moving, perceiving and argument, because it is within both existing and not existing; it is Reality as it is; Divine.
You have just used your own mortal thinking and pathetic mortal words to describe something that is apparently immortal, non-dual, and completely profound.
It seems that it ought to be something you ought to be Agnostic about; this divinity is far too superior to us and our sciences and observation can never attest for it.
You take the stance that, in its unfalsifiable beauty, is where it is proven. It is a non-dual entity that can never be justified and that is how it is exists!
However, the vital grave mistake you are making is negligence.
You neglect that it was your own mind that created all this context. It was your self that created and perceived this. It was your self that invents the context of non-duality. It is your desire for self-transcendence that motivated you to be passionate about it. It is your mind that reasoned the existence of the idea of this God. And it is your body that warranted your capability to think of this God.
However, the actual truth is, there is no God. There is no supernaturally divine non-dualistic entity. The actual divine supernatural non-dual entity is YOUR SELF. Your perceptual mind is what you are describing, not a collective unconscious or collective super-unconscious.
You make the step to say that there is a consciousness in all of us as there is energy. That there is a beauty in the idea that we are all a dancing symphony of minds.
However, you neglect the majesty of the idea that we are all a symphony of independent thinking manifestations of that non-dual mind. We work on a chaotic system which streams into manifestations beyond a layman's world of thinking. The chaotic system in which all these independent minds respond and co-exists is what deludes us into thinking it is an independent consciousness existing non-dually.
This video is not going to set any arguments or try to prove anything, I just want you to see the power of working in sync with each other and how it does not require any God or divinity. We work in sync with each other because of our independent and autonomous decisions to do so. Also, it is not just humans that do this! All this do this! It is a majesty that is far too ignored! The majority of humans fail to see the beauty in the power of being lonely! It is our loneliness and drive to be with others, our instinct to survive, and our autonomous thinking that leads us to behave in the most beautiful symphony we could ever see; life!
(YouTube is down at the time of this post, so I am linking directly to the video)
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/st...z_on_sync.html
~
I have one question for that guy doing the video... why does he think only smart people went to college LOL my uncle never went to college, i don't think he even got through high school but he can ring off about every answer on jepordy LOL he can think logically and hold a conversation with the best of them. he is the smartest uneducated person i know LOL
That video is sad. He thinks he's being objective and logical, but all he does is spew bias.
Could say the same thing about the first video posted Bonsay
Yes, but that video is on my side.
HAHAHAHA good answer Bonsay
Quote:
Originally Posted by davej
He is not assuming only smart people go to college. He is assuming that you are an intelligent, educated person and so are able to draw intelligent, rational conclusions.
Knowledge does not equal intelligence. Television is a wealth of useless information. Therefore...
No offence, but anyone who hasn't gone to college or even finished high school is not the most witful person, game shows or not. :P
I do have to compliment the guy who made this video, though.
He speaks pretty kindly, and doesn't personally attack Christians.
He aknowledges that you can be an educated person with a degree, and still be a Christian. Then, he calmly gives his questions.
Good example for how all debaters should be.
Very true, Noogah. Debate has dwindled in the shadow of the new form of argument: sensless insults.
O'nus, I think I'm going to bring these issues into a new thread - one which covers the seemingly fundamental problems. You can debate there if you want. So to conclude, I still disagree with your prayer/meditation argument and you may understand my point better from the new thread. Until then, I don't think we need to be any further off-topic than we have already been. Thanks for your persistence though. Edit: Plus, these posts are growing ridiculously large, like some sort of bacteria out of control... :eek: In future I'm going to make summaries (provided that I get asked too many similar questions).
It's good to see other members are still posting here. Keep it up! ;) I'm out, lol. :D
Fair enough - I will keep an eye out for the thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by really
~
AAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaAAAAAAAaaaaaaaa
God is Imaginary Videos is like VENOMFANGX for atheists!
Have you seen the rest of his videos?
Interesting video. Here are my answers:
1) Why doesn't God heal amputees?
Amputees may receive prosthetic limbs, as a person with less than perfect vision may receive glasses to modify the ailment. Technology was created by intelligent beings who received their abilities from God. Therefore, God provides mitigating measures for people, through people, which act to accommodate physical mishaps.
2) Something along the lines of, "why does God ignore prayers from the poor?"
God does not ignore prayers to help the poor--churches provide for the poor every day, including those in 3rd world countries. God acts through the church. The church is driven and fired up by God's will.
3) A question which criticizes the Bible:
The Bible was written by humans, who often misinterpret & misrepresent God. One person's view of God certainly does not dictate my own.
4) A similar question, though with some reference to science and the Bible:
I suppose the same response justifies the question, but with regard to Adam spawning from dust: Technically, all creatures came from elements of the Earth, call it "dust" if you will. We did not appear out of nothing.
5) Another similar question: Just a comment--these questions really challenge the validity of the Bible, not God.
6) Why do bad things happen to good people?
Bad things happen to all people. So do good things. This is an imperfect world because we are an imperfect people. Bad things too happen to God (He was tortured and crucified in the flesh). He knows a deeper spiritual suffering than we do (similar to a parent loving a child unconditionally, a child who has gone completely astray--imagine the suffering that parent might experience--only amplify that love for the child times infinity, and too amplify the suffering times infinity). God's suffering is epitomized through Jesus' crucifixion.
7) Why isn't there evidence for Jesus' miracles?
What evidence do you seek? The only way that events might be documented 2,000 years ago is through script, hence the chapters of the New Testament. Are you looking for audio & video?
