|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted March 18, 2010 08:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
From my perspective, singularity is the beginning. Time started with it, so we cannot backtrack to a point before it. It sounds reasonable to take that singularity and physics laws as the 'first, uncaused cause' (although I don't believe it's uncaused because I believe in souls).
Ok, so, you agree the singularity had to have a cause and that the cause is not "natural" (material.) I am interested in your belief if you would care to share it.
Quote:
Eve knew God's commandment not to eat of the treee. But Satan deceived her and she ate of the tree thinking something good would happen. She "fell" into transgrassion. Adam ate of the tree if full realization that he was disobeying God and knowing that consequences would follow. He willfully sinned.
Then this only means they had free will. We should be proud of them  Every rule must have a reason. If the reason isn't explained, the rule isn't logical, only reason to follow it is obedience. This depicts a god that requires obedience, like a tyrant.
Why should we be proud of rebellion? The rule not to eat of the fruit of that one tree had a reason. The reason just is not spelled out. God is good and only wants the best for mankind.
Why is the rule not to eat of the tree illogical? It could be that given a certain point in man's development he would have been allowed to eat of the tree. Maybe he just was "not ready yet."
So I find your claim that this depicts God as a tyrant to be illogical. You are making a number of assumptions that are not justified.
Quote:
Yes, this is fair that Hitler isn't in the same boat with saints.
But even Hitler didn't torture people *eternally*.
It is especially unfair to apply torture to ones who sinned without hurting others - for example, sex without marriage, already mentioned gays and so on. It's not "reap what we have sown" at all. It isn't love and isn't justice, so I'm clueless as to what reason a good god may have for such things.
On what basis do you decide how long it is appropriate for someone to be in hell?
What is your basis for saying that sex outside of marriage hurts no one? It can produce children who feel unwanted, broken families and all sorts of ills. So no, sex outside of marriage is not a sin that does not hurt others. The same can be said of any other sin.
Again, you are making assumptions and assuming your assumptions are right. You have unjustly judged God.
____________
Revelation
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted March 18, 2010 08:44 PM |
|
|
I don't understand the problem with 2^(-0.5), that is just 1/sqrt(2). 
About 0/0, I always used to say it is any number, because
Any number * 0 = 0, so I call 0/0 everything/anything.
Quote:
No, matter could not have been eternal for reasons already referenced. Ever hear of entropy?
If I am not mistaken, letting the universe (not the observable universe, the entire thing) having infinite matter and infinite size, then infinite time does not go against the idea of entropy in any way.
Since entropy is a statistical observation, that says that the quality of energy (or however you want to express it (stuff like spread out of energy or equalibrium of energy throughout the universe I have also heard)) globally decreases over time. However it does not prevent entropy to rise locally (which could be the Earth) if you somewhere else, decrease entropy sufficient. That is, to my understanding, in principle, just saying, taking energy out of a system, into another.
Letting the universe be infinite in size and mass (thereby energy) one can define any local region of which one wants to increase entropy in cost of decreasing it at any other larger local region. That should always be possible, due to the limitless size.
That means, Big Bang does not need to be the beginning, there could have been an infinite series of Big Bangs across the universe, each creating an observerable universe of their own, and at some time, happening again, because globally, entropy always rises, and locally anomalies happens with higher likelyness over higher areas of space as time progresses.
That is at least my understanding of the infinite universe theory.
Also, about the hubble observations that gives the universe an age of 13 billion years, or how much it is, again, it is the observable universe, and "all" there is to it, is that we can measure that due to following movement, extrapolating backwards, all matter where at one place at one given time.
An analogy to it, is to be part of an explosion, in some isolated region of the universe where no light either has ever shined, or at least is not present at the moement. We're one of the "flames" that goes outwards, we can look at the other "flames", measure their movement and calculate that at one time, all the materials of the explosion were at one place, before the explosion started. It does not tell anything about the world around the explosion though.
So using the term, impossible, seems a bit strong, especially in the matter of astronomy.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted March 18, 2010 08:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't understand the problem with 2^(-0.5), that is just 1/sqrt(2).
Oops...
Meant -2^0.5...
Complex numbers was what I was aimin' for.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Keksimaton
Promising
Supreme Hero
Talk to the hand
|
|
posted March 18, 2010 10:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Actually, you are wrong. The first person I am aware of to have proposed evolution is Augustine. Perhaps you should read some early Christian writings. I linked to some early Christian writings about evolution long before Darwin came along if you go back and review my posts.
As far as I know, Darwin was a christian and he was afraid of presenting his theory due to risk of religious persecution. Whatever Augustine may have written, most likely was not much regarded by the crowds and scientific community at the time.
Quote:
The differnce is Christians believe in evolution guided by God rather than a universe magically appearing out of absolute nothing for no reason and magically forming an ordered universe and magically producing life.
When considering the implications of God being the mastermind behind evolution, it just raises a whole lot of questions. An allpowerful and benevolent beign that loves us all, is responsible for evolution, which in broad lines is a system of creatures that are unable to conform to their environment dying and the capable ones surviving and mating. To make this evolution happen god made his creatures have a lust for mating with eachother and later on this same lust is defined as a bad thing. It gets even better! God created an universe in wich creatures with vulnerable and exposed genitalia and glands wich hurt really bad when tampered with are the ones that then propagated what he had meant as his own image!
And what's with that story about Adam and Eve anyway? If evolution happened, instead of all things just popping up. What exactly was the whole thing about the original sin? Who did it? At what point of evolution did man or any of his anchestors disconnect from god? Were Homo Neanderthalus affected by this as well?
Quote:
Sure it did. For the reasons I have already stated the universe could not have produced itself.
What there was before the universe is something that is outside of our knowledge at the moment and some argue that it's not very productive at this point to think about what there was before the universe.
What you actually have stated is that the universe as we know it is not capable of producing the universe as we know it(or "reproducing" the universe). Whatever observations we have made of the universe, may not necessarily apply to what was before the universe as we know it.
