Listen to a special audio message from Bill Roper to the Hive Workshop community (Bill is a former Vice President of Blizzard Entertainment, Producer, Designer, Musician, Voice Actor) 🔗Click here to hear his message!
Yet you've shown me nothing proving otherwise. One of the key tenants of religion is blind faith. Convince people that something is handed down by god, and you have an army of followers doing your bidding. Isn't that controlling?
You know, I hear this one a lot too. I really have to wonder whether or not you can cite any remotely obscure bit of history to support this belief of yours.
Hm, that's the opposite of human nature. People are curious, and they want answers. The difference is that religions make up those answers (or ignore them entirely), and science looks for them.
Hence why making up things about God is one of the worst sins cited in, oh, probably most religions.
Why not look up the history of the Christian church? The Crusades, Manifest Destiny, the modern story of Lucipher, all orchestrated to dominate people. I'd say that qualifies as 'trying to control people'.
But most (if not all) religions do or have done this, to an extent. And Christianity is definitely one of those. I mean, just look at this quote from Romans:
''Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.''
How do you know you won't live the way I do? Maybe you will be me and re-live the way I have lived in another life. Or, perhaps you are doing it right now in another dimension an alternate reality. If you could put your viewpoint aside for one second and give me the slightest bit of respect, I am still unsure if you could see what I have been getting at. What I mean is...
If you arrive at a conclusion without justification, this conclusion is not justifiable. There is a very small chance that it is correct, but by no means is this likely or this method repeatable.
I have rational conclusions for what I believe because of my experiences. In the same way that you think you do. You can't even prove that your past experiences or your memories are your own and that time didn't just begin this very second for you.
Go on quoting René Descartes: "Je pense, donc je suis." This is a good quote. Live your life the way you want, but "don't obsess over what other people think... If nobody ever worried about what was in other people's heads, we'd all be 33 percent more effective in our lives and on our jobs."
-Randy Pausch
I accept empiricism as valid. I agree with what you are saying accept for
I won't live the way you do, I think it promotes falsehood. And falsehood is bad. It separates us from reality.
You have no proof that instead of promoting the truth, you, in fact, are the one promoting falsehood. You cannot prove that God does not exist. Just as I cannot prove he does. Therefore, neither one of us should be trying to convince the other of anything.
"A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."
Let me explain my humble reason for writing by sympathizing with the reason William Caxton imprint Le Morte D'Arthur by Sir Thomas Malory:
"And for to pass this book shall be pleasant to read in, but for to give faith and believe that all is true that is contained herein, ye be at your liberty, but all is written for our doctrine, and for to beware that we fall not to vice or sin, but to exercise and follow virtue, by which we may come and attain to good fame and renown in this life, and after this story and transitory life, to come unto everlasting bliss in heaven, the which He grant us that reigneth in heaven, the blessed Trinity. Amen."
''Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.''
Oops, my bad. You did say it was from Romans. I need to read more >.>
So, the Romans wrote that either God or the authorities will judge you for being rebellious. That's not very surprising. However, it could be that God establishes all governing authorities. If the authority is evil, then maybe the judgement for rebelling will be that you are brave and people/God will think highly of you.
I agree, though. There is something fishy about the verse/s.
The fact that the world "isn't real" doesn't matter. Because the very fact I have my memories, I have my experience gives it meaning, and gives it it's 'value'. I think, therefore something is. Sentience is meaning, and it is value. The relevant truth is my experience of the world, the things that I perceive to actually happen. Because imperceptible events are well ... imperceptible. They have no effect on me, or my life.
You have no proof that instead of promoting the truth, you, in fact, are the one promoting falsehood. You cannot prove that God does not exist.
Our knowledge of truth is fundamentally bounded by our perception. We can know only that which we can perceive. If we have no experience of something, we can know nothing about it.
Yet you've shown me nothing proving otherwise. One of the key tenants of religion is blind faith. Convince people that something is handed down by god, and you have an army of followers doing your bidding. Isn't that controlling?
His point wasn't that religion doesn't control people (or that it does), but that it isn't necessary to control people. There are plenty of other ways to do it, people aren't all that difficult to control.
Let your kids believe what they want to believe. Don't be so strict and overprotective. That's all I got. :I
So if they want to believe 1+1=3, that's okay?
Remember that for someone who believes in God, generally, it's a matter of fact. Of course they are going to teach their children what they believe.
Strict and overprotective? Who or what are you referring to?
Why not just outlaw religious influence on children? Call it indoctrination, and let them choose for themselves at a certain age. Problem solved, and more or less, a few poisonous little zealots are kept from forcing a kid into religion without faith.
Christianity wasn't created as a means to an end. The message was right, but the method and time itself caused the problems that it's facing now. In slightly more detail, the church was more politics and income than religion. To this end, they changed the image of the devil to demonize whatever enemy they were facing at the time, to create a hatred for Satan's likeness, who was, in each case, an enemy to the nation.
The message, as always, was corrupted by people in it for their own ends. I agree with the message that was intended, and have a rather strong hatred for the church these days. As far as I know, Jesus never said "Build churches and worship like your life depended on it", he simply did his own thing, spreading his message.
As far as that indoctrination thing goes, look for the Westboro Baptist Church as an example of how this current freedom can be abused.
Why not just outlaw religious influence on children? Call it indoctrination, and let them choose for themselves at a certain age. Problem solved, and more or less, a few poisonous little zealots are kept from forcing a kid into religion without faith.
This doesn't seem prejudice to you? You don't see how this is simply you forcing your beliefs onto people in the name of saving them from being forced into something?
The message, as always, was corrupted by people in it for their own ends. I agree with the message that was intended, and have a rather strong hatred for the church these days. As far as I know, Jesus never said "Build churches and worship like your life depended on it", he simply did his own thing, spreading his message.
Religion was not meant to control people, however it has been used to control people. Religion was at one point, or another meant to actually guide people to have a better life. It ended up as being used by the people who ruled to control the people who served.
Doesn't matter if it's christianity, budihsm, musulman, or the old pagan gods (Greek gods, Egyptian gods, Roman gods).
Also religion kept the place warm for science. Now we are living the transition from explaining everything with religion to explaining everything with science.
Of course there is a chance that one of those religions does actually exist however my math is correct, the chance is equal with the end of the world coming as I type this message.
Furthermore, it's not what people become through religion (like the westboro baptist church) it's about what people do with their religion. Religion is not exact science, thus it can be interpreted by anyone. What matters now is the IQ level of the person who is interpreting religion. Note that everyone can lead their own "religious group" no matter how smart or stupid that person is, he/she just needs to find someone else who can submit to his/her teachings. No amount of followers (small or large) will determine if either religion is better or worse, just which is more popular and will show where the mediocrity of this planets people belief in or like to believe in.
Need to go for now, maybe I will catch this thread later.
Edit: Religion is not good or bad, and can be rather useful. Man does need spiritual balance, and sometimes he needs guidance via religion to achieve this.
I honestly agree with Edhel-Dur. The religion is used to shackle people's belief and therefore control them... but it was not meant to be this way. Although it is useful because it sometimes helps us spiritually.
That statement is a bit bodacious. That is like if I were to say that the Sun will come up tomorrow. There is no proof that it will. Secondly, I'm pretty sure religions exist. I think you meant to say that the chance of something that is not plainly seen by the ordinary person with his/her ordinary perception has a very small chance of existing (even though there is no proof, and again there is no proof that there is only a very small chance that the world will end abrubtly one minute from now.)
No amount of followers (small or large) will determine if either religion is better or worse, just which is more popular and will show where the mediocrity of this planets people belief in or like to believe in.