8) Why doesn't Jesus appear to humans?
Jesus appears to humans every day. The word "appearance" is associated with visual appearance, which is not the only means to communicate with God. I don't have to see my mother to communicate with her.
9) Why does Jesus want you do eat his body and drink his blood?
Look up the word "metaphor."
10) Why do Christians get divorced?
Christians are just as imperfect as the rest of the world, & many of us are the first to admit it, perhaps even moreso than the rest of the world.
"Convoluted, strange, bizarre rationalizations/excuses" is what the narrator calls any response to the questions. They also "make believers uncomfortable."
At no point was I in discomfort. There are logical responses to these questions.
"Every answered prayer is actually a coincidence."
Suddenly, you are omniscient?
"Religious beliefs hurt you personally & hurt us as a species because they are delusional."
I would like to get to know you so you can see how Christ has worked through my life and made me a better person. I would like you to tell the people who have been served by Christians all over the world that religion hurts the human species.
I fit your description. I am a college graduate. I am a teacher. I am a believer.
If we changed that a bit, we can also say that God provides ways for people to torture and kill other people. If we're going to thank god for our intelligence to create prosthetic limbs, we might as well thank him for making that psycho with a machete cut our legs off.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
He just answers some with "no". Leaving it all to interpretation of events. The ones who prayed and survived get to thank God for his miracles, the ones that die aren't given the chance..., so in the end it generally just looks as the good old "some live and some die". Not really verifiable.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
I don't see why we should see it as suffering since it's he (the omnipotent one) who decided to torture himself. Is he God or is he not? Also, I'm not an expert on pain or suffering, but I think there could be worse ways to suffer and die than crucifixion.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
I think he was asking why Jesus doesn't appear or communicate with "other" humans. As in, those who don't believe as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
It might just seem so because people only judge through their specific world view. Of course a Christian who believes in sin and declares his sinful imperfection will think he's one of the few to admit it, if he compares himself to people with different beliefs. I don't believe in sin, but ask any atheist etc. if they are animals... in the light of the abstract ideas of perfection how more imperfect can you get than to ground yourself in objective reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
I have freedom to make my own choices. Actions for the common good reflect God's presence while negative behavior is in direct opposition to God's benevolence. God gives us the tools to either live in His spirit or not; those who move toward God have God to thank and humble themselves in their endeavors; those who oppose God through violent and negative behaviors have God to fear and pride themselves in their ignorance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
The original statement was that God does not answer prayers from the poor. My response indicates that He does (the truth does not come from my rebuttal--the poor are helped every day). As said before, God answers prayers through people, and it happens that many people neglect the poor. Tragedy for the poor is not indicative of God's negligence; it is indicative of an imperfect world. God helps people through people. God has called on us to help the poor and many have answered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
If you loved someone unconditionally, would you not suffer in their place? God willingly suffered because He loves you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
He was crucified because that is how Romans executed those in high treason. Crucifixion, I imagine, is quite unpleasant...
How can one hear if they are unwilling to listen?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
This is probably true. But the original question was "why do Christians get divorced?" We are all imperfect and I can leave it at that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
I never understood the whole "everything that's good is from God, everything bad is from us" mentality. If somebody creates humans, then he is responsible for their actions. I wouldn't blame a tiger for eating somebody in a zoo, it's not the animals fault for being the way it is. And the same goes in a grander scheme of gods in relation to humans.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
If he was god, he wouldn't need to suffer. Neither would anybody else have to suffer. That's my whole argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
I don't know if you believe in hell... But if you do, then no, crucifixion is infinitely less unpleasant than what God does to certain people.
How can one hear if they are unable to listen?Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
Are your parents responsible for your actions?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
I have a class of 23 students whom I establish parameters for, yet they are responsible for their decisions in the classroom.
If you were a perfect being, perhaps the most humble decision you could make would be to create others to enjoy your presence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
Yet those you created to enjoy your benevolence have abused their freedom to create anti-benevolence.
How would you feel?
We are given the choice to love God or not. This is what makes love authentic. Would you program your child to love you before he/she is born? Would your child really love you or would he/she be robotic?
Authentic love comes from individual choice.
God's suffering extends beyond the cross; His spiritual suffering exists on the basis of the above analysis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
Entrance to spiritual hell, whatever it may be, is human choice. Again, this is another root to God's suffering. How would you feel if your child was sentenced to prison?
Your intelligence is what enables you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
On some level, yes. But I take responsibility for my actions. One thing though... Parents, teachers, leaders - they aren't gods. All are connected and, relatively, on the same level. The omnipotent nature of God is what makes him responsible for the universe. Unless he made us gods as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
If you really want my opinion, I would actually blame myself. Not those who never decided to exist at all. I/God made the original decision... I'm not even going to start with the fact that I knew what would have happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
Here comes the problem, since I can't really discuss this. I don't believe in this transcendental soul with free will/choice. So I believe that all love is actually programmed. Even if there is free will, for me, that doesn't excuse an infinitely powerful being for its finite actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
If I try and adopt such a world view for a second... I can't change the person, but I can save him by revealing myself (unambiguously). If belief in Jesus is what saves people from hell, then why doesn't he reveal himself. This is one of the most common questions, but I never got (or comprehended) the answer. If he loves us so much that he suffered on the cross, then he should also love us enough to suffer some more and send all those destined for hell to heaven.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
Yes, I know. We can all make choices and become Christian. But answer this. If I came to you with a belief system, basically identical to yours, but different. If I told you that you won't get to heaven because you choose hell. How would you feel? You wouldn't care, you already have your own thing going on and you wouldn't act against your faith. That's the point where you or I are unable to listen/make choices who to listen to. The fact that you or I wouldn't act against our beliefs is what makes us incapable of "choice". And thus shouldn't be judged.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
God is responsible for creating the universe and for granting us free will. Given that we have free will, we are responsible for using it as we see fit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
Let me repeat this--God is responsible for giving us freedom to make choices; our choices are our own and we hold responsibility for them. I have nothing further to say in this regard.