Quote:
No, matter could not have been eternal for reasons already referenced. Ever hear of entropy?
Who said it was matter or anything in the likes of the matter we know? And the question: "If not matter, what was it?" Is just as poinient as asking: "What is God made of?"
In a concise way, my message is the following: Whatever observations we have made of the current universe do not necessarily apply when considering whatever there may have been before the universe that we know at this point. The possibility of there being no god is still open.
____________
Noone shall pass, but no one besides him shall pass.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted March 18, 2010 10:33 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 22:39, 18 Mar 2010.
|
The first person Elodin is aware of that "proposed" evolution was Saint Augustine; he then suggests that we all go out and read some of the writings of early Christian scholars. Though I don't deny the usefulness of Elodin's suggestion, because many of the early Christian scholars had a lot of interesting stuff to say - particularly since, being early Christian scholars, Christians were not yet actively discouraged by their theological political superiors from actually thinking for themselves - perhaps Elodin should go and read some of the writings of early Greek, Roman, and Chinese scholars, who "proposed" the idea of evolution more than 5 centuries (in one case) before any Christian had even been born. And in any case, evolution as an idea is nothing truly novel - it is no great leap of thought to suppose that all of the living creatures we encounter during the course of a day may in some way be related. Clearly this is so, as so many unrelated scholars over the last few thousand years have posed the idea independently. Nevertheless, formulating an actual scientific theory describing evolution was quite a big deal indeed, and wasn't truly possible until the Enlightenment, when dogma no longer was able to fetter the creative inquiry of mankind. [Where did that dogma come from, do you suppose?] Thus the scientific discipline of evolution wasn't really formalized until the 19th century. For the record, Darwin's theory wasn't the first true evolutionary scientific theory at all - that honor goes to Lamarck. But of course Darwin's version of evolution (natural selection) was the first scientific theory to actually get it right.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted March 19, 2010 03:02 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 03:06, 19 Mar 2010.
|
@Keksimaton
I am making final preparations for leaving town for the weekend so my comments will have to be brief.
First, Augustine's theories were quite popular for some time.
Second, perhps you would find this article interesting if you are really interested in the idea of theistic evolution. It is a comment on some of Augustine's writings.
[url=http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/may/22.39.html?start=1] Augustine's Origin of Species [/url]
Third, you will note if you read Genesis that the seventh day of creation never ended. We are sitll in that "day." That day is called "the day of salvation" in Hebrews. That will round out the "week" of creation. The next "day" is the "Day of the Lord", the "Day of Judgement." That is the beginning of the "new creation" whean all things are made new, evil is vanquished to hell, and God's followers live in eternity with him.
Time has no meaning to God. He dwells outside of time and in every instant in time. One day is as a thousand years to the Lord and one thousand years as one day, as the Bible says. God is "I AM."
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted March 19, 2010 07:53 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Time has no meaning to God. He dwells outside of time and in every instant in time. One day is as a thousand years to the Lord and one thousand years as one day, as the Bible says. God is "I AM."
Well, does or doesn't he perceive time then?
And were the people who wrote genesis even aware of time as a separate entity or other dimension?
Kind of sounds something from the past century, really...
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
GrayFace
Promising
Known Hero
|
|
posted March 19, 2010 11:40 AM |
|
Edited by GrayFace at 12:50, 19 Mar 2010.
|
Elodin,
Quote:
Ok, so, you agree the singularity had to have a cause and that the cause is not "natural" (material.) I am interested in your belief if you would care to share it.
It doesn't come from singularity. As I said, I have minimal requirements for the world. One of them is that I have eternal life, thus there is another world. That world couldn't be caused by this one.
Still, the theory that singularity wasn't caused is consistent. It isn't consistent with my requirements only.
Quote:
Quote:
Then this only means they had free will. We should be proud of them Every rule must have a reason. If the reason isn't explained, the rule isn't logical, only reason to follow it is obedience. This depicts a god that requires obedience, like a tyrant.
Why should we be proud of rebellion? The rule not to eat of the fruit of that one tree had a reason. The reason just is not spelled out. God is good and only wants the best for mankind.
Why is the rule not to eat of the tree illogical? It could be that given a certain point in man's development he would have been allowed to eat of the tree. Maybe he just was "not ready yet."
So I find your claim that this depicts God as a tyrant to be illogical. You are making a number of assumptions that are not justified.
Obedience was the only reason to follow that rule for Eve. She didn't follow and was punished.
Quote:
On what basis do you decide how long it is appropriate for someone to be in hell?
On the basis of someone's deeds. God may also judge on the basis of someone's intension, but judgment will never be just if the choice is made between 2 extremes - Hell and Heaven.
BTW, what I can certainly decide better than God is how long it is appropriate for ME to be in hell.
Quote:
Again, you are making assumptions and assuming your assumptions are right. You have unjustly judged God.
What is the just judgment? I'm trying to compare my sense of justice and that of Christian God.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted March 19, 2010 11:59 AM |
|
Edited by bixie at 12:00, 19 Mar 2010.
|
Quote:
Quote:
The first cause had to be self-existant, immaterial, spaceless, timeless, intelligent, and powerful. God.
"Had to be" as in wishing it to be, assuming with no proof.
No, "had to be" based on facts.
o The first cause ahd to be uncaused. So it had to be self-existant.
o The first cause had to be immaterial. Matter can't be eternal for reasons already mentioned.
o The first casue had to be spaceless becasue the space-time continuim came into being in an instant at the initial moment of creathion. The first cause existed before space.
0 The first cause had to be timeless. The space-time continuim came into being in an instant. The first cause existed before time.
o The first cause had to be intelligent to produce the universe. To make a decision to go from a state of nothingness to what is now the existence that we know.
o The first cause had to be powerful to produce the universe.
So far you have stated what first cause is. and so far, it offers no indication that it was the biblical god. replacing unknowns with god is simple a scientific retardant, as it implies that either A) the answer is already found when it isn't or B) we cannot understand the answer despite the face we can.
