Yeah, destiny is one of those things that can't really be proven for or against (yet? Ö). Personally, I don't like the idea that everything we do is 'pre-written', as it were, but I do believe in 'destiny' to some extent. Just not in the traditional sense.
Earlier I was thinking about destiny, and came to the conclusion that while I don't like the idea of a 'higher power' dictating what happens in our lives word for word, but I can see how certain circumstances can lead towards shaping a person's 'destiny' indirectly.
For example, take the scenario of someone killing your parents when you are a child (quite a grim example, but anyway...). What happens to you after that will involve some things out of your control (i.e. the fact you now have no parents, there will be some issues regarding the fact that someone killed your parents and also the fact that you never got to speak to them). Then there are certain things that are in your control (how you act given the situations, who you become, what you do with your time, etc.).
Now, it can generally be agreed upon given this example that there are certain things within your control and certain things outside of your control. In that sense, I believe that 'destiny' could be defined as the things outside of your control. However, there are things that aren't written. Within the example, you could have dead parents in your childhood, yet your choices could still lead to you becoming the happiest person in the world.
But this then leads to me thinking about how the person who's parents are now dead personality would shape the supposed 'choice' aspects of their life. If they were one to dwell on the bad things in their life and just use those occurances as an excuse for their failure, could that be seen as destiny? Likewise, if the person was more optimistic and managed to make the best of a truly horrible situation, leading to them being more successful, would that be destiny?
Interestingly enough, this now boils down to whether or not people are capable of changing on their own accord or whether or not these changes are pre-wrritten. And this is where my brainwave stops to a halt, where this aspect could perhaps be interpreted differently by different people. Perhaps some people would think the changes are destiny in action, while others would disagree. Either way, it's impossible to truly disagree or agree intelligently on something where there is no real proof (other than agreeing or disagreeing on a good way to think of it, I suppose, but even that is opinion based).
Post reported
That statement just insulted 3.7 billion people including me -___-
Close-mindedness is a true killer. 3.7 billion people obviously need to learn to think outside the box.
Without death, life is meaningless (not in an Atheistic kind of way).
Why would someone want to live a life that won't end? It would be
pointless. In conclusion, we need death.
Feel free to disagree with me, because by opposing my statement,
you'd be saying that an interminable and monotonous life is better
than a limited exciting one
More close-mindedness. People who disagree with that aren't necessarily saying what you suggest they're saying. Your treating your opinion on people who disagree with your opinion as a fact. Which is easily proven as false on account of what people would really be saying.