You know that if you decide eventually to have children that those children will grow up to make their own choices. You are well aware that they may and probably will make the wrong choices from time to time. Is this a reason not to have children at all?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
Would you blame yourself for their choices?
If you believe there is no free choice, and therefore that emotions like love are programmed, then you have to surrender all freedom of thought whatsoever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
If you do not have freedom of thought, your entire philosophy on this forum falls apart (as you are simply programmed to hold that philosophy). Do you really believe we do not have free will?
God will reveal Himself when you seek Him with all your heart. You have been told He loves you unconditionally and that is all the revelation you need. The next move is yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
I acted against my faith and considered myself agnostic for a couple years. I then acted against that faith and am now a devoted follower of Christ.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
People act against their faith every day. We are very capable of choice.
Seek God, truly. It will change your life.
And yet it was not me who chose to exist and take the responsibility. Somebody else has taken their responsibilities and dropped them onto me... at least from this religious perspective. If I'm to be judged by every choice I make, then it should be noted that every choice I made is a result of a single choice - God's choice to create me.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
If their choices mean that they will go to a hell for an eternity, then it's definitely a reason not to have children at all. As I said. Some Christian who believes in a hell is doing what, as I see it, God has done. Taken the responsibility for some action then dumped it onto the child. So suddenly it's their child's fault if he gets to hell... how illogical. I don't see a reason to create more potential burn victims.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
I don't really understand what freedom of thought means here. If you're saying that without this transcendental free will I cannot form my thoughts, then I say that's incorrect, since simple causality can result in thought. If a soulless monkey can have complex thoughts, then so can a human.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
Saying that my argument falls appart because I actually have an argument is therefore invalid, since thoughts haven't been corelated to souls with free will, neither have souls been proven for that fact. If I am programmed to have an idea, an idea doesn't disappear if a soul wasn't the one to make it, why would it?
Free will can just be an illusion. I don't see how it would hold any meaning in the objective universe. I'm not saying that I hold absolute knowledge... but one way or the other, I am being determined. If things don't just pop into existence out of nothing, then I don't see why thoughts are exempt from this.
Apparently that's not all I need. What I need is tangible proof, from which I can either conclude that I'm hallucinating (which only supports my point that it's immoral to punish me for something I have no control over), or that Jesus is real. Since "revalations" surprisingly happen for every form of religion, it's safe to conclude that dieties are in the eye of the beholder, so no matter how much time I waste praying, Jesus won't exist untill he exists for me. Which won't happen since you say that the only way to see him is to believe in him.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
Prove this by making a choice not to be Christian this very moment. I'll take a big guess that you didn't do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
We are very incapable of choice.
http://www.impactlab.com/wp-content/...g_children.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
I guess they must have abused their freedom, serves them right!
By the way, choice as your trying to make it look like doesn't really exist. We are made of matter, we obey the same laws of physics it does, our behaviour is deterministic.
And every choice you make is a result of your parents' choice. It does not follow that your parents are responsible for your choices. Neither does it follow that God is responsible for our choices.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
The nature of God and the way He experiences time (or the lack thereof) is really what points toward an answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
God, being timeless, would not "see something happening in the future (for instance, somebody choosing a godless path)," because there is no "future" to a timeless being. There is no moment when God made a "choice" to create humans at all. God sees all points of all time simultaneously.
We exist for one reason: because God loves us. This has always been the truth and it did not become a reality at any specific point in time. God "created" (and I quote 'created' because it is a temporal word) us because of his love and in the midst of all of that some people accepted His love while others rejected it.
You need to look at it from a timeless perspective. It's not that God "foresaw" (another temporal verb) our fate; God exists. We exist. Some choose to love God. Others do not. However, God loves all.
I said your argument falls apart because what you said, and I quote, was "I believe that all love is actually programmed. Even if there is free will...", implying that you did not believe in free will.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
How is it that free will and determinism can coexist?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
Perhaps the universe is deterministic because all time has, in some sense, already happened, or rather it is happening simultaneously in the core of its Creator.
And perhaps we still have freedom to choose because our Creator has granted us that choice.
Are you agnostic? If proof is what you seek I imagine you are not an atheist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
I have proof that God exists. I am alive.
This is a slightly silly reason to reject belief because of lack of proof.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
I give you my word that I was agnostic in college. If you reject that, bummer.
The quote that you used was a reference to the way that God suffers and is irrelevant to the graphic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scatterbrain
Jesus came to help the poor.
Churches help those types of people every day.
Jesus calls on us to give all that we can to the poor, so that we may remedy issues like those in the graphic you have used.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
Bull shit Jesus came to help the poor. They came to make them suffer and exploit their vulnerability. It is the religious injection in these war torn worlds that makes me literally want to euthanize the people that are "being helped" and then riddle the manipulating people with bullets.
"Jesus" has done nothing but make the problems worse in those areas. Saying otherwise is simply ignorant and wrong.
