Neo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass
you can't win this
just admit it, we all end up in the same dirt.
you can't win this
just admit it, we all end up in the same dirt.
Why dropping church and not praying might have been a mistake...
- Thread starter Zur
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
But I can try! Let's see what my deranged mind can cook up. Hmmm, there must be a way but I'll save it for another thread.
(Yeah I've read about thermodynamics before. Very interesting)
(Yeah I've read about thermodynamics before. Very interesting)
It's too bad that you don't bother to read anyone else's thoughts on such matters, to me it says you are unwilling to reexamine your own beliefs. So how are you being any less simple?
And also you just proved something I said above, that some people seem to take faith as a sign of "simple mindedness". You know what? There is nothing wrong with simplicity. In fact, I think it's a fallacy that we have to keep on making the world a more complex place for some reason.
As for your last statement, if time will eventually forget any of us ever existed, there is really no point trying to make the world a better place, is there? So you may as well die now if you really believe what you said.
Religion is biased.
Religion is hypocritical.
Atleast Science has some sense.
btw. I don't "do" religion.
Religion is hypocritical.
Atleast Science has some sense.
btw. I don't "do" religion.
"Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."
Yes, because they go together like a horse & carriage. When people talk about 'faith', it's almost always in a religious context.
Faith is very rarely (completely) separate from religion, and when it is, it's usually called something else. Nonetheless, I can sort of see your point, and it's certainly good to have strong beliefs, to stand for something. Faith + reason can be powerful combination indeed.
Care to elaborate?
There's a big difference between religion and philosophy/self spirituality. Religion by definition, and all throughout history, has been used almost exclusively to control people, and it still is today.
lol.
no.
it just means I am unwilling to read anyone else's replies in this silly thread.
trust me, I've examined and reexamined my beliefs at numerous points in my life so far. following the death of a close relative or during other such trying circumstances.
it's not like I arrived at this conclusion upon taking a sh*t one morning...
uh.... that doesn't really have anything to do with what I meant by "simple mindedness."
typical response.I completely believe what I said.
but you're making a very poor leap in logic when you say "may as well die now."
there's no heaven waiting for anyone and history is (on average) going to forget you were ever here. HOWEVER, this doesn't mean you should just curl up and die. the point of life is to live and enjoy yourself and the people around you.
you're looking at this like an absolutist, which is a fundamentally flawed perspective to take.
there are plenty of good reasons for living which have nothing to do with belief in an afterlife or worrying about whether or not anyone is going to remember you.
Last edited:
Also I'm from Kansas so I have to deal with ****ing morons that believe the Bible over Science on a daily basis.
People always believe one over the other.
When people can believe in both religion and science equally the world would be peaceful.
Religion fills in what science can't explain, without it, would anything make sense?
When people can believe in both religion and science equally the world would be peaceful.
Religion fills in what science can't explain, without it, would anything make sense?
What I mean is, our society values information and intellectuals who can interpret that information to use it for improving our quality of life, saving the environment, understanding our past based purely on empirical evidence. There is so much emphasis on these things, that to take an ancient view is unequivocally seen as simple minded. It just seems to me that people can't accept that something ancient could have had it right, we always have to be correcting ourselves and when broaching the topic of God, saying it is arrogant to think we have the answers. It is fascinating to me that people say this and then turn around and treat theories such as evolution as NOT theories but FACT. It's a pretty transparent set of double standards.
Yes, I am absolutist in some respects. Saying it's a bad perspective for me to take is a bit funny because of the way you are approaching this debate. If you were relativist shouldn't you say "Oh that might be true for you but not for me".. you speak as if you are very sure of yourself as far as what there is and isn't. Which is fine, but you know what, that makes you "absolutist" as well.
Last edited:
You incorrectly assume that I am a closed-minded thinker who refutes science and refuses to use or understand scientific methodology.
Is this a rhetorical question..?
My guess is that most people are aware of that we don't know every nook and cranny of the universe, and we're open for more data on the subject.
The point is that we cannot see things that are right in front of our eyes. Most of the universe radiates at a frequencies we cannot see.
I never said it proves or even remotely insists there is a god because of it. I merely pointed out that there are many things we do not yet understand.
This is true, but they are not always mutually inclusive to each other.