Also, a biblical god, in the great scientific explaination for the creation of the universe, has a much merit as willis the monkey. both are fictious.
Quote:
Quote:
god being first cause is just a viable as saying that Willis the monkey is.
No, saying a monkey is the first cause is just a speaking foolishly. Again, anti-Christians seldom have anything rational to say about any spiritual matter and so speak foolishness.
No, it's not.
For the record, I am not anti-christian, Elodin, I am anti-bigot and anti-ignoramus.
Quote:
Quote:
also, Elodin, it is unwise to argue with people who are studying the subject you've only copy and pasted about. not only that, but you are using lawyerlogic, in that:
"I think the earth is flat"
"That's pretty stupid idea to say that,"
"I never said that, you can't prove I never said that, you're putting words in my mouth, It's all a conspiracy, all you ever do is hate and put words in my mouth, how dare you, how dare you you silly person!"
First, you are a liar if you say I have ever said the earth is flat. Secondly, you have no idea what education i have.
Thirdly, and most importantly, you have so far been unable to counter any points I have made and have made no intelligent points of your own. Most of your comments are just innane comments not even meant to convey a serious thought. I challege you to become more serious in discussing spiritual matters instead of spouting out such gibberish.
[fighting back extreme rage at posters stupidity] not it was an example![/fighting back extreme rage at posters stupidity]
secondly, no I don't, but by the way you've been acting here, I can make a good guess. My conclusion is that you were education in a christian seminary in the bible belt of america, fed on conservativism with a lust for america's world domination, and scared into believe stories about anyone to the left of mussolini is a dirty communist who should be burnt.
Also, Elodin, I return you're challenge with a simple requestion...
open up you're mind to people other than jesus.
Quote:
Quote:
Statistics, evidence, population ups and down, man! show us, inform us, don't spout of statements, give us information!
Atheism is on world wide decline... I think not some how, unless you're delusions are so powerful they are starting to project onto reality.
I'm not the deluded one. One of the big reasons for decline is the fall of communism. To be a good little state controlled communist you have to be a good little indoctrinated atheist. There are no longer as many communist nations to brainwash students.
http://creationwiki.org/Decline_of_atheism
"Thankyou kent, Yes, and the votes are in, and it is official! Elodin has voted into the house of idiocy!"
Firstly, Atheism and communism are not interlinked any more than atheism and capitalism, or theism and communism, or theism and capitalism. one is a matter of belief, the other is a matter of politics, to confuse the two shows a level of repugnant backwardness that is disturbing.
Secondly, indoctrination is no more a communist trick than it is a capitalist. It's possible that we are all indoctrinated due to secondary socialisation. secondary influences like Schools, media, friends etc, will always influence our mind set to what it is now.
if anything, You're the most brainwashed out of all of us, Elodin. you're glorification of all that is right and republican really shows you're lack of understanding of anything else in the world. you're dismissal of every argument ever raised against you as "Anti-christian's talking nonsense" frames you in a picture of ignorance.
Also, posting a creationist wiki page provides more ammuntion to you're opponents. you post a site glorifying tax frauds and convicted liars, a doctrine that has been declared unconstitutional by you're country and mine, and dare call the rest of us unscientific.
Here's a question Elodin that I want you to answer.
If the biblical god attacked the USA (and before you say "Oh it's impossible" humour me) who would you side with, God or you're country?
Quote:
Quote:
as stated before, we don't know what first cause was. You put you're money on god, I'll put it on willis the monkey.
In other words, you can't refute the facts I have presented so you just make idiotic comments.
I refute the facts you present because the facts are trite. We don't know what first cause is, it's just as likely to be god as willis. Your blindly following 1 god is no more logical than me proposing Willis the monkey as the creator of the universe. It is not an idiotic comment, you're entire argument is just as valid as mine.
Quote:
Quote:
just as it's irrational to believe in an all perfect sky daddy whose his son reborn and will kill all of us who like their free will because he loves us on a day that has already pasted and nothing happened.
Wow, that is your defense of a steady state of nothing producing the universe without a cause eh? Like I said, when it comes to to facing facts anti-Chrsitians have nothing intellilgent to say.
What facts?!
All we get from you is bulls**t and bible verse.
You're argument rests on 1 book, a collection of fables, parables and psalm lyrics, a mish-mash of stories taken a bit to far. it's as simple as that, it's no more right that "Around the wold in 80 days".
Quote:
Quote:
for those who don't know, Judgement day was meant to happen on october the 22nd, 1844... and guess what, it didn't happen.
Not in the Bible dude. No idea where you pulled that from. What the Bible says is that no man will know the day or hour the Lord is going to return. Ooooooppppps another anti-Christian lie exposed.
You're own history, Look it up, Great disappointment, 22nd of october, 1844. You'll probably hate it. You might learn something.
Quote:
Quote:
Question: if god cared for adam and eve, why did he put a tree in the middle of the garden that would get them kicked out the garden of eden?
The Bible does not say. Maybe to give them a chance to exercise free will. They could chose to follow God or to obey Satan.
What, that he doesn't care about them?
is the world really black and white in you're eyes? I'm amazed, you've sucsinctly proved you're ignorance in just one statement.
here's another question, Elodin:
there is a plane about to crash and there are two passengers on board. a man and a child. The man is a doctor, and he has just figured out a way to successfully make HIV proteise, thus elimating the AIDs virus. The child is an ordinary school boy, who will grow up to become a psychopath.
who do you save?
Quote:
Quote:
but didn't jesus say that you can't get into heaven if you don't accept him.
Where did I say he didn't? Chrisitans have to continue a repentant life, repenting when they sin. There is no such Bible doctrine as "once saved always saved." We have to continue to follow Christ.
How have you sinned? is it this rubbish that we are all born into sin? if so, It proves my point. Cue slayer!
Quote:
Quote:
so a doctor could save thousands of lives, find the cure for cancer, be faithful to his family, give to charity all his life... and he'd still go to hell for not believing in god.