~
You are taking this documentary and generalizing the entire Christian population.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
You can research the positive things churches have done (perhaps just check out your local church and ask?), or you can keep finding ways to generalize Christians.
If a Christian strapped a bomb to his chest, he does not speak for the group as a whole, nor does he at all speak for Christ.
I am generalizing that I am saying that Christians have done nothing for the eastern world but deprive it?Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
Yes, I am. Prove me wrong. Missionaries go over and thrive on their impoverished environment then proclaim Jesus.
I encourage you to prove me wrong. You will pardon me when I highly doubt you will.
~
This is really a silly thing to argue. It isn't about who is right or wrong; it's about what's really happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
There are those that proclaim Christianity and use it poorly.
There are those that proclaim Christianity and use it wisely.
I attend a church that establishes transitional households for children in Ethiopia so they are not orphans when they turn 16. They develop water wells for those in the eastern region of the world.
Visit some churches--ask them how they use their money. Let me know what you find out.
No, it was also about people suffering. You said people are at fault for their suffering.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
Bad things happen to good people, and many times people are directly born into misery. And the supposed omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent god allows it.
Again, the quote was in reference to God's suffering. I am sorry if you believe otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scatterbrain
All of us suffer. God suffers too. But God calls on us to act.
"By this we know love, because He laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. But whoever has this world's goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?"
I John 3:16-17
God loves people through people. The point is for us to act for the poor, rather than using them as an excuse to disprove God.
... then god isn't omnipotent?
So why is everybody so worked up about Hitler? Did he ever do anything wrong? This argument falls down if he directly harmed somebody, but if not, then he was just a crazy guy spewing words. His followers are the ones who killed and tortured. What about brainwashing? Or indoctrination? I don't understand this, since nobody has ever described to me how a soul works. The fact is that by changing somebodies brain we change their "soul", which is just a fancy word for thought patterns. If you can see free will, other than the illusory kind, in such examples of determinism, then I'll never understand these religious concepts.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
The only free will you can experience is your own, from which stems our existential responsibility for our actions. There are no souls which change the universe by making new causal links through the brain every time they make a decision. There could be, but there is no reason to think so in the 21. century. This subjective view of reality makes sense if you are a farmer 2000 years ago, but not now when we're learning more and more about the universe with the use of the scientific method.
As I said, I don't claim absolute knowledge. I can only integrate together what I know and deduce what I can. Yes, I am agnostic, I don't know anything beside that whatever I am supposed to be is experiencing something.
It's funny how he is infinite and finite only depending on the situation when a certain characteristic is needed. Why does his timelessness suddenly diminish his omnipotence?Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
If you show me something I can reject it. If you show me nothing, there is nothing to reject. God doesn't exist, I can't reject him. You project your beliefs onto me by making me choose to believe this God of yours. There is no reason to prefer your god over Odin. You believe in the objectively "incriminating" nature of choice, that you have chosen correctly and now you're trying to push me into a corner by making me accept the reality of choice. As I've said a bunch of times, no matter what I choose it's all deterministic. If true, by your God's decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
The simple fact that free will doesn't exist the way people want it to exist, but is, as I said, an illusion. Why do you insist on the notion of free will?Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
Give me a thought experiment which proves this non-deterministic, transcendental free will, which acts independently of the physical laws.
If you believe in your example of a deterministic universe then you also support the fact that God is inherently unjust/immoral. Creating someone bound for hell doesn't equal just or good. I don't have a problem if God just doesn't give a shit and burns some people for an eternity just because he wants to. The problem I have is when God supposedly does that, but loves the people he's burning.
When you added the "freedom to choose" to that idea, you kind of made my point. The free will, what we experience subjectively exists, but is inherently, objectively determined. If you were christian and believed this you could call yourself a Calvinist. Your determined reality is revealed to you through your subjective, free choices and thoughts... but this doesn't change it's true objective nature and it shouldn't be forgotten when any "hell/heaven" sentences are made.
What "you" are demanding of me is to forget what I know about reality and only focus on the subjective part. If God only focuses on the subjective part (the making of "free choices") and doesn't care if the reason for my thoughts is a tumor, then I truly am F**ed. See you in hell then.
Yes I am agnostic, but at the same time I lack a belief in gods, which makes me atheist for all practical reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
No it's not a silly reason. If it was so silly you'd use up that sentence to describe why this transcendental free will can't brake free of it's determined state (since this is what it apparently does all the time), which is "I am a christian, I believe in God". It's just another level on which one is unable to make real free choices.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
I didn't say I don't believe you were agnostic in college.
We can easily argue who is right and wrong over economical injections into other countries and religion has done nothing but ruin it. That is easily inarguable because of the reasoning used for the violence in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
However, this is arguable, and I do not really encourage you to reply as it does digress. Just let that irrelevancy rest for now.
The original point was that there are dying countries and God does nothing about it. If he is loving and good, then why does he allow it? Is it our responsibility to make up for Gods lack of good in humans by compensating for humans strife?
Of course, I see many missionaries claim that they are helping out the worlds by going over and preaching and painting an old bus.Quote:
I attend a church that establishes transitional households for children in Ethiopia so they are not orphans when they turn 16. They develop water wells for those in the eastern region of the world.
Whatever makes you feel good, but this is completely insignificant to the macro-economy of the country. This is like saying you are going to cure a headache by rubbing your toe.
I have. You want to know what most churches spend money on?Quote:
Visit some churches--ask them how they use their money. Let me know what you find out.
