Aaah, the logical mind of the unbeliever. I must admit that I respect you for such good arguments.
But let me put it this way. Throughout history, there have ALWAYS been at least a few people who have believed in monotheism, or otherwise, in it's many names, God.
What else can you name that people have been faithful too, throughout all history, that they can not physically feel, see, smell, taste, or touch? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
People never do anything unless there is something in it for them. It's how society works. I find it hard too believe that people would spend so much time, worshipping, giving their hard earned money too, and spending much of their time over, something that did not exist.
People want rewards.
So what you are saying is that all these people are spending all this time at church for nothing?
I say, "Bologna".
People go too church because they are rewarded. They are rewarded by the many gifts of God. They are spiritually lifted by his endless mercy and power.
I agree, around Jesus' time, there were many who claimed too be prophets and were probably crucified. But it's not like the Bible doesn't mention this. One of the main reasons they crucified Jesus was because of the fact that there were so many other people claiming too be what he was. But you can't just say that he didn't exist because others came too a similar end...
I agree with you. People do want something too satisfy the 'holes' within themselves. But why do you think those holes are there? If there is no God, then how come unbelievers feel 'incomplete' without him? Why would ├óÔé¼╦£natural selection├óÔé¼Ôäó create such holes?
Do you think that half the world would go too church everyday if there was really nothing in it for them? Do you think that half the world would waste their money or their time if it was all just a big scam? I think that after more than 8000 years, somebody would have caught on by now...
Look - I agree with you Atlantai. Somebody is wrong. This is black and white. Either God exists or he doesn't. But it's much easier in today's society too believe he doesn't, yet many, very many still do. Explain that too me.
Once again, no hard feelings. I honestly care and am curious about your opinion. Please do not take offense too what I have just said.
Thanks,
Wing
Atlantai Please Read
Moderator: Moderators
-
Charlemagne
- Posts: 174
- Joined: 18 Apr 2005, 17:59
I must diagree with you on the point of black/white. There is always a grey zone, and especially in religious debates. I believe that the viewpoint of everything being either one thing or the other is one of humanities greatest flaws, because everywhere I look at these issues, there are always shades of grey.
In this debate, the shades of grey could be a simple statement like: "Yes, God might exist, but certainly not in the way Christian think", or, my very own belief: "We are our own Gods."
As for church, the reason many people go there is because they know they will get something from it. A person who truly believes he will go to heaven after death if he goes to church, will go to heaven after death because he went to church, because if a person truly knows that something is true, wether or not others see it as true, it is true, for that person.
And as such, we can shape our own religious life, and our own reality around us. It might not be compatitable with other peoples religious lives and realities, but it is our own, and if we truly know we are correct, we are correct.
As such, as a Christian, you will go to heaven, and you will experience God* if you go to church, if you pray and follow the words of Jesus, while a buddhist won't achieve a bit by going to Church, but by meditiation and karma he will recieve Nirvana.
Thus, since we can shape our own reality around us, we are our own Gods, and we can chose by ourselves what salvation we will get and how. You have chosen Christianity, an atheist has chosen science (most likely anyway), and I have chosen another path (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discordianism).
I am aware that this contradicts mostly every well-established religion, as well as science and "logic" but so be it.
In this debate, the shades of grey could be a simple statement like: "Yes, God might exist, but certainly not in the way Christian think", or, my very own belief: "We are our own Gods."
As for church, the reason many people go there is because they know they will get something from it. A person who truly believes he will go to heaven after death if he goes to church, will go to heaven after death because he went to church, because if a person truly knows that something is true, wether or not others see it as true, it is true, for that person.
And as such, we can shape our own religious life, and our own reality around us. It might not be compatitable with other peoples religious lives and realities, but it is our own, and if we truly know we are correct, we are correct.
As such, as a Christian, you will go to heaven, and you will experience God* if you go to church, if you pray and follow the words of Jesus, while a buddhist won't achieve a bit by going to Church, but by meditiation and karma he will recieve Nirvana.