First of all, grammar and spelling errors make this sentence hard to understand, as well as the use of mediocrity from which I cannot determine whether you mean to imply about the most common belief or that you mean to insult followers of a religion by inferring they have a weakness, in which case you have no proof.
On another note, I believe that a leader should be smart. But, as we all know, this is not always the case. Nobody wants to admit that they made the wrong choice putting faith in someone, and even denying facts will be part of this stubborness. However, because someone is stubborn doesn't absolutely mean they are wrong when it comes to matters of faith. Just for fun: If you don't admit you are wrong, how can you be? Anyway, I am trying to point out that unless you tie in specific examples and facts, you should not be so objective about what you are saying. This is the same kind of problem I had with Kwah.
Please notice that I only thought one, possibly two, statements you said were objective: religion existing being as likely as the end of the world happening in this instant (in which case you could not have hit the submit button) and saying that the majority of the planet has some sort of weakness (disease as I would put it, btw some diseases are good) because they have come to a consensus on a belief system.
Edit: I'll assume that you did not mean that it was a weakness because of your edit stating that men need spiritual balance.
Man does need spiritual balance, and sometimes he needs guidance via religion to achieve this.
Some facts or evidence for this statement would be nice as well. If you are not going to point out what brought you to this conclusion, then I think it would be easier for me to take in if you started the sentence with "I think" or "I believe." I do believe men need spiritual balance, but I don't have any proof or even evidence for this conjecture. Therefore, I wouldn't state it the way you did. Also, I am willing to bet many people would disagree with this statement. I think many devout religous people think that everyone should practice their religion staunchly. I doubt that any existentialist would completely agree with that statement, as well.
I don't mean to single you out. Everything that I am writing to you I am writing to myself. I am trying to follow my own advice while replying to what you said. Take that as a compliment because I think that replying to you has helped me to write less objectively (which is a good thing, imo).
Faith is a very "interpreted" word... and i think that every one of us may have his/her own definition for faith... but it requires research for a better analysis on the matter.
Much can be said on this, I suppose. Here's my two cents, and I quote Robert E. Howard's Character, Conan the Cimmerian-
He shrugged his shoulders. "I have known many gods. He who denies them is as blind as he who trusts them too deeply. I seek not beyond death. It may be the blackness averred by the Nemedian skeptics, or Crom's realm of ice and cloud, or the snowy plains and vaulted halls of the Nordheimer's Valhalla. I know not, nor do I care. Let me live deep while I live; let me know the rich juices of red meat and stinging wine on my palate, the hot embrace of white arms, the mad exultation of battle when the blue blades flame and crimson, and I am content. Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content."
The funniest thing i think that the Devil is meant to show the chaos, the God - the order.
but put the man into the society without government laws and else such things.
he will create chaos right as other society members.
what can i say for that? chaos is deep in every human's mind.
so, the Devil means a man, right?
and the God. he's against human's nature, so... he's an enemy?
i don't know what to say. maybe "just look and think(sink?)"
P.S. think what you wanna think, but i don't want to mean that devil is good and the god is evil
Technically, the Devil is a hermaphrodite. Vision of perfect human beauty and all that, supposedly.
Aside from that, it always helps to have a more open view. Order and justice can be abused, or handled in the worst way, while chaos, if left unchecked, will also be self-destructive. A little balance is a good thing in most cases. For example, I believe in spirits, ghosts and all that fun stuff, but I also acknowledge the mounting evidence against their existance, I see where both sides are coming from.
Wizard, if you look at it, God was a jerk, and Satan was spurned for having ambition. On the other side of that, Satan got what he wanted, to be the absolute ruler of his own domain, and God was keeping what was his, to himself.
Technically, the Devil is a hermaphrodite. Vision of perfect human beauty and all that, supposedly.
Wizard, if you look at it, God was a jerk, and Satan was spurned for having ambition. On the other side of that, Satan got what he wanted, to be the absolute ruler of his own domain, and God was keeping what was his, to himself.
Is this your own personal faith, or does it draw from a particular religion?
I assume people are talking about Christianity when they refer to God (using capital G) and Satan. However none of the above is anything close to Christianity, so I assume it's something else.
His point wasn't that religion doesn't control people (or that it does), but that it isn't necessary to control people. There are plenty of other ways to do it, people aren't all that difficult to control.
So if they want to believe 1+1=3, that's okay?
Remember that for someone who believes in God, generally, it's a matter of fact. Of course they are going to teach their children what they believe.
Well, math doesn't really have anything to do with believing. Math is a science, which is pretty much the opposite.
Something can't be a fact to someone, and not be a fact to someone else. A fact is a fact. Everyone knows 1+1=2, and nobody will argue against that. This is obviously not the case with religions, which is why I think parents should never force their beliefs on children.
Strict and overprotective? Who or what are you referring to?
Parents in general. I think being overprotective is just as bad as not being protective at all. It's just a different extreme.
mr subs said:
Some parents tell you Santa is not real. My mom did. I choose not to believe her. Finding out that Santa is not real could be harmful, or it might not be. Its hard to say, really. This is where data would be helpful. "Its the hard knock life."
THW isn't really the best place to discuss things that require 'thinking' because here the average post is, well, look around you in this Offtopic section.
As an outside observer, can I possibly bring this to your attention? Need I question what it is you expected to accomplish here? Can't you do this analysis yourself?
Don't obsess over what other people think... If nobody ever worried about what was in other people's heads, we'd all be 33 percent more effective in our lives and on our jobs.
Then why did you use it? I don't care if you're forgetful. You have the full capacity to go back and edit your post before you post it. You could have, at any point, decided that what you said was not worth saying and never have published it in the first place. But you didn't. Why?
It not your thread. It's our thread. For that matter, I could search the archives and merge this into any of a number of existing threads, threads that you are not the original poster for, and it may be the case that some day I will do just that.
No, he doesn't, because he wasn't trying to be. In fact, you're the only person who seems to think so. Fact is, after I opened up the floor for ad hominem, you've taken it upon yourself to commit more ad hominem attacks that any other single or combined group of posters in this thread:
In the same line of logic is my reply to you, that I type at this very instant. I type it because I think there's a chance you're capable of comprehending what I'm explaining.
See, all this, under this Meta section, is a distinct topic from the rest of the thread. What is happening here is that we are talking about talking about the subject, instead of talking about the subject. In citing to you just now the difference between the two, I have now talked about talking about talking about the subject. And again now. Each sentence is another level removed from the actual topic. I love meta as much as the next guy, but you must understand:
Meta does not add anything to the topic.
Now read the following and notice how it is of an entirely different quality than this meta section.
So if Christianity, incidentally, does not, in fact, advocate blind faith, but instead actually preaches empirical faith, then Christianity would no longer be a religion, according to your definition?
So if, say, Islam, for example, actually dictates that people study the nature that Allah has created, then it would no longer be considered a religious text, according to you?
Children are. But you'll notice children grow up. Why does it happen that once they do, they stop giving a shit and start to stubbornly reject anything that challenges something they learned already?
No, you don't. Because you aren't religious. There are people that are religious. These people care about what is and is not sin. If making up stories about God is a sin, then a religious person is liable to be the one that doesn't make shit up.
That is going to fail miserably for 99.999% of people. Becoming a parent changes your brain chemistry. Being too loose can mean, in the worst case, that they die. You don't ignore that.
Now, as I'm sure you wont mind my saying, there are those who allege the Bible is a highly contradictory book. What if someone finds a verse that condemns blind following?
'Cuz outlawing something doesn't actually solve the problem. Ever.
Ever. Yes, I think that provides a rather nice transition, but realize that what I am about to say is of an entirely different character than all that's been discussed prior.