+ Church decorations (ie. windows, chairs, pedestals, etc.)
+ Supplies (ie. cleaning, crafts, food)
+ Computers
+ Security features
+ Advertising (ie. posters, pot-lucks, camps)
Now imagine if all these churches actually rallied their money together to really make a difference in these countries. Building a church in their country does absolutely nothing for their status as a crap country. If you're impoverished and I come to your house and throw a bible to your lap, what are you going to say? Especially under the guise that I am "helping" you.
~
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
I hate the hypocrasy of this also.
There is a Lutheran church a mile from our house on a corner. It has one of those big assed electronic LCD signs - color not monochrome. It is really two signs together at 90o because of the corner - Must have cost thousand$$$.
When we moved into our house they put a loaf of bread on our door step with an invite to join them plus some bread related bibble verse. Now we live in a very wealthy subdivision. The next town to us has some real poverty issues. I couldnt help wondering why the "christians" wernt giving the bread to the poor who could use it rather than us. A note would have sufficed surely? Stupid!
They added a school to the church recently. We call it the xtian factory. Obviously its a private fee paying school.
Someones making a buck or two and living nicely. And ensuring the revenue stream will be running in the future.
And let us not forget that the roman catholic church is richer than several 3rd world countries put together.
He is. He does not see events happening in the future because there is no "future" to a timeless being. Rather, he sees all events that have happened, are happening and will happen in one moment. He is aware of all events simultaneously. They are not "going to happen." They are happening. All of them at once.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scatterbrain
The Nazis were responsible for their decisions. Hitler was responsible for his own decisions. Hitler condoned violent behavior, and his advance of such behaviors makes him almost entirely responsible for the Holocaust.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
Look at it this way. In the classroom, I can condone violent and aggressive behavior, and while my students would still be responsible for their actions, I would certainly hold much of the responsibility in this case.
But if I condone positive behavior, set examples and fully encourage my students to live out those valuable traits, then they still are responsible for their own actions, and I may in fact hold responsibility as well.
Yet when a student is humble, they find themselves not with pride in themselves, but with praise for the teacher who has taught them what they know. They give thanks to the teacher and keep none for themselves as they recognize it is their obligation as a student citizen.
So which behaviors does God condone? God is benevolent beyond comprehension.
With regard to brainwashing, I believe you are asking how there can be free will in such a case?
I suppose we use our knowledge to make our free choices. For instance, I know there's going to be traffic on the highway at rush hour so I will decide to avoid it. That is my choice based on the knowledge I have.
If somebody is brainwashed, or severely misled perhaps, then they are using their distorted knowledge to make free choices. So the choices are still "free" in the given sense of the word, but they are based on a contorted view of the world.
I sense we agree that there is a subjective and objective quality to the free will we experience, but we disagree in the phenomenon that allows it to happen. Hence this discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
I believe I addressed this above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
I am presenting my views as you are presenting yours. This is the nature of debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
The quote you addressed here was simply to get you to change your frame of reference. You told me that God "knew it was going to happen," as if there was some sort of future in God's path. But a timeless being doesn't have a "future" in any sense. All time occurs simultaneously.
So it is not that God "knew it was going to happen." Rather, God is aware that it is happening.
Your analysis of free will in the 3rd paragraph seems to fit my own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
I have repeated the point that God does not condone people to hell; people make choices and bring themselves down whatever path they choose.
Let me repeat this--we make free choices based on our knowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
I can choose to believe that this chair won't support me when I sit down, but it would be rather moronic.
As I said, God calls on us to act. Plenty of people are acting right now. Plenty of churches. All over the world. We are here to do God's work.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Missionaries do much more than painting.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
As far as curing a headache by rubbing a toe, I couldn't agree more that we can't cure the headache.
But we can do something. We can help some people. We can make some difference. And the more people that realize this, the bigger difference we could make.
The church I attend has a display screen that has not been working since May.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Why?
Because they are putting their money elsewhere--toward the orphans, the hungry, the sick.
Generalizing is not necessarily the route to take.Quote:
Originally Posted by evildoctor
As an occultist/mystic I find this entire debate highly amusing. Nothing quite like seeing the same old arguments from both sides.
Oh? Citations? It is one thing to simply say you are doing something and another to really justify it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
...Quote:
As far as curing a headache by rubbing a toe, I couldn't agree more that we can't cure the headache.
Don't be coy, you know my point.
How do you propose the churches do this again..?Quote:
But we can do something. We can help some people. We can make some difference. And the more people that realize this, the bigger difference we could make.
You are not really providing any reason not to "generalize". You know, just because you say something like "ad hominem" or another fallacy, does not mean you are right.Quote:
The church I attend has a display screen that has not been working since May.
Why?
Because they are putting their money elsewhere--toward the orphans, the hungry, the sick.
Generalizing is not necessarily the route to take.
~
If one says that all apples are red, another only has to reveal a green apple to dismantle the generalization.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
I have already given you specific examples of good deeds from the church.
My church helped build an orphanage in Chihuahua, Mexico. Housing orphans in a unit with working plumbing and electricity is a pretty fantastic undertaking.
...
Your point was that we cannot solve all of the world's problems, and you are right.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Hospitals cannot save everybody's lives. But they can save some. Just because others are destined to die does not mean we should stop providing health care.
See above example.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Food drives, clothing drives, blood drives. You don't even need a church for an event like this. But they make a difference to somebody.