Thus, since we can shape our own reality around us, we are our own Gods, and we can chose by ourselves what salvation we will get and how. You have chosen Christianity, an atheist has chosen science (most likely anyway), and I have chosen another path (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discordianism).
I am aware that this contradicts mostly every well-established religion, as well as science and "logic" but so be it.
I don't see how you can believe what you believe Charlemagne. There are so many arguments against it and, from what I can tell, very few for it.
You said that, if we, as humans, truly know something too be true, then it will be true.
My first argument would be that this statement in itself defies all logical significance. How can you explain how this would work?
You're saying that if somebody 'knew' they were going to heaven, and they died, that heaven would be created for them and that they would somehow go there? Who is going to create 'heaven' for them. And better yet, who is going too take them there?
Come on dude. It sounds like a fairy tale of some sort. How could you believe this?
My second argument would be, what happens if 2 or more people 'know' something contradictive at the same time.
Let's say The President of the United States gets shot. Everybody assumes him dead. Until one day, many years later, he wakes up from a deep coma, and crawls out of his shallow grave. If many people 'know' he is dead, then how is this possible?
Can you please explain why you believe this, and if that is not possible (which is very likely), please explain how you came too believe this?
Once again, no hard feeling, I am just now really curious.
You said that, if we, as humans, truly know something too be true, then it will be true.
My first argument would be that this statement in itself defies all logical significance. How can you explain how this would work?
You're saying that if somebody 'knew' they were going to heaven, and they died, that heaven would be created for them and that they would somehow go there? Who is going to create 'heaven' for them. And better yet, who is going too take them there?
Come on dude. It sounds like a fairy tale of some sort. How could you believe this?
My second argument would be, what happens if 2 or more people 'know' something contradictive at the same time.
Let's say The President of the United States gets shot. Everybody assumes him dead. Until one day, many years later, he wakes up from a deep coma, and crawls out of his shallow grave. If many people 'know' he is dead, then how is this possible?
Can you please explain why you believe this, and if that is not possible (which is very likely), please explain how you came too believe this?
Once again, no hard feeling, I am just now really curious.
-
Charlemagne
- Posts: 174
- Joined: 18 Apr 2005, 17:59
If heaven really happens or not if you believe it will is something the dead will have to answer, really. My view is that for the living person there is an assurance that heaven will appear when he dies. If it really does or not is anybodies guess really.
I prefer not to care about what happens when I die (surprise me) and I haven't given that any real thought.
If somebody know something that is contradictory to what most people believe, then that person is considered to be mad. See it like this:
A mental patience is convinced that he is in fact twelve years old, but to all others it is appearent he really is much older. However, no matter what happens, he can't be convinced he is anything else than twelve.
Now, in his mind, he is the one that is correct, and everyone else are just crazy, because he can't see how he could be anything else than twelve.
For the rest of us, he isn't twelve, and to us, he is the one that's crazy.
Now, who's "right"? What I am trying to say is that both are right, and both are wrong, because to the mental patient, he really is twelve, and nothing really can't change that, but to us, he can't be twelve and nothing can change that.
Do you understand my argument now? We make our own world around us with our mind.
No offence taken. =) If people were afraid to question each other, debate wouldn't happen.
I prefer not to care about what happens when I die (surprise me) and I haven't given that any real thought.
If somebody know something that is contradictory to what most people believe, then that person is considered to be mad. See it like this:
A mental patience is convinced that he is in fact twelve years old, but to all others it is appearent he really is much older. However, no matter what happens, he can't be convinced he is anything else than twelve.
Now, in his mind, he is the one that is correct, and everyone else are just crazy, because he can't see how he could be anything else than twelve.
For the rest of us, he isn't twelve, and to us, he is the one that's crazy.
Now, who's "right"? What I am trying to say is that both are right, and both are wrong, because to the mental patient, he really is twelve, and nothing really can't change that, but to us, he can't be twelve and nothing can change that.
Do you understand my argument now? We make our own world around us with our mind.