I am an anarchist. I no longer see laws as something that have a positive effect. Or an effect at all. Or as being any kind of reality. No, they are less real than this conversation. They are one of the least real things I can think of off hand. But this is utterly and completely incommunicable. It's simple to do. Anyone can. All you need to do is start playing Devil's advocate for anarchy. Eventually you will either reach the same conclusion as I have, or you will have met a situation that I haven't. One that gives purpose to laws. One that makes them real. One that justifies the legitimacy of government. Of allowing another human to dictate over you.
I haven't yet met any such situation. But I'll go further. I'm going to assert that there is no such situation. That there are hard limitations on what you can trust another human to do, and at the point of government, at the point of written law, you have exceeded those limits. You are then open to a slew of problems that would not have existed. A common argument is that there are tasks people cannot accomplish without government, and that these tasks cause such horrific consequences that government, as asserted, is the lesser of two evils.
Show me such a task.
I'm not finished yet. Not even close.
The next one is money. Trade. Dysfunction when each and every action does not go without material compensation. Bullshit. People love giving gifts. Almost as much as they like getting them. The only problem arises when there are limited resources. In that case, I recommend a system of clear ownership, such that the owner will be the authority to resolve the conflict. No, I have not just made a law. That is merely my recommendation. I don't care how you solve the problem, or even if you do. You're fooling yourself if you think the only conceivable solution is to institute the societal mechanisms of trade and/or law.
This isn't just some ideological wankery. This has a purpose. I'm not done yet.
You see I've been thinking about the future. Both far and near. And lately, a specific name given to a purportedly near series of events. The Singularity. Artificial Intelligence. Biological augmentation. Space travel. The civilization of this planet growing such that is envelops the universe. Maybe we'll merge with others that have arisen along the way. Either way, the goal is to not simply die with the Earth. Let's get off this rock.
In order to do that we'll need to do a few things. First, we need to build ships to travel in. Given the distances we'll be traveling, the only options are stasis, breaking physics, and living on the ships for generations. If you can't fathom reasons for us to dismiss the first two right off the bat for the foreseeable future, then I probably lost you simply with the size of this post. So let's take generation ships. A ship designed for a complete human life cycle. An entirely artificial, but complete, ecosystem. Get it? Perfection. Failure to achieve perfection is fatal. Even if we escape our dying planet and solar system, if we don't get somewhere where we can refuel, rebuild, repair, and reproduce, then we're dead in space.
I'm not done yet.
That is one way of looking at the future. Filled to the brim with all kinds of romanticisms. All kinds of stories yet to be told. And we'll want to share them. Even if it takes thousand or millions of years for the stories to reach their destinations. Even if our universal internet has a million year latency, it will be our only connection to ourselves. It will also be our only method of avoiding all these problems all over again when we find a habitable planet. You realize that children don't know anything? That with each new birth, it has to be learned all over again? Imagine you landed on this planet thousands of years ago. Not you. Your ancestors. People long dead. You don't give a shit about history. You will have no reason to believe those ancient legends. Why would you? What do you care? It's a beautiful day. The sun is shining, the birds are singing, the ocean is gently lapping at your feet, and the--Shit, Zorblax just nailed you with a water balloon. Vengeance must be had.
But at least life goes on right?
Not for us. We died a long time ago. None of us will live to see this. We were simply born in the wrong time. How depressing. Very, that's how. I think that's a shitty perspective. I want to build that ship. I want to ride it. I want to land, set up shop, have children, teach them our ancient history, be the one born to learn it, and learn it, and everything else. I don't want to be a member of the species. I want to be a member of the civilization. I want to be born many times, and die many times. I want to believe in reincarnation. This is easy to do. All you have to do is realize that perception is something entirely distinct from reality, and assume it does not carry the property of destruction. The logical conclusion thereafter is that this perceiving thing finds another body. We don't know that it can be destroyed. We don't know what it is. We have no evidence is exists anywhere else than bound to a human brain. It is, as I said, easy to believe.
I think, obviously, therefore I am. But what am I? I can't speak for anyone or anything else, but I am a little ball of perception. This thing we interact through? Reality? Just a technicality. Perception is the foremost truth, and this technical reality is just a shell built around it. You could say we're forced into it. How and why? Anyone's guess. Telepathy. I'd like to point out that telepathy is never falsifiable. No matter how many planets we go to, no matter how much knowledge we possess, we can never prove that these perceiving entities that we are are incapable of communication without going through the medium of reality. Whether it be by sound waves, bits over an electrical line, or electromagnetic waves emanating and received by chips wired into our brains.
That's all well and good, but at this point you'll easily be asking me to make a point.
Despite lacking the ability to be falsified, telepathy is not a useless endeavor. If it is possible, it is a very useful phenomena. Not only that, but, if possible, it is demonstrable. As time goes on, relentlessly forward, it will become more and more logical to assume it doesn't work, because someone would have figured it out by now. The more and more time passes, you could say it becomes less and less "likely to be true." This is, in my mind, absolutely ridiculous. Truth as a probability? Concluding without testing? Assertions about objective reality? What kind of audacity is this? Is this empiricism? Is this logical? Is this acceptable?
As I said in a previous post, I am feeling rather disconnected from reality. That causes don't have effects, that I can't alter it, and that you all will remain exactly as you are and always have been.
But, hell, nobody else is putting anything substantial forward in this thread. It's all rather much a circlejerk, and I don't find it mentally stimulating in the least. I can scarcely say anybody has had an original thought thus far, or even an unoriginal thought that blew any other reader's mind. You want a round table discussion of ideas? Fine. Have something to chew on. But this isn't something to simply talk about.
I invite you to practice telepathy with me. In an effort to discover it.
I think imagination is important, and that believing in someone like Santa is fun and possibly helpful. I believe in Santa. Some parents tell you Santa is not real. My mom did. I choose not to believe her. Finding out that Santa is not real could be harmful, or it might not be. Its hard to say, really. This is where data would be helpful. "Its the hard knock life."
Well, math doesn't really have anything to do with believing. Math is a science, which is pretty much the opposite.
Something can't be a fact to someone, and not be a fact to someone else. A fact is a fact. Everyone knows 1+1=2, and nobody will argue against that. This is obviously not the case with religions, which is why I think parents should never force their beliefs on children.
Point taken. It was a poor (in fact wrong) choice of analogy.
Let's say a kid is annoyed with someone at school, so they beat them up. Is that okay? Would you as a parent allow your child to beat up anyone they please? If not, isn't that forcing your beliefs on to your child?
Parents in general. I think being overprotective is just as bad as not being protective at all. It's just a different extreme.
Okay, sure. What does this relate to in the thread?
______________________________________
Hakeem, you've pretty much lost me. In order to try and keep a good effort on your part going, I'll ask a couple questions anyways.
If we were to apply anarchy, what would society look like? Seems to me like some form of government would arise. Anarchy assumes the best in humanity, in fact it has to assume near perfect humanity. We humans have done a pretty good job proving we are not perfect, or capable of living in peace.
Second, what evidence do you have that cause isn't followed by effect?
I imagine it being pretty much exactly like today, only the small talk made between the waitress and the customer isn't about how she got a speeding ticket on her way to work today.
Yeah probably. They will all be governments of a very different character though, simply because membership to any given potential government is a voluntary thing. It's slippery slope logic though. If you can trust an authority to take care of your garbage, what can't you trust them to do?
Anarchy assumes the best in humanity, in fact it has to assume near perfect humanity. We humans have done a pretty good job proving we are not perfect, or capable of living in peace.
It doesn't really. All we have to demonstrate is that people act the way they do primarily for reasons other than government influence, and that we're better off without it. There will still be problems, just this time around we wont be asking Obama to solve every single one of them personally.
Yeah probably. They will all be governments of a very different character though, simply because membership to any given potential government is a voluntary thing.
It doesn't really. All we have to demonstrate is that people act the way they do primarily for reasons other than government influence, and that we're better off without it. There will still be problems, just this time around we wont be asking Obama to solve every single one of them personally.
That it is founded from a state of anarchy. Without some kind of preexisting structure like a gang or something that wants to make the jump to government, you wont have any power to make your government be mandatory right off the bat. I expect that, from a state of anarchy, creating a government large enough to be effectively oppressive takes quite a herculean effort.
Demonstrate that people act the way they do for the reasons I think they do? Given I'd be explaining motivations that are deeper than the conscious layer, no, demonstrating it is really not possible. If I can't convince you it's the case using simple logic, then there is no method.
I am an anarchist. I no longer see laws as something that have a positive effect. Or an effect at all. Or as being any kind of reality. No, they are less real than this conversation. They are one of the least real things I can think of off hand. But this is utterly and completely incommunicable. It's simple to do. Anyone can. All you need to do is start playing Devil's advocate for anarchy. Eventually you will either reach the same conclusion as I have, or you will have met a situation that I haven't. One that gives purpose to laws. One that makes them real. One that justifies the legitimacy of government. Of allowing another human to dictate over you.
So, when you get to that platform, you will perhaps see a sign that tells you not to walk over it, and your parents will tell you the same, you hesitate and think: "Is this me? Am I just a robot that follows the rules of others? No... I am special." So you walk over the platform, only to realize that the sign and your parents are trying to help you; not control you. But of course, you will never fully realize this until you grow up and reach full adulthood. Some people actually never grow up out of this, and are stuck in an eternal rebellious phase. That is not a pretty sight.
Having something against laws and your government is one thing. I'm fully aware that they aren't perfect. Having beliefs like that, however... Is something completely different.
I'm not trying to offend or insult you. I just seriously have my concerns about thoughts like yours. But I suppose that is a completely different topic.
Would you honestly want to live on a planet that's in such a horrible state that we as mankind are forced to leave it? And if they were to leave it on some sort of a space shuttle, or through some sort of wormhole travel, it's not like they'd take you with them.
Or if they did, would you want to spend your entire lifetime on a space shuttle, with the only purpose to procreate and teach your child how to fly the ship, in order to keep it going once you die?
But what if you were to be the one to discover the habitable planet? Would you want to be the one that needs to rebuild society in an environment far worse from Earth, meaning that every day is nothing but struggle?
But what if you were a child that's born after society has been rebuilt on a different planet? Wouldn't that planet just feel like home, indifferent from Earth? Wouldn't history just repeat itself anyway, making you once again born in the "wrong" time?
Feeling like you were born in the wrong time is a depressing thought, but it is so without any real reason. You just feel like there's so much that'll go undiscovered once you die, but the fact is there always will be an endless supply of things not yet discovered.
Imagine our ancestors. How many of them wouldn't have wanted to see the things we've discovered and invented by now? When they thought to themselves that they were born in the wrong time, they weren't thinking "man, I'll never be able to drive my hovercar!", they were thinking "man, I'll never be able to drive my car!". Lastly, the person in the hovercar is thinking about the next generation of inventions and discoveries he feels like he won't be able to experience, because he was born in the "wrong" time.
Going for Descartes, are we?
You are, therefore you are. You are just an animal on a planet in a galaxy in a universe in a multiverse. There's nothing special about you. You think just because you have a brain. An organ. You might as well say: "My heart pumps blood to my body, therefore I am."
Reality is defined by humans. Our reality is not the "real" reality. It's much like the colors we see. Nothing says we're seeing the right colors. Different species see different colors. We see the colors we see because we rely on our sight to detect predators, not our smell or hearing like other animals, which is why some of them simply see e.g. black and white, or are just blind all together. It's just a part of surviving. Much like our reality.
We experience reality much like we see colors. Instead of our eyes telling us what it is, our brain is.
Do you honestly look at a dog running around in circles, trying to catch his own tail, and think he's experiencing the same reality as us? Sure, it has to do with him not being as intelligent as us, but that's still not the only difference from his brain to ours. Every species interprets reality in a different way.
Who's to say that there really is a correct color? What if it's just blank?
...
Who's to say that there really is a correct reality?
I'm a little late too. So let me get straight to it.
1. Religion is a tool designed by powerful men to explain things that they could not or still can't, (as Ramza stated earlier).
2. Proof of Christian fallacy, Christianity states that the world is only 6,000 years old, separated by B.C. and A.D., (I'm sure you can figure the two numbers out by yourself). Now for the cream, light from many (I don't know the percentage) stars in our universe takes more than 6,000 years to travel, therefore, if the planet is in fact 6,000 years old, we should not be able to see 90% of the stars in the sky. More proof of fallacy, religion teaches evolution is false, creatures cannot evolve from one another to become a different thing altogether, only god can create a new species, cream, if you begin a treatment for a virus, don't finish, and then continue at a later date, the virus will have evolved to the effects of the treatment and will be rendered immune.
3. Mr Subs, you're not smart, you're not cool, you're not a fucking phylisophical genius, and you're pissing a lot of people off by trolling. Please stop trolling, you've been a member for 6 months, you're not entitled to troll veteran members yet.
3. Mr Subs, you're not smart, you're not cool, you're not a fucking phylisophical genius, and you're pissing a lot of people off by trolling. Please stop trolling, you've been a member for 6 months, you're not entitled to troll veteran members yet.
This is what they've taught me in the Christian school I attended last year. If the planet were millions of years old like scientists believe, then it would subscribe to evolution which is heretical speak to the church.
What thrills me most about Christianity is that people don't recognize that god could have caused the evolution of man.
Well, math doesn't really have anything to do with believing. Math is a science, which is pretty much the opposite.
Something can't be a fact to someone, and not be a fact to someone else. A fact is a fact. Everyone knows 1+1=2, and nobody will argue against that. This is obviously not the case with religions, which is why I think parents should never force their beliefs on children.
In a sense, math does require belief at the most basic level. You always begin with a list of axioms, which are statements that you assume to be true without proof. Then you prove theorems from those assumptions. So it's a kind of faith.
Some of the things Hakeem said are interesting and I might pop in later to add a bit.
"...and after this story and transitory life, to come unto everlasting bliss in heaven, the which He grant us that reigneth in heaven, the blessed Trinity. Amen."
As an outside observer, can I possibly bring this to your attention? Need I question what it is you expected to accomplish here? Can't you do this analysis yourself?
I say mean things when I can't get my point across the nice way
You may bring anything to my attention. I wanted him to humor me, and tell me that he understood that denying that the unpercievable existed could have unknowable repercussions. I just could't explain it at the time, so thank you for this...
HAKEEM said:
Kwah said:
Because imperceptible events are well ... imperceptible. They have no effect on me, or my life.
I hope I answered all three of your questions directed to me above.
HAKEEM said:
mr subs said:
Don't obsess over what other people think... If nobody ever worried about what was in other people's heads, we'd all be 33 percent more effective in our lives and on our jobs.
When I quoted that, I thought that someone might think that. To be honest, I think I may have been obsessing over what he thought to be true and what he thought of me and my beliefs. However, that was before I stumbled upon that quote myself. I don't consider myself to be the best person, but I do really care about everyone and everything (sometimes even the micro-organisms that I might be squishing or even an inanimate object.)
haha... jk... I know, I messed up I want to apologize to him (for this comment and others like it for sure,) but I already apologized once. I know that a bad apology is worse than no apology, but I'd have to go back and look if my apology was really that bad. In which case, I might be willing to apologize again. If it wasn't written down and I couldn't go back to look, I would apologize again, though. So, I might just do that. Thanks for helping me in my quest to care more.
HAKEEM said:
mr subs said:
I don't condone the language I used or the way I reacted to Kwah.
Then why did you use it? I don't care if you're forgetful. You have the full capacity to go back and edit your post before you post it. You could have, at any point, decided that what you said was not worth saying and never have published it in the first place. But you didn't. Why?
It not your thread. It's our thread. For that matter, I could search the archives and merge this into any of a number of existing threads, threads that you are not the original poster for, and it may be the case that some day I will do just that.
:O what nerve. Let me copywright everything I said first. >.< Seriously, go ahead. "O my God, I am heartly sorry for having offended you, and I detest all my sins for your just punishment. Amen."
No, he doesn't, because he wasn't trying to be. In fact, you're the only person who seems to think so. Fact is, after I opened up the floor for ad hominem, you've taken it upon yourself to commit more ad hominem attacks that any other single or combined group of posters in this thread: A few of them...
Thank you. I was quite dilligent, wasn't I? Jokes aside... First of all: How do you know that he was not trying to be disrespectful. I find it hard to believe he wasn't trying to be disrespectful with the first thing he wrote:
Kwah said:
Oh what a bunch of clever and insightful intellectuals we all are. Hem, haw. Verily so.
He admitted we had some state of civility, and that it wouldn't last long quite possibly from what he was going on to say:
Kwah said:
Nobody knows what the fuck everybody else is talking about. Because as far as I can see, nobody is saying anything interesting. This leads to a lack of points to actually debate about, besides to mildly debase everyone else while barraging each other with truisms and meaningless bullshit... Also, we don't really want to see your PowerPoint presentation, and it probably won't blow our minds.
Thank you for quoting me. I already took everything you said as a compliment I figured you said it cuz you cared <3 hehehe
HAKEEM said:
In the same line of logic is my reply to you, that I type at this very instant. I type it because I think there's a chance you're capable of comprehending what I'm explaining.
Definition: something with refers to itself, esp. in self-parodying manner
Example: A movie-within-a-movie is an example of meta.
In my opininion (according to this defintion,) meta might add several different interests to a topic. Bear with me... maybe, the negativity any one of us thrive on (such as some of our meta) keeps us coming back to these threads for more, and that interest causes us to read something that opens our eyes (maybe not at that moment, but maybe it triggers a chain or something that really makes a difference.) I wonder if this thread would be as interesting without all the meta.
HAKEEM said:
Now read the following and notice how it is an entirely different quality than this meta section...
So if Christianity, incidentally, does not, in fact, advocate blind faith, but instead actually preaches empirical faith, then Christianity would no longer be a religion, according to your definition?
Christianity does teach empirical faith. I have never heard a priest or any of my private school teachers advocate blind faith. I think it has empirical reasons for preaching to have faith in God (I don't consider it blind, I consider believing to be seeing). I think witnessing Jesus walking around after being dead once is enough data for me to call myself Catholic.
Since the next part was a lil confusing for me, I'm gonna start the next quouted arguments from all the way back:
HAKEEM said:
Ramza said:
Men created Gods to control others, and to explain things they couldn't yet (or still can't) understand.
You know, I hear this one a lot too. I really have to wonder whether or not you can cite any remotely obscure bit of history to support this belief of yours.
So if, say, Islam, for example, actually dictates that people study the nature that Allah has created, then it would no longer be considered a religious text, according to you?
@Hakeem
I wonder if you forgot where this argument started, because I think Ramza's point was that all religious texts were created to dictate the study of a particular religion.
This reminded me of another (what I would also consider an empirical reason) reason I believe in Catholicism.
Wikipedia said:
The word catholic (derived via Late Latin catholicus, from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), meaning "universal"[1][2]) comes from the Greek phrase καθόλου (kath'holou), meaning "on the whole," "according to the whole" or "in general".
If I hadn't stumbled upon Three Secrets of Fátima while I was taking the History of the Middle East, I probably would have greatly considered converting to Islam because my History of the Middle East class. I learned about the life of Muhammad and read and wrote about several verses of the Qu'ran that I loved. "Many argue that the Quranic text cannot be reproduced in another language or form." Maybe, that is why I didn't instantly convert I wonder, were you Muslim HAKEEM, before you became an anarchist, or are you both?
Children are. But you'll notice children grow up. Why does it happen that once they do, they stop giving a shit and start to stubbornly reject anything that challenges something they learned already?
I think that stubborness/rejecting everything being a human trait is part of Ramza's point? But, you know what happens when you assume... I try to make a conscious effort to not reject what people say, but as you have noticed I can sometimes not control my behavior when I think someone is intentionally being stubborn. This might be the biggest problem I have, I dunno.
No, you don't. Because you aren't religious. There are people that are religious. These people care about what is and is not sin. If making up stories about God is a sin, then a religious person is liable to be the one that doesn't make shit up.
I like this. Although, I find that it is probably a bit more uncertain for a religious person to be liable if you consider that the person might be a cultist preacher with terrible intentions, or just some crazy zealot that thinks he knows what he is saying. I think I mostly agree, though.
HAKEEM said:
Ramza said:
What I dislike as well is that most parents don't let their kids think for themselves.
That is going to fail miserably for 99.999% of people. Becoming a parent changes your brain chemistry. Being too loose can mean, in the worst case, that they die. You don't ignore that.
Hahaha, nice statistics. I think some of that is a bit extreme. I am divided on this issue, but I would be willing to bet that being a parent would change my brain and make me more protective. However, I think the environment my offspring and I were in would also determine my level protectiveness. Also, I would stick with tradition and raise him Catholic, but not for the sake of tradition (only because I think I could teach morales most effectively using it.) I don't consider teaching your kid your faith to be controlling them. And, isn't he part of you anyway? I mean I consider all of us to be more connected than I could imagine, or at least I hope we are. Also, I must admit I would be dissapointed if my kid didn't at least keep an open mind for Catholicism. So, if he got old and stopped believing I wouldn't want him to tell me, because I believe that believing is seeing.
I found this while researching for the following argument:
"...Thus, with the Qur’an, word and act are combined: the creation is made to speak through the Qur’an. That is, just as God makes His existence and presence known and perceptible through deeds, He also communicates His presence through speech...
God, in His infinite mercy has included the whole in the parts, like a hologram, so that man with his limited capacity may grasp the meaning of the whole Qur’an in each of its parts. The same is true for the cosmic signs: each being, each thing or event is related to all the others and has meaning only within that web of relationships. For instance, an eye is an ‘eye’ and sees only when it is in the head, which is part of the body, which is ultimately part of the cosmos. Hence the maker of the eye can only be the maker of the head, the body, and the whole cosmos because the eye can only exist together with all of them. [10] The crucial point is that the Qur’anic ayat (verses/signs) and the cosmic ayat (signs/verses) are accessible to human understanding precisely because of their aforementioned characteristic. Accordingly, although man cannot comprehend the whole, he can reach universal understanding by focusing on universal particulars...
In addition, it should be noted that the Qur'an condemns blind imitation. It repeatedly condemns the blind following of the tradition of forefathers, But when they are told, “Follow what God has bestowed from on high,” some answer, “Nay, we shall follow that which we found our forefathers believing in and doing.” Why, even if their forefathers did not use their reason at all, and were devoid of guidance? ….Deaf are they, and dumb, and blind: for they do not use their reason (2: 170-171) The Qur’an persistently says, “So will you not think?” and refers what it says to reason. It invites those who refuse to consider its proposition as reasonable on its merits to ‘produce an evidence for what they claim.’[20] The believer is over and over invited to think and ponder over the evidences in the universe in order to confirm his iman (belief) in the truth of the Qur'anic message." Principles of Qur’anic Hermeneutics Yamina Mermer Indiana University
This reminds me of my paper on Taoism that I posted on the first page. I really like Taoism. Its an ancient thought-system that I am going to take another class specifically on maybe this summer.
If you want to know why I was more correct than I could think of at the time for saying that I have evidence for my belief in God/Christianity, then you should read Is Christianity based on blind faith.
"Conclusion
When claims that the Bible contains the word of God but is not the word of God are made, it is done so usually because the critic of inspiration wants to assert that the original documents in the Bible contained errors. The problem is that this undermines the very trustworthiness of God's Word. How are we to decide what is and is not inspired, and therefore true, if the very breath of God moving through a sinner results in documents with mistakes? Does this inspire trust in God's Word? Does it promote security and rest in believing God's Word? Obviously not."
Ramza said:
But most (if not all) religions do or have done this, to an extent. And Christianity is definitely one of those. I mean, just look at this quote from Romans:
''Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.''
Now, as I'm sure you wont mind my saying, there are those who allege the Bible is a highly contradictory book. What if someone finds a verse that condemns blind following?
As I said, the research I did above was for this argument. I mentioned earlier in this thread that being judged for standing up for what you believe in could be a good thing.
HAKEEM said:
Kwah said:
Because imperceptible events are well ... imperceptible. They have no effect on me, or my life.
I had to quote this again. If I could choose an answer for this thread, I would probably choose this. I love this. Question as an answer ftw. I'm sooo competitive
HAKEEM said:
Vermillion Edict said:
Why not just outlaw religious influence on children? Call it indoctrination, and let them choose for themselves at a certain age. Problem solved, and more or less, a few poisonous little zealots are kept from forcing a kid into religion without faith.
Many people had good points related to this argument and I can't pick the best one, so I'll just quote myself cuz I said something simple that I think we should keep in mind when discussing this.
mr subs said:
I totally see where you're coming from, but just because certain words or ideas spread like wildfire doesn't mean they are poisonous. I think the poison is the actions/words of those who do/speak them with ill intent or no good reason.
As far as outlawing something never solving the problem: I agree, but that does not mean I am going to give up fighting. I will fight for those who can't fight for themselves. I will stand up for what I believe in. I believe in democracy because I believe in people, and I hope that my government can really start doing a tremendous amount more good than harm. Believing that everyone will be good citizens and not try to harm anyone is, unfortunately, somewhat unrealistic, and I believe that prison is fair. Now I am getting into a bit of a different argument, though.
HAKEEM said:
I am an anarchist. I no longer see laws as something that have a positive effect. Or an effect at all. Or as being any kind of reality. No, they are less real than this conversation. They are one of the least real things I can think of off hand. But this is utterly and completely incommunicable.
I feel your pain. I am starting to think that nothing is as incommunicable as I once thought, though.
HAKEEM said:
It's simple to do. Anyone can. All you need to do is start playing Devil's advocate for anarchy. Eventually you will either reach the same conclusion as I have, or you will have met a situation that I haven't. One that gives purpose to laws. One that makes them real. One that justifies the legitimacy of government. Of allowing another human to dictate over you.
"A purer form is direct democracy when the voting public makes direct decisions or participates directly in the political process. Elements of direct democracy exist on a local level in many countries."
I think your statement is a little extreme, but I understand if your government is upsetting you. Mine is upsetting me a little, but I don't feel that my country wants to re-establish or do-away with the government. I'll give it some time before I decide my government is corrupted beyond repair.
HAKEEM said:
I haven't yet met any such situation. But I'll go further. I'm going to assert that there is no such situation. That there are hard limitations on what you can trust another human to do, and at the point of government, at the point of written law, you have exceeded those limits. You are then open to a slew of problems that would not have existed. A common argument is that there are tasks people cannot accomplish without government, and that these tasks cause such horrific consequences that government, as asserted, is the lesser of two evils,
Show me such a task.
"Magna Carta is an English charter, originally issued in the year 1215 and reissued later in the 13th century in modified versions...
The 1215 charter required King John of England to proclaim certain liberties, and accept that his will was not arbitrary, for example by explicitly accepting that no "freeman" (in the sense of non-serf) could be punished except through the law of the land, a right which is still in existence today."
No slavery?
HAKEEM said:
The next one is money. Trade. Dysfunction when each and every action does not go without material compensation. Bullshit. People love giving gifts. Almost as much as they like getting them. The only problem arises when there are limited resources. In that case, I recommend a system of clear ownership, such that the owner will be the authority to resolve the conflict. No, I have not just made a law. That is merely my recommendation. I don't care how you solve the problem, or even if you do. You're fooling yourself if you think the only conceivable solution is to institute the societal mechanisms of trade and/or law.
Capitalism is an economic system that became dominant in the Western world following the demise of feudalism.[1] There is no consensus on the precise definition nor on how the term should be used as a historical category.[2] There is general agreement that elements of capitalism include private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit or income, the accumulation of capital, competitive markets, voluntary exchange and wage labor.[3][4] The designation is applied to a variety of historical cases, varying in time, geography, politics and culture.[5]
Economists, political economists and historians have taken different perspectives on the analysis of capitalism. Economists usually emphasize the degree that government does not have control over markets (laissez faire), and on property rights.[6][7] Most political economists emphasize private property, power relations, wage labour, class and emphasize capitalism as a unique historical formation.[8] Capitalism is generally viewed as encouraging economic growth.[9] The extent to which different markets are free, as well as the rules defining private property, is a matter of politics and policy, and many states have what are termed mixed economies.
HAKEEM said:
Despite lacking the ability to be falsified, telepathy is not a useless endeavor. If it is possible, it is a very useful phenomena. Not only that, but, if possible, it is demonstrable. As time goes on, relentlessly forward, it will become more and more logical to assume it doesn't work, because someone would have figured it out by now. The more and more time passes, you could say it becomes less and less "likely to be true." This is, in my mind, absolutely ridiculous. Truth as a probability? Concluding without testing? Assertions about objective reality? What kind of audacity is this? Is this empiricism? Is this logical? Is this acceptable?
Truth as a probability?
For me... no. Truth is absolute.
Concluding without testing?
Most of my life.
Assertions about objective reality?
Never. Ok, maybe sometimes when I get lost in the moment.
What kind of audacity is this?
Do you mean is it for Windows, Mac OS X, Linux, or BSD?
Is this empiricism? This is empiricism.
Is this logical? This is logical.
Is this acceptable? This is acceptable.
HAKEEM said:
As I said in a previous post, I am feeling rather disconnected from reality. That causes don't have effects, that I can't alter it, and that you all will remain exactly as you are and always have been.
"Be the change you want to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi
HAKEEM said:
But, hell, nobody else is putting anything substantial forward in this thread. It's all rather much a circlejerk, and I don't find it mentally stimulating in the least. I can scarcely say anybody has had an original thought thus far, or even an unoriginal thought that blew any other reader's mind. You want a round table discussion of ideas? Fine. Have something to chew on. But this isn't something to simply talk about.
I didn't put anything substantial forward, huh? Thanks :/
No original thoughts, huh? And yours is just sooo much better >.> I don't think you needed to put it that way.
HAKEEM said:
I invite you to practice telepathy with me. In an effort to discover it.
Now for the cream, light from many (I don't know the percentage) stars in our universe takes more than 6,000 years to travel, therefore, if the planet is in fact 6,000 years old, we should not be able to see 90% of the stars in the sky. More proof of fallacy, religion teaches evolution is false
Quoting anything you say bothers me. This is simply not true. Your so called "cream," is illogical. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that the age of the planet has nothing to do with the number of stars visible in the sky. The number of stars visible in the sky has to do with the light reaching the earth right now, not 6000 or however many billion years ago. And, I went to a Catholic school for 4 years and was taught evolution and that the Earth is billions of years old. Lastly, you told us that you didn't know the percentage of stars. Then, in that same sentence you stated the percentage of stars.
(Don't be offended by what I said. I made it dramatic to prove my point.)
EroticSideburns said:
"My heart pumps blood to my body, therefore I am."
Descartes was trying to prove that God existed, so the idea isn't "I have a brain, therefore I am." Its more like "I percieve, therefore I am."
P.S. I did not mean to offend anyone with anything I put in this post. I might have said something dumb. It would surprise me if I didn't. Thank you for reading.
man, your post was incredibly dull, overly long and pointless. You barely even countered any arguments. You were just advertising your fucking essays and spewing out emoticons.
EroticSideburns, you're starting to sound like HAKEEM more and more each day :>
I'm going to call you EROTIC from now on.
-----
mr subs said:
If I hadn't stumbled upon Three Secrets of Fátima while I was taking the History of the Middle East, I probably would have greatly considered converting to Islam because my History of the Middle East class. I learned about the life of Muhammad and read and wrote about several verses of the Qu'ran that I loved. "Many argue that the Quranic text cannot be reproduced in another language or form." Maybe, that is why I didn't instantly convert I wonder, were you Muslim HAKEEM, before you became an anarchist, or are you both?
Yes, the Qur'an cannot be reproduced in any other language. The reason why is because the Qur'an is a
Poem
(that rhymes), it's metaphorical, and Arabic is, as my English teacher says a "Lubby Dubby" language
Like and Love mean the same thing for example.
Translating any text directly (Paraphrasing) is impossible in Arabic. You'd need to rewrite it only relying on the ideas and you'd have to write your own metaphors.
Stuff like "بسم الله الرحمان الرحيم" ("In the Name of the Merciful and Merciless God")
is easy to translate, but it all sounds weird in the end. Other things are difficult to translate because the metaphors used don't exist in English and using the direct meaning would only make sense if you're writing a book that explains the Qur'an
So if Christianity, incidentally, does not, in fact, advocate blind faith, but instead actually preaches empirical faith, then Christianity would no longer be a religion, according to your definition?
Empirical faith, does that even exist? It seems like a contradiction to me. But yeah, to me, Christianity (or any other religion) would no longer be a religion if they would solely preach empirical faith (which would then no longer be faith, but science or research).
So if, say, Islam, for example, actually dictates that people study the nature that Allah has created, then it would no longer be considered a religious text, according to you?
What mr subs said, basically. Here is the definition from Wiki: ''The texts which various religious traditions consider to be sacred, or of central importance to their religious tradition.'' What you described would by definition not be a religious text.
Children are. But you'll notice children grow up. Why does it happen that once they do, they stop giving a shit and start to stubbornly reject anything that challenges something they learned already?
I'm not sure. I think that the people who do stubbornly reject everything, are the ones who have been brought up by incredibly strict and close-minded parents themselves. Parents who forced their beliefs on their kids before they could think for themselves. But this could also just be a really bad generalization.
That is going to fail miserably for 99.999% of people. Becoming a parent changes your brain chemistry. Being too loose can mean, in the worst case, that they die. You don't ignore that.
Of course. Being too loose is never good, but neither is the opposite. Lots of parents can't find the middle way.
Now, as I'm sure you wont mind my saying, there are those who allege the Bible is a highly contradictory book. What if someone finds a verse that condemns blind following?
I would like to see that. I've been searching around google for a while, but haven't found much yet. Still, people have often used religions to control people in the past, and even now. You can't argue with that. Here, check out this quote I found:
''Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.''
-Napoleon Bonaparte
Gilles said:
Point taken. It was a poor (in fact wrong) choice of analogy.
Let's say a kid is annoyed with someone at school, so they beat them up. Is that okay? Would you as a parent allow your child to beat up anyone they please? If not, isn't that forcing your beliefs on to your child?
Again, that's not really what I'm referring to. What you're describing are more like morals. Sure, people can ''believe'' in certain morals or ''believe'' 1+1=3, but that's not the kind of believing I'm talking about. It's a bit hard to explain, as my English after all these years is still not perfect.
Okay, sure. What does this relate to in the thread?
About what kind of parents are more inclined to raise their kids so strictly. I'm not saying only religious parents do this, of course. There are probably plenty of atheist fanatics who raise their children much in the same way.
HINDYhat said:
In a sense, math does require belief at the most basic level. You always begin with a list of axioms, which are statements that you assume to be true without proof. Then you prove theorems from those assumptions. So it's a kind of faith.
Quoting anything you say bothers me. This is simply not true. Your so called "cream," is illogical. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that the age of the planet has nothing to do with the number of stars visible in the sky. The number of stars visible in the sky has to do with the light reaching the earth right now, not 6000 or however many billion years ago. And, I went to a Catholic school for 4 years and was taught evolution and that the Earth is billions of years old. Lastly, you told us that you didn't know the percentage of stars. Then, in that same sentence you stated the percentage of stars. I think you meant to say about 90%.
(Don't be offended by what I said. I made it dramatic to prove my point.)
Descartes was trying to prove that God existed, so the idea isn't "I have a brain, therefore I am." Its more like "I percieve, therefore I am."
P.S. I did not mean to offend anyone with anything I put in this post. I might have said something dumb. It would surprise me if I didn't. Thank you for reading.
1. Do you think anyone actually read that entire summary? I don't...
2. I said I don't know the exact amount, 90% is an estimation. You knew that you're just trying to paint a picture that I am an asshole and you are a religious philosophical genius.
3. I attended a Christian private school for 2 years, don't piss on me and say it's rain.
4. For the real shitter, a planet that has existed for 6,000 years cannot have light hitting it that takes 6,001 years to travel, it would require 1 more year for said light to be visible.
5. Next time don't quote children's stories.
The reasoning behind religion is, if something cannot be explained rationally it must be explained irrationally. People no longer look to the Greek gods or Roman gods when they ask why the winter comes and spring follows, because those religions were discredited and now we say they were fairy tales created to explain what we couldn't understand. Greek and Roman religious philosophy have died out, as will Christianity, Islam and eventually the peaceful religions of Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism. When humanity comes together and realizes that it alone has the power to warp its future, not a false god, the world will be a better, less violent place.
1. Religion is a topic on which EVERYBODY has a really strong opinion on. Discussing Religion is as good as insulting each other.
2. A discussion about a really heavy topic like Religion never goes anywhere unless the participants of said discussion are of the same Religion.
3. Notice how the thread's name says "Roundtable FLAME/Discussion about Beliefs". That kinda leaves you really wide open for a ban/closure of said thread.
4. I am not gonna add anything to this discussion regarding Religion because all I am going to get is "arguments" that state my beliefs "wrong".
5. All such a thread creates is even more tension and hatred among people. Saying "Without Religion, the world would be a better place" does not guarantee that it's going to be better. More likely, most people, having no fear of God anymore, would start doing all kinds of sins.
6. Neither side is absolutely right. Neither side is absolutely wrong, as "truth" is a subjective matter. We all believe in an universal truth.
Look, I know you're trying to be all neutral(-ish), but this thread is doing fine. I doesn't seem like you've actually read a single post in here, heh.
Would you honestly want to live on a planet that's in such a horrible state that we as mankind are forced to leave it? [...]
Would you want to spend your entire lifetime on a space shuttle, with the only purpose to procreate and teach your child how to fly the ship, in order to keep it going once you die?
But what if you were to be the one to discover the habitable planet? Would you want to be the one that needs to rebuild society in an environment far worse from Earth, meaning that every day is nothing but struggle?