I have given you a green apple.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
I don't have a problem with the idea that our choices are judged. But as I said, they are all objectively determined. That's why I want to know how God can be just or good after knowing this and being the one who started it all. Yes, the choices send us to hell, fine. But how does a good God, being omnipotent, allow this. I'll also repeat this for the sake of its importance - yes we make free choices, but for an objective observer they are just a result of a complex chemical reaction. Even if your idea of reality includes a special relationship between a soul and the universe, you couldn't really deny the mounds of proof which show how brainwashing, brain damage etc. changes ones personality (and in this discussion, the soul, or more importantly the souls "final resting place").Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
I'm sorry if you already answered this, but if you did, I'm not getting it.
Imagining or saying you believe that you can fly isn't belief. Belief is when you jump of a cliff without hesitation for the sake of flying like superman.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
And yet they are somehow better in quality than the "no arguments" from your side.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheUnknownKadath
Indeed, bad show TheunknownKadath.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
Seeing as the goal of the occultist is to complete the Great Work and slay their ego, if oft amuses me that all too frequently the result is quite the opposite.;)
I resent that.Quote:
Originally Posted by evildoctor
I've never hidden the fact that I'm a raging egotist. :D
I'm afraid you've assumed I'm on the wrong side of this argument. But just for my own amusement I'll take a third stance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
There are three possibilities for the future of Mankind:
(1) the human species will go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage
(2) any posthuman civilization is very unlikely to run a large number of simulations of their evolutionary history. (Or unable to.)
(3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.
Statistically the odds of us being in the (1) "true" universe is lower then that of us being in a computer simulation.
And if we're in a simulation then the question of Gods existence becomes moot, since we're experiencing everything second hand. :banana: :banana: :banana:
"quality argument" + Internet = oxymoronQuote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
"Statistically the odds of us being in the (1) "true" universe is lower then that of us being in a computer simulation."Quote:
Originally Posted by TheUnknownKadath
How do you figure?? You mean to tell me that there is actually some nosepicker out there with a set of data that can say without a doubt that there is a higher chance of us living in a simulated computer existence than us simply being destroyed by a cosmic catastrophe, or ourselves? Even if such data exists, it seems completely....well...dumb. I mean, if we are in a simulation, then who is controlling it? Other humans? What kind of deity says "well guys instead of inventing the universe, I'm going to invent [basically] the Matrix, and enslave you with it."
I believe that (1) is what our future holds. I like your idea of believing in the Matrix. It's a very neat concept. Unfortunately it cannot be true. What we know of the Matrix already tells us that anytime someone becomes aware of the thin fabric of the false reality, they are quickly apprehended and dealt with. Simply by believing in the computer simulation world you are disproving it. Whoever is watching would not want you going around spreading truth. There is simply too much support for the idea of a computer simulated reality (relatively speaking) for it be ignored by those in command of it.
From this paragraph, I have dissected two main questions:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
1) If everything is determined, why would people go to hell?
People's lives are only determined by their choices. Since each person's life already dwells in the spirit of God, each person's life is already laid out.
Imagine being in a room surrounded by televisions screens, each playing a motion picture of each and every day of your life. All of it is determined in the sense that it is all playing out at once, but the progress of the film is still due to your own choices! Every day you make choices that affect you, but every day is happening concurrently, as time rests in the mind of God.
I am having difficulty conveying exactly how it makes sense in my mind, but it is a complicated analysis to explain. I do believe everything is determined. But we made it so, through our choices. The lives we live are determined only by the free choices we make.
So it's not determined in the sense that it couldn't have been any other way. Rather, we could have lived differently, creating a new determined path for ourselves. But we've already made all the choices. We've made all our life choices already. How? Because God sees them. They have yet to happen to us, but our choices will unfold exactly how we wish them to. And this is what determines our lives. Our choices.
So it is we that bring ourselves to God or move away from Him. It is we that instill determinism in our lives through freedom of choice.
God remains just and good because He did not "start" it all, as "start" is a temporal word which does not apply to a timeless being. God exists, therefore we exist. It is a truth that has just always been. We exist because he loves us, and we make choices to move toward Him or away.
2) How is God just if brainwashed people go to hell?
I have no idea what happens to people who are brainwashed. To even suggest that they go to hell would be a massive judgment on my part. All I can say is that God is just and merciful. If a robot is programmed to slaughter, who do we blame--the robot or the one who programmed it?
I am a bit confused by this, but I will regress to what you had said before. You told me that we do not have real free choice because I could not choose at this very moment to act against my faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
Can you choose not to believe that rain comes from clouds? Just because you can't, does that prove freedom of choice does not exist?
No--there are aspects of life that are objective, and it would make no sense to make a choice to act against them. Denying that George Washington was the 1st president of the U.S. does not validate freedom of choice; it emulates ignorance.
And God takes the cake for objectivity.
You harp too much on the generalization thing. If we say "all hypocrites are hypocrites", it is not a generalization, it is a simple tautological truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
All you have given me is nonsense. Building an orphanage does not even help with anything in the country. You cannot heal a wound by trimming the hairs around it.
Also, pardon me for saying this, but I actually speculate the truth of your claims. Can you actually prove that your churches have done any of this? Not that it really matters, but I just seriously doubt that the little money being sent is really being sent. Even if it was, it ought to have been compiled together with other churches to actually make an institution that would be useful. Something propagating an industry or manufacturer.
The original point was why God allows it. It is not our duty to compensate for Gods crappy hypocrisy.Quote:
Your point was that we cannot solve all of the world's problems, and you are right.