No offence taken. =) If people were afraid to question each other, debate wouldn't happen.
-
[K.B.] Napalm Cobra
- Posts: 1222
- Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 06:15
Mr. Anderson[K.B.] Napalm Cobra wrote:Accept enivitablility.
religious debates are funny :)
i'd just like to point out about cults, people throw their entire lives at those, what do they get for it? nothing, but they believe they will. i don't think religions are any difference just 'cause they get a new name and are more popular, look around the world... people are idiots, always have been, certainly always will be.
its inresting how you dismiss religioun out of ignorance and pride in your "wide" reading. religioun plays fundamental role in your life. all law derives from theology, everything you think is right and wrong all comes from ancient faiths. just because people claiming to represent god commit crimes and sins doesnt mean god doesnt exist or one shouldnt at least be aware of something above them. its also ammusing how none of you have read the bible yet claim its wrong because at school you dont want to appear to be geeky/weird. even if god doesnt exist he still has done a great deal by providing certain moral stndadard which alot of people try to follow.
-
Charlemagne
- Posts: 174
- Joined: 18 Apr 2005, 17:59
This is a question of defination. I mean, certain religions, for example discordianism, is all about the individual's right to chose his own believes. Do you define that to be religion, or just life philosophy?Liam wrote:Mr. Anderson[K.B.] Napalm Cobra wrote:Accept enivitablility.
religious debates are funny :)
i'd just like to point out about cults, people throw their entire lives at those, what do they get for it? nothing, but they believe they will. i don't think religions are any difference just 'cause they get a new name and are more popular, look around the world... people are idiots, always have been, certainly always will be.
But the patient is, in fact, much older than twelve, so even if he 'knew' he was twelve, wouldn't he be wrong?Charlemagne wrote:If heaven really happens or not if you believe it will is something the dead will have to answer, really. My view is that for the living person there is an assurance that heaven will appear when he dies. If it really does or not is anybodies guess really.
I prefer not to care about what happens when I die (surprise me) and I haven't given that any real thought.
If somebody know something that is contradictory to what most people believe, then that person is considered to be mad. See it like this:
A mental patience is convinced that he is in fact twelve years old, but to all others it is appearent he really is much older. However, no matter what happens, he can't be convinced he is anything else than twelve.
Now, in his mind, he is the one that is correct, and everyone else are just crazy, because he can't see how he could be anything else than twelve.
For the rest of us, he isn't twelve, and to us, he is the one that's crazy.
Now, who's "right"? What I am trying to say is that both are right, and both are wrong, because to the mental patient, he really is twelve, and nothing really can't change that, but to us, he can't be twelve and nothing can change that.
Do you understand my argument now? We make our own world around us with our mind.
No offence taken. =) If people were afraid to question each other, debate wouldn't happen.
The problem with Discordianism is that somebody has too be wrong, which makes Discordianism more of a belief that people should be able too believe whatever they wan't too believe than a faith.
Once again, I'm not trying too insult you, I agree with you that debate is only natural and useful.
Wing
-
Charlemagne
- Posts: 174
- Joined: 18 Apr 2005, 17:59
He is wrong, from your point of view, but from his own point of view, he isn't.But the patient is, in fact, much older than twelve, so even if he 'knew' he was twelve, wouldn't he be wrong?
I don't think you quite follow here. Somebody has to be wrong, yes, but I am saying, that wrong isn't always wrong, in fact, to some people, it might be right.The problem with Discordianism is that somebody has too be wrong, which makes Discordianism more of a belief that people should be able too believe whatever they wan't too believe than a faith.
Once again, I'm not trying too insult you, I agree with you that debate is only natural and useful.
Wing
And once again, I am not insulted. =)
But point of views are opinion. The patient is, in reality, older than 12 years old. It is a fact that the patient is wrong. Whether he 'knows' it, or not.Charlemagne wrote:He is wrong, from your point of view, but from his own point of view, he isn't.But the patient is, in fact, much older than twelve, so even if he 'knew' he was twelve, wouldn't he be wrong?
Are you saying that Discordianism is an opinion? Or that faith in general is an opinion?
I thought that faith, or what you believed in, was supposed to be a reality.
Wing
You fools, Discordianism? Hmmm I havent heard fo that.
My belief is profound and is all encompassing to a point where ti is not all encompassing, all encompassing and neither. It fits with religion and everythign we knwo and more. But my mums nagging at em to get fof as my sisters interrupted my lans and lef me with 5 minutes o surf the forum
My belief is profound and is all encompassing to a point where ti is not all encompassing, all encompassing and neither. It fits with religion and everythign we knwo and more. But my mums nagging at em to get fof as my sisters interrupted my lans and lef me with 5 minutes o surf the forum
-
[K.B.] Napalm Cobra
- Posts: 1222
- Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 06:15
-
Archangel of Death
- Posts: 854
- Joined: 28 Jan 2005, 18:15
("Why am I getting involved in this at all?" "I don't know, just to respond to a couple silly posts?")
And here we find that Napalm Cobra is wrong, assuming of course he was basing that off of mathematics. Because according to mathematics, 7 times 8 is 56. To argue something from the perspective of mathematics, you must first allow the premises of mathematics, even if your goal is to prove it wrong.
Somewhere in there I sence a possible gem of truth.
(Religion is a touchy subject. I encourage all denizens of this board to refrain from attacking the people posting their opinions, and only attack the opinions themselves. AND with debate, not "your opinion ****'s!". Such discussion is often in danger of degenerating into that.)
And here we find that Napalm Cobra is wrong, assuming of course he was basing that off of mathematics. Because according to mathematics, 7 times 8 is 56. To argue something from the perspective of mathematics, you must first allow the premises of mathematics, even if your goal is to prove it wrong.
Somewhere in there I sence a possible gem of truth.
(Religion is a touchy subject. I encourage all denizens of this board to refrain from attacking the people posting their opinions, and only attack the opinions themselves. AND with debate, not "your opinion ****'s!". Such discussion is often in danger of degenerating into that.)
-
[K.B.] Napalm Cobra
- Posts: 1222
- Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 06:15
-
PauloMorfeo
- Posts: 2004
- Joined: 15 Dec 2004, 20:53
Were you actually giving arguments against faithfull belief in religion and helping your oposition? hahahahaWingflier wrote:Come on dude. It sounds like a fairy tale of some sort. How could you believe this?
If you like to hear stupid argument after stupid argument after stupid argument ... ... ...Liam wrote:religious debates are funny :)
The only discussion worse than this would be one about how good or evil the actual USA administration is...
-
Charlemagne
- Posts: 174
- Joined: 18 Apr 2005, 17:59
Yes, opinions about reality. Reality is defined differnetly by different people. If we don't take as radical people as the above example, let's say a person from today meets one from 560 AD.But point of views are opinion. The patient is, in reality, older than 12 years old. It is a fact that the patient is wrong. Whether he 'knows' it, or not.
Are you saying that Discordianism is an opinion? Or that faith in general is an opinion?
I thought that faith, or what you believed in, was supposed to be a reality.
In 560 AD everyone knew that thunder was the wrath of the Gods/God, today we know it is when two differentlyt charged clouds collide or soemthing like that.
So, who then is right? In the modern day, it is generally accepted (at least in the west) that thunder is scientific, as for 560 AD, it is a religious thing, and genereally accepted as such. In the reality of 560 AD, thunder was the wrath of Diety XXXXX, and today, it is just a scientific phenomenon, and in a 1000 years, who knows what we define it as? For all we know, they could discover something that proves science is all wrong.
Everything is an option, and there is always an option.
Yes, in a way you could say a faith is a reality. In discordianism, that reality is the reality that is defined by each person individually, in Christianity, reality is the reality that is defined by God.
And, just so you know, I don't say God doesn't exist. There might be some kind of thing out there that run it all. A friend omf mine once said God was inpropability and randomness, because these two can't really be explained otherwise.