But what if you were a child that's born after society has been rebuilt on a different planet? Wouldn't that planet just feel like home, indifferent from Earth? Wouldn't history just repeat itself anyway, making you once again born in the "wrong" time?
These are exactly the right questions to be asking in planning for such futures. :3 Reincarnation makes planning for the future a very personal endeavor.
Honestly I don't know what to do about Earth. All I want to do is be in more places than Earth in case we can't find some way to maintain it through the eons. (Think altering its orbit, etc..) But I would love to find out.
As far as life on a generation ship... I imagine we would have to make them pretty large. Massively large. Enough to make life interesting for the inhabitants. After that, I simply love the idea of being able to look out your window and see a nebula. Life in this phase is probably what excites me most.
I love building things. I have boxes filled with origami and cardboard crafts from my childhood. The chance to make the first civilization on a planet? I am so there. I don't care how hard it is.
As far as cyclical history goes, while I do want to avoid it, remembering past lives appears to be either disallowed or extremely difficult. I'd be perfectly happy either way, if for no other reason than amnesia. If I'm anything like I am now then, then I'll definitely be wanting to break the cycle by studying our interstellar history. I think it's critically important that we maintain interstellar communication. Either by million year late signals, finding some way to hack physics into teleportation of data, or telepathy.
"...and after this story and transitory life, to come unto everlasting bliss in heaven, the which He grant us that reigneth in heaven, the blessed Trinity. Amen."
I couldn't possibly make you care more than you already do. But insofar as you're willing to heed my words, I may be able to help you refine your ability to carry out what you wish to have done because you care.
See, I care about what's in other people's heads too, but you have to realize, there a right way to go about it, and a counterproductive way.
Precisely. The trouble is, "religious discussions on the internet," have a certain... Reputation. Their intent was never to break the civility. Take it as a constructive criticism. The lack of... Substance in this thread is something I agreed with them about. It is why I even bothered taking the effort to tell the story I did and open the invitation.
I am afraid the matter of my actual beliefs or lack therefore with regard to a potential deity or set of deities is entirely classified behind a veil of Functional Agnosticism.
But, since you asked, I invite you to chat with me about it.
This, I think, is the parent's fallacy. After a certain point, you have to realize they are separate and distinct; they are their own person, and you really cannot control them.
Slavery is a real problem that could be said to be solvable with government.
I figure it's just the opposite: How can slavery exist in a society hell-bent on never accepting government? It seems to me that government is the only power capable of effectively maintaining slavery.
But yeah, to me, Christianity (or any other religion) would no longer be a religion if they would solely preach empirical faith.
[...]
What you described would by definition not be a religious text.
Look, I know you're trying to be all neutral(-ish), but this thread is doing fine. I doesn't seem like you've actually read a single post in here, heh.
I'ven't (yeah, i use that combo. Fuck me.) read all the posts, but those that i read seemed quite... agressive and hateful. Oh well thank you for clearing up.
.... While on religion, may I ask- What would formulate what we consider as morality, if religion were absent? Just curious, and not certain that "innate decency" is the answer.
I guess we're pretty much going off-tangent anyway.
I saw a lot of disrespect in discussions on the medivh tower that I couldn't put my two cents in on. I was hoping to open the minds of those people, hoping they joined in here to try to troll, and then realized: maybe, we are all connected and I should be more careful about what I say.
I couldn't possibly make you care more than you already do. But insofar as you're willing to heed my words, I may be able to help you refine your ability to carry out what you wish to have done because you care.
See, I care about what's in other people's heads too, but you have to realize, there a right way to go about it, and a counterproductive way.
Well, I don't think you can read his mind. Maybe, if you knew him personally irl for years, I'd take your word for it.
Precisely. The trouble is, "religious discussions on the internet," have a certain... Reputation. Their intent was never to break the civility. Take it as a constructive criticism. The lack of... Substance in this thread is something I agreed with them about. It is why I even bothered taking the effort to tell the story I did and open the invitation.
Well, if you still think I am not or have not added any substance to this thread, I'm just gonna go unactive for awhile. I'm starting to feel "useless" as Ralle puts it.
I am afraid the matter of my actual beliefs or lack therefore with regard to a potential deity or set of deities is entirely classified behind a veil of Functional Agnosticism.
I agree with what is said in Agnosticism, but like I said, the story of Fátima and the universal meaning of Catholicism keeps me Catholic. I believe in atheism, too, but I also think that those who don't believe that God might exist aren't keeping a very open mind. However, like I said: I don't blatenly believe everything I hear. I'm just trying to be accepting and tolerant.
Ramza said:
HAKEEM said:
So if Christianity, incidentally, does not, in fact, advocate blind faith, but instead actually preaches empirical faith, then Christianity would no longer be a religion, according to your definition?
Empirical faith, does that even exist? It seems like a contradiction to me. But yeah, to me, Christianity (or any other religion) would no longer be a religion if they would solely preach empirical faith (which would then no longer be faith, but science or research).
Christian's preach how to be a good person, and quote examples of it in the bible. Mass does not consist of one man preaching, "Blindly believe in God, derp." Everyone is there because they believe they should be to remind them of who they wronged and forgot to apologize to or keep their minds fresh with how much others have sacrificed before them. People dieing for what they believe in is tragic. Church is a place to be social and spread peace.
This, I think, is the parent's fallacy. After a certain point, you have to realize they are separate and distinct; they are their own person, and you really cannot control them.
I never said I was going to control them. Only that I was going to teach them. I understand the fallacy, but I consider all of us to be more connected than I can imagine.
HAKEEM said:
mr subs said:
I believe in democracy because I believe in people.
Fair enough. It was hard for me to say that about democracy. However, I cannot predict the repercussions if the country was to abolish our own government. I feel that it creates order.
Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
While you wait centuries for the government to improve, untold thousands, millions, even, slip through the cracks.
I never said that I know my government is evil. I am still trying to decide.
Slavery is a real problem that could be said to be solvable with government.
I figure it's just the opposite: How can slavery exist in a society hell-bent on never accepting government? It seems to me that government is the only power capable of effectively maintaining slavery.
No several times. I still am, but I am feeling disconnected from the hive, so I don't know how much longer I am going to keep up with this. I do appreciate the kindness I have recieved from many, and hope I have made some friends. I just need to focus more on my self, for the time being.
ERYFKRAD said:
While on religion, may I ask- What would formulate what we consider as morality, if religion were absent?
a planet that has existed for 6,000 years cannot have light hitting it that takes 6,001 years to travel, it would require 1 more year for said light to be visible.
Yes, but that does not prove that our planet must be over 6,000 years old. Try to understand that the light that you see from stars might have taken billions of years to arrive to our planet, but we are seeing it now. The planet's age has nothing to do with how many stars we see.
xRiotzx said:
The reasoning behind religion is, if something cannot be explained rationally it must be explained irrationally.
If you want to know why I was more correct than I could think of at the time for saying that I have evidence for my belief in God/Christianity, then you should read http://www.emjc3.com/blindfaith.htm.
Buddhism and Taoism are not religions. They are thought systems.
xRiotzx said:
When humanity comes together and realizes that it alone has the power to warp its future, not a false god, the world will be a better, less violent place.
When everyone thinks like you and acts like you. Is that what you mean? Because, I don't think the world will be a better place if everyone is as disrespectful as you.
For the real shitter, a planet that has existed for 6,000 years cannot have light hitting it that takes 6,001 years to travel, it would require 1 more year for said light to be visible.
This is incorrect. The light would begin to travel when the star would be created.
Let's assume a 12 billion year old star.
11.999994 billion years later, the earth is created. (In this case, we assumed the Earth is 6000 years old)
The light of the star would reach the Earth in 6000 years, so you see, the age of the Earth is irrelevant, it's the age of the universe.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