Of course not. But this still ignores the original point; why are we compensating for Gods allowance of suffering?Quote:
Hospitals cannot save everybody's lives. But they can save some. Just because others are destined to die does not mean we should stop providing health care.
You are right. Those things are constituents of the Red Cross, not the church.Quote:
Food drives, clothing drives, blood drives. You don't even need a church for an event like this. But they make a difference to somebody.
~
This won't get anywhere, because each has his own idea. You say that choices determine the universe, I say the universe determines choices. Where I believe that my idea is more supported through science, I mean if you scientifically study the universe there is no reason to assume anything special about man. Your idea revolves around free will and subjective experience, and therefore can't really be discussed with science, which I think is the only thing we can all agree on.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
About the specific quoted section: I don't "like" that response. I see it as an evasion to the question really. If his mere existence equals the definition of just and good, then I can't say anything else to that since it seems a baseless proposition. If he is this timeless being, why label him with just or good with everything else happening in the universe. If it's because according to your religion he is good and loves you, then again, it's something baseless to be taken on faith because the book says so. Although when discussing this world view I have to adopt it to dissect it internally, this is something that, for me, can't really be explained. He loves us and our existence is proof? I'm sorry, this just does not compute. Why is he just and good, those are defined by actions. If actions define him as good, then I'd like to know how he is defined by his other actions. How can my existence be from love if it knowingly ends with eternal torment. Timelessness doesn't explain this, and neither does your idea that the soul chooses hell or heaven, because he is infinitely powerful.
The way I understood your previous response on how the only way this universe is determined is through our free choices, it makes me wonder why you try to explain this. Is everybody in the world not "mentally handicapped" or brainwashed or whatever? We all have a brain, every brain has a certain structure, every structure only results in a certain way of thinking and behaviour. If you acknowledge the brains influence on the soul/consciousness and not the other way around, then how can you keep your previous assertion? Why does god not judge this persons choices, even if they are the way they are because of a certain brain structure - You say he'll do it to me and you, but my brain isn't any less determined than somebody who was brainwashed or has a tumor making his thought different from the way they were before.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
Do we blame the robot? Sorry, but unless I'm completely daft then yes, that's what you keep telling me. Personally I blame everything on the programmer - God.
All I was saying is that you can't choose belief. Or you could chose to believe that you can fly. You say that would be stupid to do, although using another example - believing that your chair can't hold you up, which only implied that you could've done it. My response with the belief that you can fly was there to offer an alternative, to show you that imagination doesn't equal belief. So saying "I could believe my chair can't hold me up, but it would be stupid" is wrong. Or prove me otherwise by believing something stupid, like that there is no God.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
Yes you're right it's stupid to discuss such aspects of life in such a manner. But it does show the nature of belief and it's connected to the programmable nature of the brain and how we can't be responsible for our choices, and can't be sent to heaven or hell for having them. At least not justly.
Your claim is that churches do not use their money to help anybody.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Yes, it is a generalization, and I have told you why. If you truly don't see that, I am sorry.
Building an orphanage does not help with anything in the country? Tell that to the children who reside there.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Would you neglect to donate a kidney on the basis that there are too many people with bad kidneys?
Your logic seems to be, "We can't solve the world's problems, so it's not worth doing anything."
Yes, I could give you a link that describes these ministries in detail, and in all honesty I would if I thought your intentions were positive in this regard, but your attitude toward churches as a whole is causing me to refrain. I would prefer you direct your accusations at me and leave my church alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
This is exactly the discourse taking place between Bonsay and I right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
See above statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
So just because some people are volunteering at soup kitchens and hurricane shelters, that means that nobody else should?Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
The Red Cross and churches alike provide services for people, but just because one organization practices such drives does not mean that the other organization should stop.
To be honest, I am going to drop the discourse between you and I. I don't have a problem if you want to go on believing churches do nothing good in the world, but entertaining your claims is proving to be futile.
~[/quote]
I have a hard time submitting to the fact that something as powerful as being in love is wholly due to chemical processes in the brain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
Being in love is an experience that emits from the depths our spirits and we feel it down to the core of our bones. I fully believe that our choices cause the chemical reactions within us, not vice versa.
When a loved one dies, we choose to grieve, thus causing chemical reactions to occur. If it were the other way around, the chemicals in our brains would have to be aware of the death before ourselves, which is rather ridiculous.
This can open up a completely new topic of debate--if God wasn't good, why would He instill in us an awareness of morals?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
The lot of us know that some things are right and others are wrong. We also know that doing the right things is the good thing to do. We feel it deep in our bones.
Sometime ago I worked at a daycare center and a little girl started seizing in the middle of a park. Immediately the teachers took action. We contacted emergency services and I sprinted back to the daycare center to retrieve this girl's emergency card.
Acting in a way that might save this girl from extreme harm was the right thing to do and we knew it deep in our bones. It required no thought whatsoever, just appropriate action. Why did we choose to act? Because we are compassionate beings who recognize that people are worth saving, even worth dying for. And we receive this compassion from our Creator. It is moments like these that bring God's infinite care and compassion to fruition, and it is grounded in emotion.
There are some things even logic fail to explain.
I maintain that someone who is truly "brainwashed," whatever the qualifier might be, is absolutely different from you and I in the basic sense of being.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
Like I said, I cannot claim to know what happens to people like this, but it's possible that there are shades of gray when it comes to God's judgment on humanity.