Yes. God gives light to every man and every man choses to receive or reject that light. As a man responds to the light that is given he gets more light or light is withdrawn based on his response.
Every person is without excuse.
To be honest, I would prefer a religion that is based on works alone. At least if you don't believe in the god, if you do good things, you get you're reward.
Quote:
Quote:
no, you're just not allowing them to explain why they is no absolute truth.
Joint hands with other anti-Christians and chant "There is no absolute truth" till your face turns blue. That won't change the fact that absolute truths exist. 2 +3 = 5. Always. Absolute truth.
Dagothgares, Grayface, Jollyjoker have all answered it better than I can, and I take my hat of to them.
similarly, the world doesn't exist in black and white. see the above moral question, also, here's another.
Two tribes are fighting war, tribe A and tribe B. tribe A gets over run by the other and kicked out of their country, fleeing to the neighbouring country of C. those who stay are massacred by tribe B. C's government deliberate lyputs them in poorly established refugee camps and gives them only enough supplies to barely survive. Tribe A then recieves aid from an outside investor, wanting to pursue they're own ambitions. Tribe A uses that money to return to their country and defeat tribe B. they massacre those who stay whilst Tribe B flees to another country. Country C, for fear that the Tribe A might turn round and attack them, hire mercenaries, using aid money sent to them by the outside investor, in order to patrol their borders.
who out of A, B or C can claim the moral high ground?
for further information, please look at the Houtous and Touseis war in the late 80's.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
GrayFace
Promising
Known Hero
|
|
posted March 19, 2010 12:57 PM |
|
|
DagothGares,
Quote:
Math isn't always absolute or very clear-cut.
The only obstacle is that proofs may contain errors.
Elodin,
I forgot to comment this:
Quote:
o The first cause had to be immaterial. Matter can't be eternal for reasons already mentioned.
The first cause didn't have to be eternal.
Quote:
o The first casue had to be spaceless becasue the space-time continuim came into being in an instant at the initial moment of creathion. The first cause existed before space.
Or nothing existed before space and there was no "before space".
Quote:
0 The first cause had to be timeless. The space-time continuim came into being in an instant. The first cause existed before time.
Or nothing existed before time.
I see no difference between saying the universe "just happened" and God "just exists".
|
|
GrayFace
Promising
Known Hero
|
|
posted March 19, 2010 01:45 PM |
|
Edited by GrayFace at 13:52, 19 Mar 2010.
|
bixie,
Quote:
Firstly, Atheism and communism are not interlinked any more than atheism and capitalism, or theism and communism, or theism and capitalism. one is a matter of belief, the other is a matter of politics, to confuse the two shows a level of repugnant backwardness that is disturbing.
"Religion is the opiate of the people" (c) Karl Marx
Sure, it would be really correct to say for example "fall of USSR" instead of "fall of communism", but I think the point should clear from Elodin's post. Fall of USSR decreased the number of atheists. You two always strike each other instead of arguing.
The Great Disappointment was an event of Millerite sect. Another sect, iegova witnesses, declared about 5 judgment days after that, all of which didn't happen.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted March 19, 2010 04:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
bixie,
Quote:
Firstly, Atheism and communism are not interlinked any more than atheism and capitalism, or theism and communism, or theism and capitalism. one is a matter of belief, the other is a matter of politics, to confuse the two shows a level of repugnant backwardness that is disturbing.
"Religion is the opiate of the people" (c) Karl Marx
Sure, it would be really correct to say for example "fall of USSR" instead of "fall of communism", but I think the point should clear from Elodin's post. Fall of USSR decreased the number of atheists. You two always strike each other instead of arguing.
The Great Disappointment was an event of Millerite sect. Another sect, iegova witnesses, declared about 5 judgment days after that, all of which didn't happen.
Thankyou, Grayface.
despite the soviet union was, officially, "an atheist nation", it's been recorded that in 1956, more that 50% of the soviet union's population identified themselves as christians. The similarly, after the death of stalin, attacks against churches stopped, and the successive years, leading up to the fall of the USSR, the russian orthodox church began to move back into the public sphere. the numbers moved very little since the fall of the soviety union, whilst they have fallen in russia, poland, and all the other countries occupied by the soviet block, it was only in the 0.75%-2%.
Poland, czechoslovakia, hungary, and so on all kept their religious proceeds in tact, as stalins puppet governments couldn't touch them. I could be wrong, but I doubt that either Khrushichev, Bheznev or Gorbechov will want to appear like stalin and start purges inside the soviet union on the basis of religion, not when they have other fish to fry.
and as you have stated before, yes, teh great disappointment was only related to the millerite sect, but what does that prove? that the millerites got their dates wrong, all millerites are idiots, the end of the world cannot be predicted, or that the bible could be proved false? I'm not saying it's any of them, but it's interesting to note.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted March 19, 2010 10:53 PM |
|
|
I'd like to propose a bit different topic.
Buddhism.
After spending a lot of time reading about buddhism, I am severly disappointed. So many "modern" people of western culture are fascinated with it (much like Japanese with Christianity), but now I'm sure it's just because it's exotic.
I don't like Buddhism. Aside from being "fashionable", the system has no real value (imho). The solution that Budda conjured to pain and suffering is simply backing off. Running away. Purging your mind to a point where self-awareness is completely replaced with some sort of trance, in which ego no longer exists. Quite the opposite to what most religions offer, Budda offers death as nirvana. The only real difference is that some sort of trace remains, but since it no longer has any form of personality, it's more or less nothing.
Buddhism doesn't focus on emotions. Love, trust and other feelings that are the backbone of many religions play no role here at all. In fact, they are as useless as all others. In Hirajana (older form of Buddhism), that went to extreme, as it was considered that nothing matters and nothing is real. Yeah, not even nirvana, budda, whatever, everything has no sense at all, and a state of transcendent non-life is the best, most beautiful fate of all. An extreme mixture of nihilism and solipsism.
Buddhism is incredibly inconsistent between its forms. Hinajana is ascetic and asexual, in Mahajana you can already see Budda incorporated as diety, with ordinary people able to reach nirvana (in Hinajana its only available to monks), and later form of Buddhism go to extreme, with Budda as regular diety being able to create the world with magic spells - in left-hand tantrism, sex and pleasures, interestingly, are fine - you just need to meditate and practice a lot not to let it spoil you, since, when your spirit is free, you can have sex and stay cool. Which is the very opposite of Buddha's first intentions. The evolution is strictly practical. Buddhism was completely impossible to follow for most people in its principles. In a natural evolution, it became more suitable to masses that weren't able to meditate whole days waiting for nothingness to claim them. Which makes it rather obvious that Buddhism failed as religion, but also, as a philosophical system. The massive inconsistency between its forms, the lack of integrity between the rules - its not something that makes clear whats ok and what's not.
Buddhism fails because of its extreme negativity too. I don't see a _point_ of following a system that teaches me NOTHING has a point. Ok, everything is pointless, useless, meaningless, nothing really exist, it's not even really solipsism because solipsism is an idea that nothing except one's mind exists, and in buddhism, even your own mind is an illusion. It gives no comfort and has no point at all if we follow some of its radical forms. It's a complete an utter denial, with death as salvation (I do understand that nirvana isn't really death, but to be honest, I wouldn't like to exist without a personality... to me this is death, even if you remain as a infinite enlightened knowledge or whatever...).
Finally, the one reason I would never consider following buddhism is because it teaches that ridding yourself of all emotions is good (and is the whole point). I miss the time when I was 13-14 and everything felt so fresh, new, powerful. It took me only a few years to realize how much of my feelings I have lost and I miss it dearly. To see a religion teaching me that this is a POSITIVE aspect because I'm becoming more knowledgeful (indeed I am) and less prone to "useless earthly feelings".... I'm sorry, it's horrible. This is completely opposite to what I think makes life worthwile, and I already can relate: Nirvana must be the most horrible state ever
I don't get the fascination with Buddhism. At all. It just seems empty and pointless.
Oh, and don't compare everything to Christianity if you wish to respond.. treat me like an atheist who became interested in a religion Because saying "you say Buddhism is bad in X well Christianity is even worse" brings nothing. Let's discuss Buddhism, if you will. No comparisons.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 19, 2010 11:07 PM |
|
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted March 19, 2010 11:27 PM |
|
|
I really know nothing about religion, I try to respond to arguments, independent of the sender, so for me it doesn't matter who the sender is, but how they try to justify their information.
Quote labeled #1
Quote:
Finally, the one reason I would never consider following buddhism is because it teaches that ridding yourself of all emotions is good (and is the whole point).
Quote labeled #2
Quote:
I miss the time when I was 13-14 and everything felt so fresh, new, powerful. It took me only a few years to realize how much of my feelings I have lost and I miss it dearly.
I understand my #2 quote as your arguments of what you write in #1 quote. I wish to remind you, that what you describe is not the lack of emotion, but an emotion as well, known as nostalgia. Nostalgia can be quite powerful, and true it is not the same way one used to feel, but it do replace the emptiness left by the emotion we no longer have.
In that way, the level of control emotions have over us may have changed less than we think, and it is actually the emotion, nostalgia, that makes us think, that it's some lack of emotion that makes us nostalgic, when it is an emotion in itself.
An analogi. It is like when someone tells you, that now you're a free man, no one is controlling you and everything is bad, while in the past, they controlled you and everything was good, when in reality, this person is still controlling you and you're not free at all.
We can certainly learn from the past, but remember, the past is nothing, but a memory, so dwelling on it, without practical purpose, is probably due to emotional self satisfaction. I'd suggest one to use what one has learned from past events and use it to create a better future for oneself, and not dwelve in self pity over what one once had, which probably weren't as good anyway.
The reason I write it probably weren't as good anyway, is because the way we (or at least I) percieve the past, contra the present moment of that given past time. I see the current moment as a combination of risk and opportunity, when I percieve the past, I only see opportuniy and no risk, because I know what had a risk of happen, did not (like fear of loosing a loved one), while opportunity might not have been used as good as it could (eventhough I did not have the knowledge at that time, so I can see even more opportunity now).
What one tends to forget, is that we're a creature of habit, and emotions are just a gradient of habit, I believe. That means, if one could go to this past, you'd not experience it any greater, than the present, eventhough you'd take your memory back to that past, because you'd realise it is useless to what really matters to you (of course you could earn a fortune easy via your knowledge, but you'll see yourself not in a past world, but in a present world, where both risk and opportunity exists and you'd wish you could go to the future, to be sure that you're safe, and to know what decision to take).
So, I think, one would most likely either go through the same past, more or less, now feeling even more sorry for oneself than before going back in time (transferring your current mind to your past body, living in the past), or would completely change the past, and would still end up with the same problem.
Because the past turns into the present when you go back there, risk reemerges and opportunity changes accordingly to your actions.
At least, that's how I percieve it.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted March 20, 2010 12:51 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I'd like to propose a bit different topic.
THANK THE LORD.
I'd like to participate in a bit different topic. And I will when I get a chance.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 20, 2010 11:58 AM |
|
|
Why should you follow ANY religion (except in your own personalized version)? "Truth" will overtake you soon enough.
a) Your belief is important in that way that it influences or even shapes the "truth" - in that case it makes sense to believe in something positive you can live with
b) Your belief doesn't change "truth" one iota - in that case it's still better to believe in something positive, because it will lighten up your life.
c) There's a truth, but you have to believe in it to become part of. In that case, since we cannot know that truth - why bother? Back to a)
Frankly, I'd say that humans should try and live to their own standards, try to find their own measure and live true to their own vision instead of trying to fathom how hypothetical superbeings, kharma, the universal force or whatever would want us to be.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted March 20, 2010 01:29 PM |
|
|
@JJ
I think that's pretty much the wisest/smartest thing anyone can do.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted March 22, 2010 06:56 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 18:56, 22 Mar 2010.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Time has no meaning to God. He dwells outside of time and in every instant in time. One day is as a thousand years to the Lord and one thousand years as one day, as the Bible says. God is "I AM."