On the other hand, I don't believe in God as the christian God. Whenever I run across something that seems to have been divine intervention, I blame Eris. =)
About discordianism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discordianism wikipedia has a bit of explanation, even if theirs' is a bit too scientific for my liking. Also, http://www.principiadiscordia.com/ has the scripture on which the religion is based on its site.
And also... anyone know how Fnordia got his nick?
Charlemagne, I take it you do not believe in the principle of the uniformity of nature (PUN). Without it, there is no way to show that anyone is wrong about something. However, there is also no reason to believe that in the next second you will not die because water is no longer a stable molecule, or that gravity now repels, or even any way to estimate the probability of such things happening.
Ok so wing flier, I take offence from this thread, but not for the reasons one would think. I take offense because you miss spelt my name in such a horrendous way.
My philosophy├óÔé¼┬ª├óÔé¼┬ª. I see discordianism and Charlemagne I appreciate that you seem to grasp concepts that the ├óÔé¼╦£book├óÔé¼Ôäó religions do not. And for those of you who are Christian I beg of you to realise the HUGE mistake you have made in interpreting the bible. We are god, god is everywhere because god is US and god is each and everyone of us and all at the same time. That is what is meant when the bible says god created us in our image. And wing flier I am not a Christian, although I was in a roman catholic faith school for primary school.
So I point you to my philosophy. As discordianism says, text is a source from which belief can be derived, it is not something from which religion should be obtained.
In my world, there is no world, and yet there is. We are our own gods but god is a concept and my philosophy is concerned with concepts. The concept itself is a concept. Our world is created by us ourselves and our concepts manifested. Our concept of common sense, logic, numbers, the concept of something and nothing, these are all manifest and from which we draw concepts of the consequences of these manifestations and how these concepts interact. We can change the world by changing the concept, although I doubt anyone could just click there fingers, these concepts are ingrained in us to a huge extent, they are the very reason we exist in the first place, because of the concept of life, the concept of self awareness, and most importantly the concept of concepts.
Wingflier I suggest you read George Orwell├óÔé¼Ôäós 1984 in full, then you will understand the point made by discordianism and the way it deals with the term reality. Texts advise us on fiction and fact. The only place you should look for religion is within yourself, but that isn├óÔé¼Ôäót religion though is it? That├óÔé¼Ôäós philosophy, metaphysics, your own beliefs. ├óÔé¼┬ª.
My philosophy├óÔé¼┬ª├óÔé¼┬ª. I see discordianism and Charlemagne I appreciate that you seem to grasp concepts that the ├óÔé¼╦£book├óÔé¼Ôäó religions do not. And for those of you who are Christian I beg of you to realise the HUGE mistake you have made in interpreting the bible. We are god, god is everywhere because god is US and god is each and everyone of us and all at the same time. That is what is meant when the bible says god created us in our image. And wing flier I am not a Christian, although I was in a roman catholic faith school for primary school.
So I point you to my philosophy. As discordianism says, text is a source from which belief can be derived, it is not something from which religion should be obtained.
In my world, there is no world, and yet there is. We are our own gods but god is a concept and my philosophy is concerned with concepts. The concept itself is a concept. Our world is created by us ourselves and our concepts manifested. Our concept of common sense, logic, numbers, the concept of something and nothing, these are all manifest and from which we draw concepts of the consequences of these manifestations and how these concepts interact. We can change the world by changing the concept, although I doubt anyone could just click there fingers, these concepts are ingrained in us to a huge extent, they are the very reason we exist in the first place, because of the concept of life, the concept of self awareness, and most importantly the concept of concepts.
Wingflier I suggest you read George Orwell├óÔé¼Ôäós 1984 in full, then you will understand the point made by discordianism and the way it deals with the term reality. Texts advise us on fiction and fact. The only place you should look for religion is within yourself, but that isn├óÔé¼Ôäót religion though is it? That├óÔé¼Ôäós philosophy, metaphysics, your own beliefs. ├óÔé¼┬ª.