As I stated, there may be some shades of gray. I actually applaud you for making this point, as it is something I have never put much thought into.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
So, in a nutshell, you are suggesting there is no freedom of choice because we cannot choose to believe certain things, such as, "there is no United Nations.".....?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
Forgive me if I am misunderstanding you, but while I admit there is no freedom of choice in reference to objective reality, I maintain that freedom of choice can be made in other areas of life, such as a choice to have another cup of coffee or not.
My claim is that, the help churches propose, does nothing for the real problems at hand. If you do not understand that, then I am not surprised.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
Yeah exactly, you are ignorant to macro-economy I see. Building a hospital may do something, but more importantly is fixing the reason why there are orphaned people in the first place.Quote:
Building an orphanage does not help with anything in the country? Tell that to the children who reside there.
No it is not, you just obviously do not understand economy.Quote:
Would you neglect to donate a kidney on the basis that there are too many people with bad kidneys?
Your logic seems to be, "We can't solve the world's problems, so it's not worth doing anything."
Your mis-interpretation of my arguments is your own fault. I just want to see proof and real solutions to macro-economy. If you are prejudice towards me, that is your fault, not mine.Quote:
Yes, I could give you a link that describes these ministries in detail, and in all honesty I would if I thought your intentions were positive in this regard, but your attitude toward churches as a whole is causing me to refrain. I would prefer you direct your accusations at me and leave my church alone.
If you read my posts, you may notice that I was also contributing to that..Quote:
This is exactly the discourse taking place between Bonsay and I right now.
No, I am saying it does nothing for the real problem at hand.Quote:
So just because some people are volunteering at soup kitchens and hurricane shelters, that means that nobody else should?
I never said that they should stop but pool their efforts into something meaningful rather than pretentious.Quote:
The Red Cross and churches alike provide services for people, but just because one organization practices such drives does not mean that the other organization should stop.
Like I said, if you want to be stubborn and prejudice towards me instead of reading my comments, that is your fault.Quote:
To be honest, I am going to drop the discourse between you and I. I don't have a problem if you want to go on believing churches do nothing good in the world, but entertaining your claims is proving to be futile.
~
Question 11: Why do all the atheists in the world insist that everyone who worships a deity stop?
Many perfectly sane people believe in a god, possibly many gods. Does that have any effect on the things they are doing for the world? Churches set up food drives, homeless shelters, educate the impoverished, and more. So what if they're doing it in order to please a "fake" god? Does that make the deeds null and void, because they were performed due to the decency and values that their god instilled in them?
Now, I'm certain all my antagonists will point toward the extremist religion members to support their case. To this, I'll refer to my first sentence; "Many perfectly sane people". Now, in my opinion, these people aren't quite sane. There's a difference between respect for your god and hurting innocent people because you misinterpreted his writings. Is it the fault of their god that they contorted his message of love and hope into something evil and malicious?
To recap; so what if there isn't any God? Let all of us "delusional" folk carry on with our lives, instead of trying to poke holes in what we believe in. The good that religious institutions is invaluable to our world. By collapsing our religions, all you'll accomplish is destabilizing the world and killing off all the powerful religious members' support. Let us go on our merry way, praying to milk jugs and worshipping what we can't see. We'll see who was right in the end.
In my faith, I am either a great sage or a terrible fool. But for now and forever more, God will not lose my fealty.
The answer to the question, whether thoughts emerge from the brain or if the brain molds itself around thoughts, will hopefully, finally be cleared up soon... or it might not, until then it's up to speculation, if this is something you want to do. There is no proof for a soul at the moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
Saying that "chemicals just cause something" is fine, but only if everybody in the discussion has a sufficient view on how things work in organisms.
First you must understand that we have a general outlook on how the brain works. When a loved one dies, the current perception of the events is passed from our senses and is processed in the brain - communication between the neurons in our brain structures. The specific input is computed depending on the brain structure, emerging as a specific subjective experience we view as our thoughts or more objectively as behaviour.
The problem is that you are anthropomorphizing: "...the chemicals in our brains would have to be aware of the death before ourselves, which is rather ridiculous." - The cell in my hair follicle #43 doesn't think, it is a machine. Every thought we have comes from the communication between our neurons. There is no such thing as knowledge, only signals. The only "thing" that knows anything is you and what you know can only exist because of a string of signals passing through your brain.
Yes we "choose to grieve". But what is a choice and what is grieving? Both are thought processes; both exist only when the brain functions. It's not that chemical reactions occur because we choose to grieve. Our grieving and our choices are the result of occurring chemical reactions. This is not ridiculous, this is scientific fact.
So we have something to cry about. What's better then a grieving father after having his family slaughtered, if you are a "God that wasn't" good.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
It's so because we, as social animals, evolved a certain set of morals, values, empathy... The good and bad feeling we "feel in our bones" shouldn't be too far away from what a cheetah feels in it's bones when it sees a gazelle sprinting away. I'm sure if you search google or youtube you can find animals saving humans or other animals. This is something logic doesn't fail to explain.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
There is no reason to assume something "godly" without a biased approach. I'm no psychologist, but I'm sure you'll find some humans who, for some reason, don't have these inclinations to be good. While you might take the easy path and call them inherently evil, it's usually something in their environment, physiology or genetics which made them the way they are.
Well as I said. Our world views might be so far apart that it won't make sense in either direction. The ability to chose a belief is in reference to objective reality and is what really matters if you believe people will go to hell for that. (Not that I believe in types of choices, all are determined.)Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
Live and let live.
:goodidea:
no
:sniper:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark75