is religion for living in the world, ignoring the world, or just for dying?

[wa bluska wica]

lately i have been amusing myself by trying to get certain christians slavering over the apocalypse to tell me one thing [which they cannot bring themselves to do]--why they preferred the message of death and destruction over that of life and peace

i did get an answer from a non-christian about illusion, which was more confusion

which led me to wonder--what is the purpose of religion [and/or philosophy]?

is it to teach one how to live one's life, to get along with others in harmony?

or is its purpose to help us to deny the world, to long for oblivion or heaven?

is the desire for armageddon a sublimation of suicidal tendencies? can a person who wants to disappear and leave us to suffer through gog vs. magog ever be trusted? and, non-christians, does the meditation on maya actually help in rush-hour traffic?

[Hoatzin]

I guess because death is something we all know we'll experience whereas life and peace isn't.

[wa bluska wica]

i have experienced life [as i assume you have since you are typing]

and even peace in life

shouldn't we be striving for peace, or is it better to give up and wait to die?

[which might not be any better?]

[liquidlight]

bluska ... i thought i'd copy/paste this from something i posted once. It comes some way to describing this 'illusion' (the illusion of form) i was talking about. I did have a brief death experience years ago so i kinda understand it although it still confuses me alot, hence my interest in understanding it better. But the thing about death is that in facing it one can gain access to a greater sense of life and value life so mutch more.

Eckhart Tolle does a pretty good job with this passage...
The 'sermon on the body' from Eckhart Tolles' 'The Power of Now':

"What you percieve as a dense physical structure called the body, which is subject to disease, old age, and death, is not ultimately real - is not you. It is a misperception of your essential reality which is beyond birth and death, and is due to the limitations of your mind, which having lost touch with 'being', creates the body as evidence of it's illusory belief in separation and to justify it's state of fear. But do not turn away from the body, for within that symbol of impermanence, limitation and death that you percieve as the illusory creation of your mind is concealed the splendour of your essential and immortal reality. Do not turn your attention elsewhere in your search for the truth, for it is nowhere else to be found but within your body.
Do not fight against the body, for in doing so you are fighting against your own reality. You ARE your body. The body that you can see and touch is only a thin illusory veil. Underneath it lies the invisible inner body, the doorway into 'being', into life unmanifested. Through your inner body, you are inseparably connected to this unmanifested one life - birthless, deathless, eternally present.
Through the inner body, you are forever one with god."

Have deep roots within:

"The key is to be in a state of permanent connectedness with your inner body - to feel it at all times. This will rapidly deepen and transform your life. The more conciousness you direct into the inner body, the higher it's vibrational frequency becomes, mutch like a light that grows brighter as you turn up the dimmer switch and so increase the flow of electricity. At this higher energy level, negativity cannot affect you anymore, and you tend to attract new circumstances that reflect this higher frequency.
If you keep your attention in the body as mutch as possible, you will be anchored in the Now. You won't lose yourself in the external world, and you won't lose yourself in your mind. Thoughts and emotions, fears and desires, may still be there to some extent, but they won't take you over.
Please examine where your attention is at this moment. You are listening to me or you are reading these words in a book. -That is the focus of your attention. You are also peripherally aware of your surroundings, other people, and so on. Furthermore, there may be some mind activity around what you are hearing or reading, some mental commentary. Yet there is no need for any of this to absorb ALL your attention. See if you can be in touch with your inner body at the same time, - keep some of your attention within. Don't let it all flow out. Feel your whole body from within, as a single field of energy. It is almost as if you are listening or reading with your whole body.
Let this be your practice in the days and weeks to come."

And also related:
"The moment you say or think 'my life' and believe in what you are saying (rather than it just being a linguistic convention), you have entered the realm of delusion. If there is such a thing as 'my life', it follows that I and life are two separate things, and so i can also lose my life, my imaginary treasured possession. Death becomes a seeming reality and a threat. Words and concepts split life into separate segments that have no reality in themselves. We could even say that the notion 'my life' is the original delusion of separateness, the source of ego. If I and life are two, if i am separate from life, then i am separate from all things, all beings, all people. But how could i be separate from life? What 'I' could there be apart from life, apart from being? It is utterly impossible.
- So there is no such thing as 'my life', and I don't have a life ... I am life. I and life are one. It cannot be otherwise. So how can i lose my life? How can i lose something i don't have in the first place? How can i lose something that i am?
It is impossible."

... He also says somewhere that life and death are not opposites, - BIRTH and death are opposites. And life runs through both.

[SoManyDaysSuchLittleTime]

I always assumed it was just a way to control the masses.....

[Rudenoodle]

Any religion that shows any positive view's (i.e Heaven) of death is a death cult.

Any religion that show's a negative (i.e Hell) view of death is someones attempt at promoting a world view through the guise of religion.

All belief in the supernatural is for fool's.

[neodude1212]

All belief in the supernatural is for fool's.

care to explain why?

[Rudenoodle]

care to explain why?

I could state fact's for pages as to why religion is man made and not the work of a supernatural power.

Care to tell me why you believe otherwise?

Did you create your OWN religion or something?

[neodude1212]

I could state fact's for pages as to why religion is man made and not the work of a supernatural power.

Well, all that is sort of besides the point. I was addressing your statement that belief in the supernatural is for fools, which really doesn't necessarily include religion at all.

Care to tell me why you believe otherwise?

I just wanted you to clarify why you think the way you think, so far my personal beliefs have yet to be established in the context of my conversation with you. I've just noticed that you frequently post very strong assertions regarding the supernatural, and I was wondering what leads you to such strong conclusions about subjects that have mystified and baffled the human mind for all of our known existence.

Did you create your OWN religion or something?

?

[Rudenoodle]

Well, all that is sort of besides the point. I was addressing your statement that belief in the supernatural is for fools, which really doesn't necessarily include religion at all.



I just wanted you to clarify why you think the way you think, so far my personal beliefs have yet to be established in the context of my conversation with you. I've just noticed that you frequently post very strong assertions regarding the supernatural, and I was wondering what leads you to such strong conclusions about subjects that have mystified and baffled the human mind for all of our known existence.



?

The supernatural is the belief in something that can't be explained by man.

Can you give the description of something not known to man without including your own beliefs or philosophies?

No you can't you would have to speculate.

Speculation lead's to superstition, superstition leads to fear and violence and god eat god mindsets that have crippled human civilization.

So why can't some people just say "I don't know." Why do they have to fool themselves first then try to fool others into thinking the same way.

You do know what a fascist is right?

I respect your opinion Neo, but I see we disagree quite a bit on this subject.

[Hoatzin]

I guess because, if applied across the board, saying "I don't know" would see us squatting in the dark waiting for lightning to strike a tree somewhere nearby so we could cook our dinner.

And Rude, you've mentioned "the progress of mankind" and religion holding humanity back. Are you not aware that "progress" has been responsible for some of the worst atrocities in human history? Not to say that it hasn't also done some wonderful things, but your assertions seem to depend on very specific definitions of what progress (as oppose to regress?) means. Eugenics could be seen as "progress" - there's pretty much no logical argument against it - but I doubt you'd be in favour of it.


Speculation... you'll just never stop speculation, you know? The young Isaac Newton sat in a religious instruction class and made a list of all the questions about "natural philosophy" he wanted to answer. That is speculative. He should've just said "I don't know", right?

[Rudenoodle]

I guess because, if applied across the board, saying "I don't know" would see us squatting in the dark waiting for lightning to strike a tree somewhere nearby so we could cook our dinner.

And Rude, you've mentioned "the progress of mankind" and religion holding humanity back. Are you not aware that "progress" has been responsible for some of the worst atrocities in human history? Not to say that it hasn't also done some wonderful things, but your assertions seem to depend on very specific definitions of what progress (as oppose to regress?) means. Eugenics could be seen as "progress" - there's pretty much no logical argument against it - but I doubt you'd be in favour of it.


Speculation... you'll just never stop speculation, you know? The young Isaac Newton sat in a religious instruction class and made a list of all the questions about "natural philosophy" he wanted to answer. That is speculative. He should've just said "I don't know", right?

You can say "I don't know" and do research on whatever subject you don't understand.

That's fine it's called learning, but when you come across something you don't understand and instead of using facts you just fall back on an ancient tome or your own un-proven theories and make them fit eventually it's going to become obvious that it doesen't work the way it was originally thought to.

Saying "I don't know" does not exclude you from anything, it invites you to learn more.

Religion takes this great chance at education and distorts it by giving the learner a warped view of life that he or she may never be able to fully shake.

[Hoatzin]

i have experienced life [as i assume you have since you are typing]

and even peace in life

shouldn't we be striving for peace, or is it better to give up and wait to die?

[which might not be any better?]

Very few people declare war or start fights just for the fun of it.

Also, striving for peace won't prevent us from dying. I guess the traditional view (not one I get to subscribe to) is that we're making the world a better place for our children and our children's children and so on.

I guess if I believe anything, it's that people should work. Idle hands and all that. Science has done some terrible things, but the things that seem to negatively affect the most people are things that are meant to make our lives easier. If we accept that life will be hard, we will probably hurt each other less.

[Hoatzin]

You can say "I don't know" and do research on whatever subject you don't understand.

That's fine it's called learning, but when you come across something you don't understand and instead of using facts you just fall back on an ancient tome or your own un-proven theories and make them fit eventually it's going to become obvious that it doesen't work the way it was originally thought to.

Saying "I don't know" does not exclude you from anything, it invites you to learn more.

Religion takes this great chance at education and distorts it by giving the learner a warped view of life that he or she may never be able to fully shake.

So, as I said in another thread, what about "we hold these truths to be self-evident"? There are contentious issues which require us to make assumptions that we cannot possibly prove. There are situations where fence-sitting causes more problems then any decision that could be made (see the recent economic situation in the States and the UK, for example - delay in action has been far more damaging than any action taken). There are other contentious issues which we couldn't prove now, and while it would be great to, say, refuse to state that all races are equal until you can prove it, what if you can't?

There are a hell of a lot of things that can't be proved but which you yourself believe. I've as much as proved this elsewhere. I think you're incredibly naïve if you can't see that it's not enough to just wait until something can be proven and say "I don't know" in the meantime. Often you have to work with the info you've got, because simply refusing to take a position will cost you and others.

[Rudenoodle]

So, as I said in another thread, what about "we hold these truths to be self-evident"? There are contentious issues which require us to make assumptions that we cannot possibly prove. There are situations where fence-sitting causes more problems then any decision that could be made (see the recent economic situation in the States and the UK, for example - delay in action has been far more damaging than any action taken). There are other contentious issues which we couldn't prove now, and while it would be great to, say, refuse to state that all races are equal until you can prove it, what if you can't?

There are a hell of a lot of things that can't be proved but which you yourself believe. I've as much as proved this elsewhere. I think you're incredibly naïve if you can't see that it's not enough to just wait until something can be proven and say "I don't know" in the meantime. Often you have to work with the info you've got, because simply refusing to take a position will cost you and others.

There are no ghosts so why should we believe in them?

Do you think you have proof of the supernatural?

Please stop calling me naive it hurts my feelings ;)

[Hoatzin]

There are no ghosts so why should we believe in them?

Do you think you have proof of the supernatural?

No. Why would you think I did? Even the word "supernatural" is faintly ridiculous to me. "Nature" is a ridiculous word the way most people use it.

Do you have proof that fiction is harmful?

Please stop calling me naive it hurts my feelings ;)

Diddums.

[Rudenoodle]

Do you have proof that fiction is harmful?

Diddums.

Heard of weapons of mass destruction lately?

What do you mean do I know of any fiction that is harmful?

Fiction passed off as fact is ALWAYS harmful to reality because it distorts the truth.

Whether it's a lie that ends a marriage starts a war or convinces someone to strap a bomb to there chest in order to kill for a so called paradise after they die.

A lie is a lie.

[Hoatzin]

Heard of weapons of mass destruction lately?

What do you mean do I know of any fiction that is harmful?

Fiction passed off as fact is ALWAYS harmful to reality because it distorts the truth.

HARMFUL TO REALITY?! What are you, high? Reality doesn't care whether we believe it or not.

Whether it's a lie that ends a marriage starts a war or convinces someone to strap a bomb to there chest in order to kill for a so called paradise after they die.

A lie is a lie.

And what a lie persuades someone that, despite all evidence, there's something inherently wrong with just beating up on the weak to get whatever they want? What then?

Language is a lie that allows you to talk to me. You believe that the words you've typed mean something, but in truth, the only reason they mean anything is that people, en masse, have decided that they have to.

Equality is a lie that keeps society together. We believe that all men are created equal, that everyone deserves a chance, and that we shouldn't just discard or exploit the weak and vulnerable when they become an inconvenience. Why should we do this? All the evidence suggests that we are no better off for it!

[Rudenoodle]

HARMFUL TO REALITY?! What are you, high? Reality doesn't care whether we believe it or not.



And what a lie persuades someone that, despite all evidence, there's something inherently wrong with just beating up on the weak to get whatever they want? What then?

Language is a lie that allows you to talk to me. You believe that the words you've typed mean something, but in truth, the only reason they mean anything is that people, en masse, have decided that they have to.

Equality is a lie that keeps society together. We believe that all men are created equal, that everyone deserves a chance, and that we shouldn't just discard or exploit the weak and vulnerable when they become an inconvenience. Why should we do this? All the evidence suggests that we are no better off for it!

First of all you act as though humans don't already do the horrid things you have described in your post.

Secondly if you need to be TOLD by some higher authority to respect life you would have to be mentally challenged in some way.

And last of all many religions do tell their followers to respect life and many hypocritically use those same text's to justify genocides.

So what is your point anyway?

Do you believe organized religion in a necessity?

[Hoatzin]

First of all you act as though humans don't already do the horrid things you have described in your post.

I don't believe that I did.

Secondly if you need to be TOLD by some higher authority to respect life you would have to be mentally challenged in some way.

And the mentally challenged should be killed in the name of progress, right? :D

j/k, but that's precisely my point. There are assholes in the world, and if a healthy fear of eternal damnation can reign a few of them in, where's the harm?

And last of all many religions do tell their followers to respect life and many hypocritically use those same text's to justify genocides.

"Many"?

So what is your point anyway?

Do you believe organized religion in a necessity?

No, I believe it's inevitable. Unless you find a way to stop people speculating, they will speculate. Unless you find a way to stop people communicating their speculations, they will communicate their speculations. Unless you find a way to stop people organising under a speculative belief, they will do it. Unless you find a way to stop people pooling their resources and acting as a group rather than as individuals, you can't stop religions, cults, societies or clubs from coming about. And unless you're willing to stand up and say "Shut up everyone, because I KNOW THE ACTUAL MEANING OF LIFE AND I CAN PROVE IT BEYOND DISPUTE", you won't ever be able to persuade people that their cause should just be given up because you say so.

I also believe that we should respond to a crime committed in the name of religion by punishing the individual who committed it, rather than the millions who didn't. If religion actually made people bad, rather than simply not "curing" bad people, then we'd be a lot more sure about it than we are. Unless you can prove that a religious person would not have committed said crime if he had not been religious, you really don't have an argument, and even if you could prove that, you'd still have a lot of explaining to do as to the millions of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, Jains, Sikhs, etc. who will never act with the intention of harming another human being in their lives, despite apparently being tainted by religion.

[Rudenoodle]

I don't believe that I did.



And the mentally challenged should be killed in the name of progress, right? :D

j/k, but that's precisely my point. There are assholes in the world, and if a healthy fear of eternal damnation can reign a few of them in, where's the harm?



"Many"?



No, I believe it's inevitable. Unless you find a way to stop people speculating, they will speculate. Unless you find a way to stop people communicating their speculations, they will communicate their speculations. Unless you find a way to stop people organising under a speculative belief, they will do it. Unless you find a way to stop people pooling their resources and acting as a group rather than as individuals, you can't stop religions, cults, societies or clubs from coming about. And unless you're willing to stand up and say "Shut up everyone, because I KNOW THE ACTUAL MEANING OF LIFE AND I CAN PROVE IT BEYOND DISPUTE", you won't ever be able to persuade people that their cause should just be given up because you say so.

I also believe that we should respond to a crime committed in the name of religion by punishing the individual who committed it, rather than the millions who didn't. If religion actually made people bad, rather than simply not "curing" bad people, then we'd be a lot more sure about it than we are. Unless you can prove that a religious person would not have committed said crime if he had not been religious, you really don't have an argument, and even if you could prove that, you'd still have a lot of explaining to do as to the millions of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, Jains, Sikhs, etc. who will never act with the intention of harming another human being in their lives, despite apparently being tainted by religion.

So you would say that telling a child stories of a place where they will be tortured forever if they don't believe is a perfectly fine way to "educate" them on the finer points of life?


It's not a good thing to lie to children.

[Hoatzin]

So you would say that telling a child stories of a place where they will be tortured forever if they don't believe is a perfectly fine way to "educate" them on the finer points of life?


It's not a good thing to lie to children.

Yes. Yes, actually, it is. Because they are children and do not have the maturity and sense of danger to understand that they shouldn't go into the woods because they'd be fucked if something bad happened to them. So you tell them a scary witch lives in there, and they believe that, and then later they learn that there isn't one but by that point they're old enough to be trusted.

[Rudenoodle]

Yes. Yes, actually, it is. Because they are children and do not have the maturity and sense of danger to understand that they shouldn't go into the woods because they'd be fucked if something bad happened to them. So you tell them a scary witch lives in there, and they believe that, and then later they learn that there isn't one but by that point they're old enough to be trusted.

Couldn't you just tell them the truth as to why you don't want them in the forest?

Why wouldn't you want them in the forest anyways?

Maybe because one day when you were young someone like you said the same thing to you?

Couldn't scary witch just be forgotten about and you tell them the REAL reason if any that you don't want them out in the woods.


I know it's a rhetorical question.

[Hoatzin]

Couldn't you just tell them the truth as to why you don't want them in the forest?

Nope, for the same reason I said. They wouldn't understand because children have little sense of their own vulnerability.

Why wouldn't you want them in the forest anyways?

Because it's a long way from anyone who'd be able to help them if they got into trouble, and a more dangerous place than In The Yard Where I Can Keep An Eye On You?

Maybe because one day when you were young someone like you said the same thing to you?

Probably they did, yes. Which of course makes it totally wrong, right? :rolleyes:

Couldn't scary witch just be forgotten about and you tell them the REAL reason if any that you don't want them out in the woods.

No. They benefit from figuring it out for themselves and you want to make sure that that happens at a time when they're responsible enough not to be damaged permanently by the experience. It is really just a crime against reality for someone to believe a fairy story at 5 and know the truth at 15 than be told the truth at 5, not believe it, and get raped by a hobo?

Just saying?

[Rudenoodle]

Nope, for the same reason I said. They wouldn't understand because children have little sense of their own vulnerability.



Because it's a long way from anyone who'd be able to help them if they got into trouble, and a more dangerous place than In The Yard Where I Can Keep An Eye On You?



Probably they did, yes. Which of course makes it totally wrong, right? :rolleyes:



No. They benefit from figuring it out for themselves and you want to make sure that that happens at a time when they're responsible enough not to be damaged permanently by the experience. It is really just a crime against reality for someone to believe a fairy story at 5 and know the truth at 15 than be told the truth at 5, not believe it, and get raped by a hobo?

Just saying?

In case you don't know this, some people when lied to for the first portion of their life have a hard time adjusting to the "real" world they have been censored from.

A bear is more scary than a witch and they really do live in the woods and it really would be dangerous to a kid! Why not use a system at least GROUNDED in reality?

[Hoatzin]

In case you don't know this, some people when lied to for the first portion of their life have a hard time adjusting to the "real" world they have been censored from.

Who? Who has had this problem?

A bear is more scary than a witch and they really do live in the woods and it really would be dangerous to a kid! Why not use a system at least GROUNDED in reality?

Because if you tell them about something real, they can prove the real thing isn't there. If you tell them there's a bear in the woods, and then a few days later the kid sees that someone's shot a bear in the woods, you think they're fine?

And okay, let's say you claim it's a bear rather than a witch. It's still a lie! (I'm talking about the UK, here).

I mean, okay, pretend you're in the UK. There's nothing more immediately scary in our woods than falling down a hole, breaking your leg, and being stuck there for days in excruciating agony hoping that someone will hear your screams before you black out. Are you going to tell your kids that, and hope that they just accept that the risk of it happening is not worth it? Or are you going to lie to them and tell them there's a bear in the woods when there isn't.

[Rudenoodle]

Who? Who has had this problem?



Because if you tell them about something real, they can prove the real thing isn't there. If you tell them there's a bear in the woods, and then a few days later the kid sees that someone's shot a bear in the woods, you think they're fine?

And okay, let's say you claim it's a bear rather than a witch. It's still a lie! (I'm talking about the UK, here).

I mean, okay, pretend you're in the UK. There's nothing more immediately scary in our woods than falling down a hole, breaking your leg, and being stuck there for days in excruciating agony hoping that someone will hear your screams before you black out. Are you going to tell your kids that, and hope that they just accept that the risk of it happening is not worth it? Or are you going to lie to them and tell them there's a bear in the woods when there isn't.

So you think it's ok to control children using lies when the truth can be just as effective?

[Hoatzin]

So you think it's ok to control children using lies when the truth can be just as effective?

No, I think it's okay to control children using lies when the truth WOULD NOT be effective. I think I made that very clear with my last post.

[Rudenoodle]

No, I think it's okay to control children using lies when the truth WOULD NOT be effective. I think I made that very clear with my last post.

No you didn't make that clear, I think what you said was that you didn't have bears where you lived or something completely oblivious to the fact that the question in general was a rhetorical one.

[Hoatzin]

oooh, mister snippy.


My point was that someone's probably not very likely to get mauled by a bear in the forest either. They're far more likely to get lost or hurt themselves and not be able to get help, and that's the real reason you don't want them going in there until they're old enough to understand these risks.

Why is it okay to lie to people as long as it's not about the supernatural?

[Rudenoodle]

oooh, mister snippy.


My point was that someone's probably not very likely to get mauled by a bear in the forest either. They're far more likely to get lost or hurt themselves and not be able to get help, and that's the real reason you don't want them going in there until they're old enough to understand these risks.

Why is it okay to lie to people as long as it's not about the supernatural?

So are you saying that the forest in question really isn't all that dangerous?

[Hoatzin]

So are you saying that the forest in question really isn't all that dangerous?


:rolleyes: no, I'm saying that we lie about it presenting a more immediate danger that people can easily understand and visualise, because the actual danger it presents is harder to "sell" as an idea.

[wa bluska wica]

I guess if I believe anything, it's that people should work.

i believe in very little but that is something i definitely do NOT believe in

people should play

[neodude1212]

how did this end up about forests? :rolleyes:

[kaminoishiki]

The supernatural is the belief in something that can't be explained by man.

Can you give the description of something not known to man without including your own beliefs or philosophies?

No you can't you would have to speculate.

Speculation lead's to superstition, superstition leads to fear and violence and god eat god mindsets that have crippled human civilization.

So why can't some people just say "I don't know." Why do they have to fool themselves first then try to fool others into thinking the same way.

You do know what a fascist is right?

I respect your opinion Neo, but I see we disagree quite a bit on this subject.


You.
You are not known to yourself. You cannot be known to yourself, and nor can you know any other.

So, by your definition, then, you are supernatural.

Are you a fool for believing yourself to exist? or do you not exist?

[SoManyDaysSuchLittleTime]

Sure, lie to children, because that builds trusting relationships. :rolleyes:

If you have a relationship with your god, that's your deal, but it's time to decide which bond you want to be stronger, the one between you and your god, or the one between you and your children.

People put their children 2nd all the time. It pisses me off but it's socially acceptable, so quit trying to explain it and just be one of the masses already.

[Hoatzin]

how did this end up about forests? :rolleyes:

I was trying to illustrate to Rude why lying can be noble.

[Hoatzin]

Sure, lie to children, because that builds trusting relationships. :rolleyes:

If you have a relationship with your god, that's your deal, but it's time to decide which bond you want to be stronger, the one between you and your god, or the one between you and your children.

People put their children 2nd all the time. It pisses me off but it's socially acceptable, so quit trying to explain it and just be one of the masses already.

I think kids are harmed more by parental indifference than lies.

[SoManyDaysSuchLittleTime]

You don't think lies come from indifference?

[Okiefreak]

You can say "I don't know" and do research on whatever subject you don't understand.

That's fine it's called learning, but when you come across something you don't understand and instead of using facts you just fall back on an ancient tome or your own un-proven theories and make them fit eventually it's going to become obvious that it doesen't work the way it was originally thought to.

Saying "I don't know" does not exclude you from anything, it invites you to learn more.

Religion takes this great chance at education and distorts it by giving the learner a warped view of life that he or she may never be able to fully shake.What I find ironic about your post is that you and another poster on these threads, Relaxx, seem pretty dogmatic in your assertions about religion when you really don't know. Obviously, you think you know, when you don't. You're going on the basis of your personal impressions, and dogmatizing these as "the Truth". The same is true of lots of religious folks. I think you'd both go farther by qualifying your assertions. You wouldn't be written off as cranks so easily.

[Rudenoodle]

You.
You are not known to yourself. You cannot be known to yourself, and nor can you know any other.

So, by your definition, then, you are supernatural.

Are you a fool for believing yourself to exist? or do you not exist?

I assure you I'm not supernatural in any way.

[Rudenoodle]

I was trying to illustrate to Rude why lying can be noble.

Which you failed to do. Telling lies to children is one of the most cowardly way to prove a point I can think of.

[Rudenoodle]

What I find ironic about your post is that you and another poster on these threads, Relaxx, seem pretty dogmatic in your assertions about religion when you really don't know. Obviously, you think you know, when you don't. You're going on the basis of your personal impressions, and dogmatizing these as "the Truth". The same is true of lots of religious folks. I think you'd both go farther by qualifying your assertions. You wouldn't be written off as cranks so easily.

So do you believe not in the POSSIBILITY of the supernatural but in the actual supernatural?

Have you ever been "touched" by the holy ghost?

If not why would you defend it's practice?

[OlderWaterBrother]

lately i have been amusing myself by trying to get certain christians slavering over the apocalypse to tell me one thing [which they cannot bring themselves to do]--why they preferred the message of death and destruction over that of life and peaceThe message of Armageddon is of life and of a cleansing of the Earth.

which led me to wonder--what is the purpose of religion [and/or philosophy]?
is it to teach one how to live one's life, to get along with others in harmony?
or is its purpose to help us to deny the world, to long for oblivion or heaven? The purpose of religion should be to lead us in our relationship with God and show us how to get the most out of our lives without harming others to do so.

is the desire for armageddon a sublimation of suicidal tendencies? No, for I feel it is possible for one to live though Armageddon and continue to life on the this cleansed Earth.

can a person who wants to disappear and leave us to suffer through gog vs. magog ever be trusted?I don’t want to disappear and don’t think I will. I mean, why miss the chance to be an “I told you so”.

[neodude1212]

Which you failed to do. Telling lies to children is one of the most cowardly way to prove a point I can think of.

so you think children should always be told the truth about everything no matter what?

[Rudenoodle]

so you think children should always be told the truth about everything no matter what?

Yes.

[neodude1212]

Yes.


you realize that we are talking about children?

....right?

[Rudenoodle]

you realize that we are talking about children?

....right?

Yes, I believe if a child asks a question they should get an honest answer even if it takes all day to break it down for them.

What I don't think is that a child's head should be filled with lies and nonsense just for the sake of an "easy" answer.

[OlderWaterBrother]

Yes, I believe if a child asks a question they should get an honest answer even if it takes all day to break it down for them.

What I don't think is that a child's head should be filled with lies and nonsense just for the sake of an "easy" answer.Do you read fiction or are strictly non-fiction?

[Rudenoodle]

Do you read fiction or are strictly non-fiction?

I read a great deal of both, and I'm excellent at telling the difference between the two.

But you already knew that.

[OlderWaterBrother]

I read a great deal of both, and I'm excellent at telling the difference between the two.

But you already knew that.No, I didn't know that but anyway would you read fiction to children and if so at what age?

[Rudenoodle]

No, I didn't know that but anyway would you read fiction to children and if so at what age?

Unfortunately YOU can do whatever you want to children, so if you want to read them a fictional story then lie to them and say it's real you can.

[OlderWaterBrother]

Unfortunately YOU can do whatever you want to children, so if you want to read them a fictional story then lie to them and say it's real you can.I beg your pardon, I ask a question about your beliefs and you go off. What's that all about?

[Rudenoodle]

I beg your pardon, I ask a question about your beliefs and you go off. What's that all about?

My belief is that it is ALWAYS wrong to lie to children (anyone in fact) and you disagree.

[OlderWaterBrother]

My belief is that it is ALWAYS wrong to lie to children (anyone in fact) and you disagree.What in the world are you talking about?

One, I asked you about reading fiction to children and second, where did you get the impression that I disagreed?

You can’t be that bone headed can you?

[Rudenoodle]

What in the world are you talking about?

One, I asked you about reading fiction to children and second, where did you get the impression that I disagreed?

You can’t be that bone headed can you?

Yawn, are you just trying to tire me out?

Stop quoting me and I'll stop quoting you.

[OlderWaterBrother]

Yawn, are you just trying to tire me out?

Stop quoting me and I'll stop quoting you.Sorry, somehow I got the mistaken impression that you liked to discuss things. I didn't realize that when you run out of your pat answers you have nothing to say.

Have a nice day,
OWB

[Rudenoodle]

My belief is that it is ALWAYS wrong to lie to children (anyone in fact) and you disagree.

This is what we disagree on right?

[OlderWaterBrother]

This is what we disagree on right?If you wish you can reread this whole thread, in fact you if you wish you can read every post that I've posted in hip forums and I think will find that I have NEVER said it was okay to lie to children!

[Rudenoodle]

No, I think it's okay to control children using lies when the truth WOULD NOT be effective. I think I made that very clear with my last post.

I apologize OWB, I had you confused with someone else.

My bad.

[OlderWaterBrother]

I apologize OWB, I had you confused with someone else.

My bad.Thanx, but not a problem, it's not like I've never done the same thing.

Anyway, when you were talking about lying to children, it occurred to me that in a way fiction could be considered lying and was wondering your opinion on the subject

That is why I asked you; would you read fiction to children and if so at what age?

[Rudenoodle]

Thanx, but not a problem, it's not like I've never done the same thing.

Anyway, when you were talking about lying to children, it occurred to me that in a way fiction could be considered lying and was wondering your opinion on the subject

That is why I asked you; would you read fiction to children and if so at what age?


Fiction at any age is fine as long as it's not attempted to be passed off as fact.

Read them Clifford the big red dog but don't TELL them it's real.

Religious nonsense in other word's.

That's my opinion.

[OlderWaterBrother]

Fiction at any age is fine as long as it's not attempted to be passed off as fact.

Read them Clifford the big red dog but don't TELL them it's real.

Religious nonsense in other word's.

That's my opinion.I was reading that children under the age of 4 have no way to distinguish between true and false, even if you tell them, thus it would seem that fiction would be a lie to them even if you told them otherwise.

[Rudenoodle]

I was reading that children under the age of 4 have no way to distinguish between true and false, even if you tell them, thus it would seem that fiction would be a lie to them even if you told them otherwise.

I personally would still see no need to lie to a child even if it was PROVEN to not cause any harm.

[OlderWaterBrother]

I personally would still see no need to lie to a child even if it was PROVEN to not cause any harm.I guess I need to reword the question.

My question was not; seeing that a child under 4 can not useally tell the difference between true and false is it okay to lie to them?

My question was; if child can not tell the difference between true and false, fiction and nonfiction, then if you read a fiction book to them and no matter how many times you tell them that the book is not true, they are still going to think the book is true. Thus in a way it would seem they have been lied to, so do you think it would better not to read fiction to them before 4 or do you think it doesn't matter what you read to them?

[Rudenoodle]

I guess I need to reword the question.

My question was not; seeing that a child under 4 can not useally tell the difference between true and false is it okay to lie to them?

My question was; if child can not tell the difference between true and false, fiction and nonfiction, then if you read a fiction book to them and no matter how many times you tell them that the book is not true, they are still going to think the book is true. Thus in a way it would seem they have been lied to, so do you think it would better not to read fiction to them before 4 or do you think it doesn't matter what you read to them?

I don't think it would matter if it was a fictional story being read to them or just soothing sounds from there parent's.

But I'm not an expert on the human mind so I can not say your statement is true or not.

[Hoatzin]

You don't think lies come from indifference?

No! Would you lie to protect someone if you didn't care about them?

[Hoatzin]

Yes, I believe if a child asks a question they should get an honest answer even if it takes all day to break it down for them.

Not trying to invalidate your point, but do you have kids?

[Rudenoodle]

Not trying to invalidate your point, but do you have kids?

No, because I realize what a colossal task it would be to raise a child right.

Mainly because I hate lying and not very good at short answer's.

[Hoatzin]

No, because I realize what a colossal task it would be to raise a child right.

Mainly because I hate lying and not very good at short answer's.

In this case, I feel you are being incredibly judgmental of something you don't really know much about. I only have other people's kids very occasionally, but even then, answering questions all day can be incredibly wearing.

Your comment about how you should explain everything to a child no matter how long it takes seemed rather blinkered. You assume, for example, that the parent will know the answer to every question the child asks, or that there's an answer at all.

[neodude1212]

Seems to me someone is having trouble realizing that children are not adults...

[Rudenoodle]

In this case, I feel you are being incredibly judgmental of something you don't really know much about. I only have other people's kids very occasionally, but even then, answering questions all day can be incredibly wearing.

Your comment about how you should explain everything to a child no matter how long it takes seemed rather blinkered. You assume, for example, that the parent will know the answer to every question the child asks, or that there's an answer at all.

Yawn, just because I don't have a child of my own does not mean I'm completely naive as to what it would take to raise one.

Do you lie to your children?

[Rudenoodle]

Seems to me someone is having trouble realizing that children are not adults...

What is a child?

Some people would still consider you to be a child, does that mean that you are?

[Hoatzin]

Yawn, just because I don't have a child of my own does not mean I'm completely naive as to what it would take to raise one.

Do you lie to your children?

I don't have children. I lie to my niece all the time but only because it's funny.

How would you go about explaining to a child that she needs to eat her dinner because it will get cold and she won't get anymore that day? I honestly have no idea, so I just tell her that if she doesn't eat it up, bats will eat it. For some reason it works.

And I didn't say that you're completely naive, but I would like your answer to the question I actually asked.

[Hoatzin]

What is a child?

Some people would still consider you to be a child, does that mean that you are?

Someone who's too young for us to expect them to look after themselves, I guess.

Let's debate whether childhood exists purely because you've said it's never okay to lie to a child and cannot possibly retract that.

[Rudenoodle]

I don't have children. I lie to my niece all the time but only because it's funny.

How would you go about explaining to a child that she needs to eat her dinner because it will get cold and she won't get anymore that day? I honestly have no idea, so I just tell her that if she doesn't eat it up, bats will eat it. For some reason it works.

And I didn't say that you're completely naive, but I would like your answer to the question I actually asked.

But do you think she will eventually figure out that there are no bat's?

Probably.

Do you think that one day you will stop telling her that bat's will eat her food?

Probably.

But that's not what religion does, it uses fear to manipulate people and then never tells them its not real.

In fact many go on to state that the REAL fun happens after your dead.

[Hoatzin]

But do you think she will eventually figure out that there are no bat's?

Probably.

Do you think that one day you will stop telling her that bat's will eat her food?

Probably.

But that's not what religion does, it uses fear to manipulate people and then never tells them its not real.

In fact many go on to state that the REAL fun happens after your dead.

I may stop telling her, but I doubt I'll ever tell her that it was a lie. She'll figure it out for herself. Just like with religion.

Maybe you have had a different religious experience from most people I've spoken to, but normally, that's what people do. They decide one day that they've got enough reason to believe that there is no god, and so they believe.

If I need someone to tell me that there's no god, I'll have an incredibly weak grounds for atheism, especially considering that there's no proof that there isn't a god (and thus someone claiming to know that there isn't one would really be lying).

And I don't know that many religions tell people not to live their lives and to wait for death. Christianity certainly doesn't. Sloth is one of the seven deadly sins, after all.

[Rudenoodle]

I may stop telling her, but I doubt I'll ever tell her that it was a lie. She'll figure it out for herself. Just like with religion.

Maybe you have had a different religious experience from most people I've spoken to, but normally, that's what people do. They decide one day that they've got enough reason to believe that there is no god, and so they believe.

If I need someone to tell me that there's no god, I'll have an incredibly weak grounds for atheism, especially considering that there's no proof that there isn't a god (and thus someone claiming to know that there isn't one would really be lying).

And I don't know that many religions tell people not to live their lives and to wait for death. Christianity certainly doesn't. Sloth is one of the seven deadly sins, after all.

Religion as a whole is to massive to take on, you have to pick apart the individual religions and expose how they were man made.

Your right I can't say there is no god based solely on the fact that the "god" in question has never appeared to me.

Does that mean I have to "accept" what others believe to be true when it in my opinion harm's society?

Religion is for fools.

[Hoatzin]

Religion as a whole is to massive to take on, you have to pick apart the individual religions and expose how they were man made.

Most religious people already know that. Christians aren't taught that God wrote the Bible, after all. They know that it was written by men. They BELIEVE that those men were inspired by God. How are you going to disprove that?

Also, yet again, why is this preferable to simply deploring violence, whether it's committed in the name of religion or not?

Your right I can't say there is no god based solely on the fact that the "god" in question has never appeared to me.

Does that mean I have to "accept" what others believe to be true when it in my opinion harm's society?

No. It just means that you should accept that you don't know certain things and avoid arbitrarily making statements like this:

Religion is for fools.

[bthizle1]

I don't really see any point in arguing over what exactly religion is, as there's so many different forms of beliefs/traditions and doctrines/scripture out there that despite their many sismilarities, they simply have to many differences to impose one word upon them such as "religion" (shit even "them" is to generalizing).

I think what you may be forgetting Rude, is that Spirituality and Religion are often two very different things. Sometimes they work simultaneously in a symbiotic relationship, however not always. Take ancient philosophers for example...essentially they were their times contemporary scientist/"religious" leaders. They considered both to be critical in determining what is, according to what we do "know", yet recognizing that we know so little at the same time. What we base so much of todays reality off of is derived from our knowledge of quantum mechanics (study of the atom), which was originally theorized by Democritus. It wasn't really until the Catholic Church in Europe that popular thought started to take on the opinion that science and spirituality couldn't walk hand in hand (perhaps because it literally proves their "religion" as very improbable) that western thought; being that science highly differed from spirituality was more widely held.

Nowadays people are realizing more and more that science and spirituality must walk hand in hand, because essentially they are one in the same. When we theorize, we are basing our hypothesis on observations that we have made, doing so automates the process of them working together. We "believe" it to be "true"," or as close to "truth" as is possible (ie. most probable). We are still taking "leaps of faith" if you will, simply by labeling and assuming to understand, its just throwing human logic in the equation.

[Rudenoodle]

I don't really see any point in arguing over what exactly religion is, as there's so many different forms of beliefs/traditions and doctrines/scripture out there that despite their many sismilarities, they simply have to many differences to impose one word upon them such as "religion" (shit even "them" is to generalizing).

I think what you may be forgetting Rude, is that Spirituality and Religion are often two very different things. Sometimes they work simultaneously in a symbiotic relationship, however not always. Take ancient philosophers for example...essentially they were their times contemporary scientist/"religious" leaders. They considered both to be critical in determining what is, according to what we do "know", yet recognizing that we know so little at the same time. What we base so much of todays reality off of is derived from our knowledge of quantum mechanics (study of the atom), which was originally theorized by Democritus. It wasn't really until the Catholic Church in Europe that popular thought started to take on the opinion that science and spirituality couldn't walk hand in hand (perhaps because it literally proves their "religion" as very improbable) that western thought; being that science highly differed from spirituality was more widely held.

Nowadays people are realizing more and more that science and spirituality must walk hand in hand, because essentially they are one in the same. When we theorize, we are basing our hypothesis on observations that we have made, doing so automates the process of them working together. We "believe" it to be "true"," or as close to "truth" as is possible (ie. most probable). We are still taking "leaps of faith" if you will, simply by labeling and assuming to understand, its just throwing human logic in the equation.

You have been fooled, science and "spirituality" are not "one in the same".

They are actually opposites if you ask me.

One is truth, the other a lie.

[OlderWaterBrother]

I don't really see any point in arguing over what exactly religion is, as there's so many different forms of beliefs/traditions and doctrines/scripture out there that despite their many sismilarities, they simply have to many differences to impose one word upon them such as "religion" (shit even "them" is to generalizing).

I think what you may be forgetting Rude, is that Spirituality and Religion are often two very different things. Sometimes they work simultaneously in a symbiotic relationship, however not always. Take ancient philosophers for example...essentially they were their times contemporary scientist/"religious" leaders. They considered both to be critical in determining what is, according to what we do "know", yet recognizing that we know so little at the same time. What we base so much of todays reality off of is derived from our knowledge of quantum mechanics (study of the atom), which was originally theorized by Democritus. It wasn't really until the Catholic Church in Europe that popular thought started to take on the opinion that science and spirituality couldn't walk hand in hand (perhaps because it literally proves their "religion" as very improbable) that western thought; being that science highly differed from spirituality was more widely held.

Nowadays people are realizing more and more that science and spirituality must walk hand in hand, because essentially they are one in the same. When we theorize, we are basing our hypothesis on observations that we have made, doing so automates the process of them working together. We "believe" it to be "true"," or as close to "truth" as is possible (ie. most probable). We are still taking "leaps of faith" if you will, simply by labeling and assuming to understand, its just throwing human logic in the equation.Just wanted to say; Nice thought!

[Rudenoodle]

I think what you may be forgetting Rude, is that Spirituality and Religion are often two very different things.

Nowadays people are realizing more and more that science and spirituality must walk hand in hand, because essentially they are one in the same.

It seems like I have already responded to a statement very similar to this one...

"Spirituality and religion are not "two separate things" they are both the belief in the unproven.

Science and spirituality can't walk hand in hand, they are opposites if anything at all.

Science is the concerted human effort to understand, or to understand better, the history of the natural world and how the natural world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding1. It is done through observation of natural phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate natural processes under controlled conditions. (There are, of course, more definitions of science.)

Spirituality is just faith in a not so clever disguise. It's just a guess as to what is real.

[bthizle1]

It seems like I have already responded to a statement very similar to this one...

"Spirituality and religion are not "two separate things" they are both the belief in the unproven.

Science and spirituality can't walk hand in hand, they are opposites if anything at all.

Science is the concerted human effort to understand, or to understand better, the history of the natural world and how the natural world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding1. It is done through observation of natural phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate natural processes under controlled conditions. (There are, of course, more definitions of science.)

Spirituality is just faith in a not so clever disguise. It's just a guess as to what is real.

Not so much my friend...Take Reiki for example. Reiki is a highly spiritual practice, but according to Mr. Einstein the utilization of a universal energy is indeed possible (E=Mc2). In Reiki it is believed that one is channeling that energy that is contained withing everything known to us in order to inhibit healing on both an emotional and physical level. Spirituality is not just "faith"...well I suppose everything to some degree or another is just "faith" if you're going to say that about spirituality...hell even gravity is faith....it has affected us since our beginnings as a species, yet we have not always recognized it's presence. It took "faith" to compose the ideal of gravity in the first place. Spirituality is essential in the progression of our understanding of our surroundings.

[Rudenoodle]

Not so much my friend...Take Reiki for example. Reiki is a highly spiritual practice, but according to Mr. Einstein the utilization of a universal energy is indeed possible (E=Mc2). In Reiki it is believed that one is channeling that energy that is contained withing everything known to us in order to inhibit healing on both an emotional and physical level. Spirituality is not just "faith"...well I suppose everything to some degree or another is just "faith" if you're going to say that about spirituality...hell even gravity is faith....it has affected us since our beginnings as a species, yet we have not always recognized it's presence. It took "faith" to compose the ideal of gravity in the first place. Spirituality is essential in the progression of our understanding of our surroundings.

Has the practice of "Reiki" ever been shown to "channel" energy?

Probably not, has it ever been shown to do anything other than give people a little "piece of mind" as long as it's not investigated to deeply?

[bthizle1]

Has the practice of "Reiki" ever been shown to "channel" energy?

Probably not, has it ever been shown to do anything other than give people a little "piece of mind" as long as it's not investigated to deeply?

Well, that's entirely dependent upon the open mindedness of the individual whose observing/participating in whatever form of Reiki is being performed. Somethings simply aren't a matter of numbers, regardless of the perceivably realistic labels we put on "nature" (the way of any "thing") we may still not fully understand what "is" is, let alone what "it" (that which is contained within "is") is.

[Rudenoodle]

Well, that's entirely dependent upon the open mindedness of the individual whose observing/participating in whatever form of Reiki is being performed. Somethings simply aren't a matter of numbers, regardless of the perceivably realistic labels we put on "nature" (the way of any "thing") we may still not fully understand what "is" is, let alone what "it" (that which is contained within "is") is.

So Reiki could just be considered a hobby in other words?

[bthizle1]

So Reiki could just be considered a hobby in other words?

Not necessarily, basically there's more than meets the eye.

[Rudenoodle]

Not necessarily, basically there's more than meets the eye.

I highly doubt that unless whoever created this religion was into slight of hand. (as he very well could of been)


Can you give me a link to a reputable site on this practice, I'm kinda interested. :P

[bthizle1]

I highly doubt that unless whoever created this religion was into slight of hand. (as he very well could of been)


Can you give me a link to a reputable site on this practice, I'm kinda interested. :P

Being as Reiki isn't a religion I can already see you make many assumptions...I'm not trying to argue with you, just trying to give you another perspective rather than this ideal you have in which science and spirituality cannot coexist.

[Rudenoodle]

Being as Reiki isn't a religion I can already see you make many assumptions...I'm not trying to argue with you, just trying to give you another perspective rather than this ideal you have in which science and spirituality cannot coexist.

They can't.

[OlderWaterBrother]

They can't.They can.

[all hallows]

i think that depends on your religion or "your philosophy" really; your connection and opinion of (or lack thereof) people, your desired purpose in life, your beliefs and how they serve you in your life, how you apply them, et cetera.

i don't waste my time on external manifestations of something man has trouble accepting; his ego. i've got one and so do you, you all do. look in the mirror and you'll see who's in charge.

[Rudenoodle]

If you are part of a religion that believes after you die you will go to a better place you are members of a cult that hold death to a higher standard than life.

If you are part of a religion that includes descriptions of an afterlife that is a horrid existence and a place to serve punishment you have been fooled more than likely by someone who was attempting to control you.

[all hallows]

If you are part of a religion that believes after you die you will go to a better place you are members of a cult that hold death to a higher standard than life.

If you are part of a religion that includes descriptions of an afterlife that is a horrid existence and a place to serve punishment you have been fooled more than likely by someone who was attempting to control you.

word.

[OlderWaterBrother]

If you are part of a religion that believes after you die you will go to a better place you are members of a cult that hold death to a higher standard than life.

If you are part of a religion that includes descriptions of an afterlife that is a horrid existence and a place to serve punishment you have been fooled more than likely by someone who was attempting to control you.What if you're part of a religion that believes that you have a chance to not die at all and live forever on earth?

[Rudenoodle]

What if you're part of a religion that believes that you have a chance to not die at all and live forever on earth?

You would be a fool...

I hope that answered your question.

[OlderWaterBrother]

You would be a fool...

I hope that answered your question.Not really, since you believe that everyone who believes in a religion is a fool.

In the other two cases you added a qualifier, saying basically that one was a death cult while the other was a fear cult.

So, what if you're part of a religion that believes that you have a chance to not die at all and live forever on earth?

Would that be a life cult?

[wa bluska wica]

What if you're part of a religion that believes that you have a chance to not die at all and live forever on earth?

you'd be rastafari

ask bob marley how that turned out...

[Rudenoodle]

Not really, since you believe that everyone who believes in a religion is a fool.

In the other two cases you added a qualifier, saying basically that one was a death cult while the other was a fear cult.

So, what if you're part of a religion that believes that you have a chance to not die at all and live forever on earth?

Would that be a life cult?

If someone tells you that if you join there cult you will live forever on earth you are being lied to.

You could also say if you believed what the people who operate the cult are saying you are being fooled.

Religion is an attempt to control you, it's a slap in the face of human decency to say "I need an imaginary friend to MAKE me behave".

Religion is a means of control, it is used by tyrants to mobilize armies and by it's own religious business men to make a fortune from the backs of people who have next to nothing to give.

Religion is for fools and those who attempt to fool others.

[OlderWaterBrother]

If someone tells you that if you join there cult you will live forever on earth you are being lied to.

You could also say if you believed what the people who operate the cult are saying you are being fooled.

Religion is an attempt to control you, it's a slap in the face of human decency to say "I need an imaginary friend to MAKE me behave".

Religion is a means of control, it is used by tyrants to mobilize armies and by it's own religious business men to make a fortune from the backs of people who have next to nothing to give.

Religion is for fools and those who attempt to fool others.It's a lie?

That's funny, is that your answer for everything you don't have proof of.

[Rudenoodle]

It's a lie?

That's funny, is that your answer for everything you don't have proof of.

Well if there is NO proof of something in recorded human history and someone tells me it's the truth without having any proof in it themselves I call them misguided.

If they say they believe for a fact there is a magical omnipotent being that is beyond human understanding I ask for proof. When they are unable to present any I believe they are either propagating an agenda or have just been fooled.

So we have been arguing back and forth awhile now and you probably have figured out my stance on whether or not there is a definite SUPERNATURAL force that created time, mass and space.

So how about you water?

Do you believe in ghosts?

[Monkey Boy]

[quote=Rudenoodle;5014431]Well if there is NO proof of something in recorded human history and someone tells me it's the truth without having any proof in it themselves I call them misguided.

If they say they believe for a fact there is a magical omnipotent being that is beyond human understanding I ask for proof.


And you're trying to say there is no omnipotent being base on what proof? It takes a lot of faith to be an atheist. Just the opposite side of the same coin.

[Rudenoodle]

[quote=Rudenoodle;5014431]Well if there is NO proof of something in recorded human history and someone tells me it's the truth without having any proof in it themselves I call them misguided.

If they say they believe for a fact there is a magical omnipotent being that is beyond human understanding I ask for proof.


And you're trying to say there is no omnipotent being base on what proof? It takes a lot of faith to be an atheist. Just the opposite side of the same coin.

Faith is the belief in that which CANT be proven.

I say there is no omnipotent being based on the lack of evidence for it's existence.

Again belief in the possibility of the supernatural versus belief in the literal supernatural are two different things.

Religion is two massive to tackle as a whole, It's my belief that all religion was in fact man made is the best stance to take.

In other words man made god.

[Monkey Boy]

[quote=Monkey Boy;5014448]

Faith is the belief in that which CANT be proven.

I say there is no omnipotent being based on the lack of evidence for it's existence.

Again belief in the possibility of the supernatural versus belief in the literal supernatural are two different things.

Religion is two massive to tackle as a whole, It's my belief that all religion was in fact man made is the best stance to take.

In other words man made god.

So you believe in the possibility of the supernatural? Your belief that man made God. Can you prove it?...or maybe you believe in the possibility of God.....I'm a little confused.

[Rudenoodle]

[quote=Rudenoodle;5014457]

So you believe in the possibility of the supernatural? Your belief that man made God. Can you prove it?...or maybe you believe in the possibility of God.....I'm a little confused.

There is no religious text that I am aware of that did not originate from a human being.

All philosophy and thought that has EVER been recorded and found on Earth has been made by man.

If they find proof otherwise I will consider it.

I believe in the unknown not the supernatural.

Supernatural would be something that worked beyond the laws (known and unknown) of nature.

Just because we don't understand it does not mean it's supernatural.

[OlderWaterBrother]

Do you believe in ghosts?
No but for entirely different reasons.

[OlderWaterBrother]

Well if there is NO proof of something in recorded human history and someone tells me it's the truth without having any proof in it themselves I call them misguided.So you think atheists are misguided?

[OlderWaterBrother]

Faith is the belief in that which CANT be proven.Actually, faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.

[Rudenoodle]

So you think atheists are misguided?

No, the LACK of evidence for a divine creator is the evidence of it's human creation.

It seems like your putting your eggs in another basket that is neither atheistic or main stream religion, that's fine there is nothing wrong with that.

If it makes you feel good do it I say, but just because you've created your own belief system for yourself does not mean it is factual.

I say this because I'm under the assumption that you are not an atheist or a follower of a written "holy" book of some kind, I may be wrong but I am a bit perplexed as to what your stance is on the supernatural.

Are we at different ends of the same table, or are we sitting in different buildings? :piggy:

[OlderWaterBrother]

No, the LACK of evidence for a divine creator is the evidence of its human creation. I’m just saying this is a two edged sword that cuts both ways. If you say that there is a lack of evidence for a divine creator, I can say that there is a lack of evidence for the absence of a divine creator.

It seems like your putting your eggs in another basket that is neither atheistic or main stream religion, that's fine there is nothing wrong with that. This is true.

If it makes you feel good do it I say, but just because you've created your own belief system for yourself does not mean it is factual. That depends on what you call factual, are you one, who unless you can see, touch or taste it, it’s not real or a fact? If that is the case then yes what I believe is not factual, to you.

I say this because I'm under the assumption that you are not an atheist or a follower of a written "holy" book of some kind, I may be wrong but I am a bit perplexed as to what your stance is on the supernatural. You are correct about my not being an atheist but I find the Bible to be worth reading. As for the supernatural, I guess you could call God supernatural but in dealing with this universe everything he does is natural although we may not be able to explain it all yet.

Are we at different ends of the same table, or are we sitting in different buildings? I’m not sure yet, it’s been hard getting past your; “it’s a lie” and getting into a real discussion.

[Rudenoodle]

I’m just saying this is a two edged sword that cuts both ways. If you say that there is a lack of evidence for a divine creator, I can say that there is a lack of evidence for the absence of a divine creator.

This is true.

That depends on what you call factual, are you one, who unless you can see, touch or taste it, it’s not real or a fact? If that is the case then yes what I believe is not factual, to you.

You are correct about my not being an atheist but I find the Bible to be worth reading. As for the supernatural, I guess you could call God supernatural but in dealing with this universe everything he does is natural although we may not be able to explain it all yet.

I’m not sure yet, it’s been hard getting past your; “it’s a lie” and getting into a real discussion.

Disagreement is the best form of discussion.

[OlderWaterBrother]

Disagreement is the best form of discussion.It's really not a discussion if one person keeps saying the same thing over and over again.

Yes there is, No there isn't, Yes there is, No there isn't, Yes there is, No there isn't, Yes there is, No there isn't, Yes there is, No there isn't, really isn't much of a discussion.

It's kind of nice when you change it up with a; "Why do you feel that way" from time to time.

[Rudenoodle]

It's kind of nice when you change it up with a; "Why do you feel that way" from time to time.

I have never in my life experienced anything I would consider to be a sign from a god.

If tomorrow I do maybe I'll look at things a different way, until then it seems ridicules to "believe" in something that does not exist in the literal sense.

Also I believe any sentient being that was in some way able to end or stop all the atrocities that are committed in the world but failed to act should be put on trial for crimes against humanity.

So if "god" ever shows up I'm going to suggest he is put on trial, no different from a Nazi war criminal. :D:p:piggy:

[OlderWaterBrother]

Thanx! I have never in my life experienced anything I would consider to be a sign from a god. I’ve ever experienced the kind of sign you’re talking about either. God’s signs in today’s world are a little more subtle. He was a little more open about it in the past and look what happened to his son.

If tomorrow I do maybe I'll look at things a different way, until then it seems ridicules to "believe" in something that does not exist in the literal sense. I can understand that and I don’t ridicule any one for feeling that way.

Also I believe any sentient being that was in some way able to end or stop all the atrocities that are committed in the world but failed to act should be put on trial for crimes against humanity.
So if "god" ever shows up I'm going to suggest he is put on trial, no different from a Nazi war criminal. It’s kind of funny you should say that. There are many Christians that feel God is on trial as we speak and that is why he has not stepped in as of yet to fix the problems you have mentioned.

[Monkey Boy]

[quote=Monkey Boy;5014483]

There is no religious text that I am aware of that did not originate from a human being.

All philosophy and thought that has EVER been recorded and found on Earth has been made by man.

If they find proof otherwise I will consider it.

I believe in the unknown not the supernatural.

Supernatural would be something that worked beyond the laws (known and unknown) of nature.

Just because we don't understand it does not mean it's supernatural.

So you are a strict materialist? I actually think I get where you're coming from. The more we find out about the natural world, the more complex it gets. Have you studied String Theory or Quantum Mechanics at all? Crazy stuff. I think a lot of people underestimate the natural world and turn to the supernatural because it's a simpler more expediate explanation. Interesting.....

[OlderWaterBrother]

The more we find out about the natural world, the more complex it gets. So true. Even what at one time was thought of as a simple one celled creature, we now know is as complex as it gets and not simple at all.

Have you studied String Theory or Quantum Mechanics at all? Crazy stuff.Yes, a bit, I find it fascinating.

I think a lot of people underestimate the natural world and turn to the supernatural because it's a simpler more expediate explanation. Interesting.....I really don’t believe in all the “God gap” stuff and that God is only an explanation for what we don’t understand. I personally believe that even if one day we “know it all”, I think it will only serve to help us appreciate God and his works all the more.

[Monkey Boy]

So true. Even what at one time was thought of as a simple one celled creature, we now know is as complex as it gets and not simple at all.

Yes, a bit, I find it fascinating.

I really don’t believe in all the “God gap” stuff and that God is only an explanation for what we don’t understand. I personally believe that even if one day we “know it all”, I think it will only serve to help us appreciate God and his works all the more.

I respect your belief. :)