Well, does or doesn't he perceive time then?
And were the people who wrote genesis even aware of time as a separate entity or other dimension?
Kind of sounds something from the past century, really...
Yes, of course he does. He just is unaffected by it. He sees everything that is happening, has ever happened, and ever will happen. He is in every moment of time and space and transcends it.
Quote:
Still, the theory that singularity wasn't caused is consistent. It isn't consistent with my requirements only.
I hardly see how an uncaused singularity is consistent with science. It is a material effect and needs a cause. You can't just go from a steady state of absolute nothingness to the universe without something acting on the nothingness. But nothing natural existed. So the first cause had to be supernatural. Self-existent, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, intelligent, and powerful. God.
Quote:
Obedience was the only reason to follow that rule for Eve. She didn't follow and was punished.
No, as far as she knew the only reason was obedience. That does not mean there was not a furthur reason.
As far as a child knows the only reason not to tough a hot pan on the stove is because Mommy says so. But when the toddler grabs the pot handle and a pot of boiling water comes pouring down on his head he finds out otherwise.
Quote:
Quote:
On what basis do you decide how long it is appropriate for someone to be in hell?
On the basis of someone's deeds. God may also judge on the basis of someone's intension, but judgment will never be just if the choice is made between 2 extremes - Hell and Heaven.
BTW, what I can certainly decide better than God is how long it is appropriate for ME to be in hell.
Oh, so you have the right to judge someone on the basis of their deeds and you know the appropriate punishment but the eternal all seeing, all knowing God does not? Wooooooow, aren't you the cat's meow! 
Quote:
What is the just judgment? I'm trying to compare my sense of justice and that of Christian God.
And evidently God thinks sin is more serious that you do. Of course you and your limited knowledge are correct and the all-knowing God is incorrect.
Quote:
So far you have stated what first cause is. and so far, it offers no indication that it was the biblical god. replacing unknowns with god is simple a scientific retardant, as it implies that either A) the answer is already found when it isn't or B) we cannot understand the answer despite the face we can.
Also, a biblical god, in the great scientific explaination for the creation of the universe, has a much merit as willis the monkey. both are fictious.
You saying a monkey could have created the univesse is just idiotic. Sorry, monkesy are material beings and need a cause, not to mention that they don't match any other of the required characteristics of the first cause of the universe.
No, you seem to be ignorant of the descriptions of other gods. For example, Zeus and his lot were created beings, had rather limited knowledge and intelligence, were no independant of space and time, ect.
However, my main point was showing how irrational atheism is, and I believe I have done that beyond a reasonable doubt. All atheists have been able to say so far is "so. science is probably wrong and material things can produce themselves out of absolute nothing without a cause."
Quote:
For the record, I am not anti-christian, Elodin, I am anti-bigot and anti-ignoramus.
Funny, you are always bashing away at Christianity. And Christianity is none of those things.
Quote:
secondly, no I don't, but by the way you've been acting here, I can make a good guess. My conclusion is that you were education in a christian seminary in the bible belt of america, fed on conservativism with a lust for america's world domination, and scared into believe stories about anyone to the left of mussolini is a dirty communist who should be burnt.
You would be wrong on all counts.
Quote:
"Thankyou kent, Yes, and the votes are in, and it is official! Elodin has voted into the house of idiocy!"
Sorry, I decline membership in your house.
Quote:
Firstly, Atheism and communism are not interlinked any more than atheism and capitalism, or theism and communism, or theism and capitalism. one is a matter of belief, the other is a matter of politics, to confuse the two shows a level of repugnant backwardness that is disturbing.
Funny, communist nations seem to always be officially atheist. But I never said all atheists are communists. And yes, the communist nations always indoctrinate the school children into good little atheists.
Quote:
Secondly, indoctrination is no more a communist trick than it is a capitalist. It's possible that we are all indoctrinated due to secondary socialisation. secondary influences like Schools, media, friends etc, will always influence our mind set to what it is now.
I am a free thinker. I have rejected all forms of indoctrination.
Quote:
if anything, You're the most brainwashed out of all of us, Elodin. you're glorification of all that is right and republican really shows you're lack of understanding of anything else in the world. you're dismissal of every argument ever raised against you as "Anti-christian's talking nonsense" frames you in a picture of ignorance.
Oh my, someone's undergarments seem to be in a bind. Now, I am not brainwashed. Perhaps your brainwashing has led you to conclude that everone who does not share your indoctrination has been brainwashed.
Oh, and never glorified Republicans. I am an independent conservative. A free thinker.
Quote:
Also, posting a creationist wiki page provides more ammuntion to you're opponents. you post a site glorifying tax frauds and convicted liars, a doctrine that has been declared unconstitutional by you're country and mine, and dare call the rest of us unscientific.
Oh, please. Can you please quote and link to where the site glorifies tax frauds?
No, the site was not written by Obama's apointees (many of whom are tax cheats....the hypocritical libs.)
Quote:
Here's a question Elodin that I want you to answer.
If the biblical god attacked the USA (and before you say "Oh it's impossible" humour me) who would you side with, God or you're country?
I would pray for America. God's judgement is always right but one can call for mercy.
Quote:
All we get from you is bulls**t and bible verse.
You're argument rests on 1 book, a collection of fables, parables and psalm lyrics, a mish-mash of stories taken a bit to far. it's as simple as that, it's no more right that "Around the wold in 80 days".
Once again, more false statmeents. I have referenced the laws of thermodynamics, the principle of causation, the observations of the Hubble telescope and COBE sattelite. Your only argument has been maybe a monkey created the universe.
Quote:
You're own history, Look it up, Great disappointment, 22nd of october, 1844. You'll probably hate it. You might learn something.
Sorry, you made false claims. I proved that the Bible says no man knows when Christ will return. I can't help what some cult said. I quoted the Bible. Once again, you are in error.
Quote:
What, that he doesn't care about them?
Actually, God kicked them out of Eden so they would not live forever in a fallen state. Try reading the Bible rather than anti-Christian dribble on hate sites.
Quote:
there is a plane about to crash and there are two passengers on board. a man and a child. The man is a doctor, and he has just figured out a way to successfully make HIV proteise, thus elimating the AIDs virus. The child is an ordinary school boy, who will grow up to become a psychopath.
who do you save?
I would not know who woould grow up to be what. I would save the child and let the man fend for himself if I could not also save him.
Quote:
How have you sinned? is it this rubbish that we are all born into sin? if so, It proves my point. Cue slayer!
It is a shame you linked to a hate site. No, I will not confess my sins to you, as they are none of your business.
Quote:
who out of A, B or C can claim the moral high ground?
The initial aggressor are wrong.
Quote:
The first cause didn't have to be eternal.
Sorry, the first cause had to be uncaused. Timeless, spaceless, immaterial, self-existant, intelligent, and powerful.
Quote:
Quote:
o The first casue had to be spaceless becasue the space-time continuim came into being in an instant at the initial moment of creathion. The first cause existed before space.
Or nothing existed before space and there was no "before space".
In that case there would be a steady state of nothing. Without cause there would be no universe.
Quote:
[quote:
[
0 The first cause had to be timeless. The space-time continuim came into being in an instant. The first cause existed before time.
Or nothing existed before time.
See above.
Quote:
I see no difference between saying the universe "just happened" and God "just exists".
Saying the universe "just happened" violates known science. Say God "just exits" does not.
Quote:
Why should you follow ANY religion (except in your own personalized version)? "Truth" will overtake you soon enough.
a) Your belief is important in that way that it influences or even shapes the "truth" - in that case it makes sense to believe in something positive you can live with
b) Your belief doesn't change "truth" one iota - in that case it's still better to believe in something positive, because it will lighten up your life.
c) There's a truth, but you have to believe in it to become part of. In that case, since we cannot know that truth - why bother? Back to a)
Frankly, I'd say that humans should try and live to their own standards, try to find their own measure and live true to their own vision instead of trying to fathom how hypothetical superbeings, kharma, the universal force or whatever would want us to be.
Your belief dos not change the truth one bit. Jesus is Lord. You are wrong that we can't know the truth.
People "follow a religion" because they believe it to be true. Pretty simploe, really.
Why do you not follow a religion? Because in the past you have said "all beliefs are unreasonable." That is your belief. Your religion. So that is what you follow.
I chose to follow the standards of Christ. Those ar my standards. You follow whatever standards you with to follow but don't claim others are not following their standards just because you don't agree with thier religion.
____________
Revelation
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted March 22, 2010 08:12 PM |
|
Edited by bixie at 20:36, 22 Mar 2010.
|
Quote:
Quote:
So far you have stated what first cause is. and so far, it offers no indication that it was the biblical god. replacing unknowns with god is simple a scientific retardant, as it implies that either A) the answer is already found when it isn't or B) we cannot understand the answer despite the face we can.
Also, a biblical god, in the great scientific explaination for the creation of the universe, has a much merit as willis the monkey. both are fictious.
You saying a monkey could have created the univesse is just idiotic. Sorry, monkesy are material beings and need a cause, not to mention that they don't match any other of the required characteristics of the first cause of the universe.
No, you seem to be ignorant of the descriptions of other gods. For example, Zeus and his lot were created beings, had rather limited knowledge and intelligence, were no independant of space and time, ect.
However, my main point was showing how irrational atheism is, and I believe I have done that beyond a reasonable doubt. All atheists have been able to say so far is "so. science is probably wrong and material things can produce themselves out of absolute nothing without a cause."
No, he's not a material being, he's a being who is an external force, independent of space and time, eternal, ever loving, all seeing and all powerful... sound like a familiar argument?
Also, if you mean created being, as in they came into this reality throught the miracle of conception, then A) yeah, you would be right, but they are still divine beings, and B) you are also stating than jesus, by the face he was not independent of time and space, had rather limited knowledge and intelligence.
Also, a comparison between Zues and Yahweh is a bit flimsy, as zues and "His lot" were not the first being in the universe, according to ancient greeks. if you want a better comparison to Jehova *gets hit by a stone*, then I would go for Gaia, who was the first being and created the world as we know it now and is eternally with us until the day of judgement where she will show herself, or Ra from the egyptian faith, the first being in creation, creator of the world, responsible for the various plagues upon his enemies, and so on. If you want an eternal force that has know face, then look to the Hindu force known as Brahman, an undying force that all mortals can connect with and can create divine avatars, some of which were born of a virgin.
also, Atheism make no such claim. I suppose the closest thing they say is "We don't know, but appearing out of nowhere is just as possible as god." Science doesn't know what created the universe, so how can Atheists be going against science? You are commiting a logical falacy, the strawman argument, saying that atheists have this position on life, when really, they don't.
Quote:
Quote:
For the record, I am not anti-christian, Elodin, I am anti-bigot and anti-ignoramus.
Funny, you are always bashing away at Christianity. And Christianity is none of those things.
westborough baptist church
crusades and inquistion have been done to death, there's a more recent example of christian bigotry and ignorance.
Quote:
Quote:
secondly, no I don't, but by the way you've been acting here, I can make a good guess. My conclusion is that you were education in a christian seminary in the bible belt of america, fed on conservativism with a lust for america's world domination, and scared into believe stories about anyone to the left of mussolini is a dirty communist who should be burnt.
You would be wrong on all counts.
fair enough.
you do watch glenn beck, are a pentacostal christain and hate the left, so maybe what I said was an exaggeration.
Quote:
Quote:
"Thankyou kent, Yes, and the votes are in, and it is official! Elodin has voted into the house of idiocy!"
Sorry, I decline membership in your house.
Lol.
it's comforting to know you have a sense of humour.
Quote:
Quote:
Firstly, Atheism and communism are not interlinked any more than atheism and capitalism, or theism and communism, or theism and capitalism. one is a matter of belief, the other is a matter of politics, to confuse the two shows a level of repugnant backwardness that is disturbing.
Funny, communist nations seem to always be officially atheist. But I never said all atheists are communists. And yes, the communist nations always indoctrinate the school children into good little atheists.
Actually, schools in, well, the soviet union at least, where not uniform in teaching religion. some did, some didn't. and whilst there is a clear corralation between proximity to a city and density of religious, the government didn't indoctrinate pupils into believing that religion was bad. the only indoctrination was love of stalin and glorification of russian workers.
Quote:
Quote:
Secondly, indoctrination is no more a communist trick than it is a capitalist. It's possible that we are all indoctrinated due to secondary socialisation. secondary influences like Schools, media, friends etc, will always influence our mind set to what it is now.
I am a free thinker. I have rejected all forms of indoctrination.
Including:
Education,
Media (any forms),
Friends,
Religion,
Workplace,
Family,
and others.
we are a socially influencial species. no matter how much you claim you are a free thinker, if you are not indoctrinated to some extent by the examples, then you end up socially retarded. You're obviously not, and thus, you cannot reject all forms of indoctrinations, otherwise you'll end up as a backward hermit. and even then, you would have still be indoctrinated by what you're parents teach you.
Quote:
Quote:
if anything, You're the most brainwashed out of all of us, Elodin. you're glorification of all that is right and republican really shows you're lack of understanding of anything else in the world. you're dismissal of every argument ever raised against you as "Anti-christian's talking nonsense" frames you in a picture of ignorance.
Oh my, someone's undergarments seem to be in a bind. Now, I am not brainwashed. Perhaps your brainwashing has led you to conclude that everone who does not share your indoctrination has been brainwashed.
Oh, and never glorified Republicans. I am an independent conservative. A free thinker.
Ah, my friends, but have you been brainwashed into thinking that you're not brainwashed!
also, I am in no position to brainwash anyone. I am merely a student, no more in a position to brainwash than an older sibling, and even then, my younger brother doesn't listen.
brainwashing requires the complete and total subjectation of the passive party to the dominate parties will, and that's only available if you are born into a cult, like the mormons of westborough baptist church. I don't think anyone on this forum has been, and thus we have developed resitance from total brainwashing.
Quote:
Quote:
Also, posting a creationist wiki page provides more ammuntion to you're opponents. you post a site glorifying tax frauds and convicted liars, a doctrine that has been declared unconstitutional by you're country and mine, and dare call the rest of us unscientific.
Oh, please. Can you please quote and link to where the site glorifies tax frauds?
No, the site was not written by Obama's apointees (many of whom are tax cheats....the hypocritical libs.)
http://creationwiki.org/Kent_Hovind unless you're wanting a place on "have I got news for you."
Quote:
Quote:
Here's a question Elodin that I want you to answer.
If the biblical god attacked the USA (and before you say "Oh it's impossible" humour me) who would you side with, God or you're country?
I would pray for America. God's judgement is always right but one can call for mercy.
God won't like it if you pray for the enemy.
Quote:
Quote:
All we get from you is bulls**t and bible verse.
You're argument rests on 1 book, a collection of fables, parables and psalm lyrics, a mish-mash of stories taken a bit to far. it's as simple as that, it's no more right that "Around the wold in 80 days".
Once again, more false statmeents. I have referenced the laws of thermodynamics, the principle of causation, the observations of the Hubble telescope and COBE sattelite. Your only argument has been maybe a monkey created the universe.
no, you're argument rests on the total belief that the bible's word is the truth, and have used the others to simply accent you're arguements with scientific information.
If the bible is proven false, per example, and vishnu appears in the clouds above us, would you argument still be valid?
Quote:
Quote:
You're own history, Look it up, Great disappointment, 22nd of october, 1844. You'll probably hate it. You might learn something.
Sorry, you made false claims. I proved that the Bible says no man knows when Christ will return. I can't help what some cult said. I quoted the Bible. Once again, you are in error.
please quote the passage... and, just for good measure, the passage before and after, just to show you're not fibbing, yourself.
Quote:
Quote:
What, that he doesn't care about them?
Actually, God kicked them out of Eden so they would not live forever in a fallen state. Try reading the Bible rather than anti-Christian dribble on hate sites.
what, replace one lot of dribble for another? no thanks.
oh, and by the way, it's drivel! Dribble is stuff that comes out of you're mouth. kind of like prayer.
Quote:
Quote:
there is a plane about to crash and there are two passengers on board. a man and a child. The man is a doctor, and he has just figured out a way to successfully make HIV proteise, thus elimating the AIDs virus. The child is an ordinary school boy, who will grow up to become a psychopath.
who do you save?
I would not know who woould grow up to be what. I would save the child and let the man fend for himself if I could not also save him.
and thus Damn millions to suffer?
some moral code you've got there.
Quote:
Quote:
How have you sinned? is it this rubbish that we are all born into sin? if so, It proves my point. Cue slayer!
It is a shame you linked to a hate site. No, I will not confess my sins to you, as they are none of your business.
so youtube is a hate site?
I never knew that. 
Quote:
Quote:
who out of A, B or C can claim the moral high ground?
The initial aggressor are wrong.
and thus, Genocide is completely excusable? Alot of people died then, from both the camps, both attacks, and so on.
Blood for blood only means more blood is spilt.
What I am trying to impress on you is that there is no such thing as absolute morality. the world is not black and white when it comes to life. It might be easily digestable, but that is not the case.
the cold war is a prime example. two idealogies, one no more good than the other, locked in stalemate, both with enough nukes to decimate the planet. if J.F.K hadn't kept a clear head, we wouldn't be here discussing this.
again, you could see this happening as far back as the greeco-persian war, as far back as the egyptian-hittite war, the world is not made up of good and evil forces, there are good and evil within every ideology.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