Sure. But again, faith is more of a personal issue, unlike religion which is more of a group issue, especially organized religion.
I was hoping you might do the same. But I'll go ahead and expound. I am assuming that you are relating technology as devices or tools that allow us to take our human functions to a higher level, such as medicine, computers, and mechanical devices such as bicycles and the gym. Sure, these can enable us to accomplish more physical and even mental goals, but where does that leave us emotionally? This is where faith comes in. Until we can become healthy in a well-rounded and balanced manner, we are allowing ourselves to be "less" human, or more accurately, less of ourselves.
One thing I do not get about some here that are hammering on religion and faith; I think some of you refuse to accept that no two persons treat their life struggles with the same "medicine." Some people pray, others use drugs, and most simply muddle through by either keeping it all in until they burst or they have to break down and talk to a friend or a therapist of some sort. Instead of smoking that joint or going to a shrink, some folks want to work it out internally through prayer. Have you never had a short internal discussion with yourself on an important issue?
I will attest to this, I do believe that existience of a supreme entity is possbile. It is my choice. Do I have proof? Nope, because I don't need it to for me to put my faith into something or someone greater than myself. I was on my deathbed a decade ago, and the doctor asked my wife (at the time) if my affairs were in order because I had days to live. Now, you are going to think I will claim that "God saved Meh!" but no. What my faith did for me was to give me peace of mind and allow me to not be stressed over the likely outcome of my illness. This peace also worked to help me allow my body to heal itself better than if I had been sorely stressed over the prospect of dying. For that, I cannot say that faith healed me, for I have no clue. But when my doctor released me form the hospital, he told me that I was truly fortunate to be alive. I guess the correct statement would be mind over matter?
so by YOUR OWN logic, it's arrogant to think that the ancient people had it right when they wrote the bible or other religious texts
life is, by nature, an adventure of discovery.
we grow, we learn, we come to understand.
there's nothing wrong with building on and improving our ideas about our own existence, supplemented by the concrete findings of science. it is a natural process that as our technology advances, so too does our understanding about the world around us.
we don't have to rely on old fairy tales anymore.
children eventually learn that Santa Clause doesn't is just a clever story, told to them by their parents in order to keep them in line (be good, get presents).
I am not saying that religion or God has been 100% proven to be false.
I am saying that our collection of knowledge as a species, up to this point in time, has shown us that the possibility for an existence of a God or afterlife is becoming very slim.
evolution is fact.
I only used the word "absolutist" to describe your treatment of my argument. nothing more.
you made the logical jump that "no one will remember me = nothing to live for" which is an absolutist statement AND absolutely incorrect.
Last edited:
Nobody really knows anything. Some people pick up the crumbs and come to conclusions that most of them won't ever be able to prove in their lifetime, but that's fine cus it works for them. Some can't be bothered with the hassle and look to others to suggest something that sounds smarter than what they were thinking, but that's fine cus it works for them. Some people don't trust the opinions of others as much as their own, and they aren't really interested in figuring it all out themselves because it seems pointless to try and Sally is gonna be at Mundy's pub tonight and she'll probably wear that short skirt again...but that's fine cus it works for them.
^^:tup:
-
Science obliterates any "explanations" religions offer. People don't need to be told how to think - we've evolved enough now to do it ourselves, It's outdated and should be just remembered as our past. I think it's obvious there isn't any higher power or anything because it makes no difference to your life what you believe in, belief or disbelief in God has no effect on a persons life.
Humans are supposed to be one of the most advanced organisms on earth, yet they are still talking about religion thousands of years after it actually mattered.
-
Religions were created thousands of years ago and have remained pretty much the same since, in light of the stupidity of humanity people believe in it, science is the opposite of this; it's constantly evolving and providing us with answers instead of shrouding everything in mystery - religions don't tell people anything so I don't know what you mean by "that something ancient could have had it right" got what right?
Science obliterates any "explanations" religions offer. People don't need to be told how to think - we've evolved enough now to do it ourselves, It's outdated and should be just remembered as our past. I think it's obvious there isn't any higher power or anything because it makes no difference to your life what you believe in, belief or disbelief in God has no effect on a persons life.
Humans are supposed to be one of the most advanced organisms on earth, yet they are still talking about religion thousands of years after it actually mattered.
Alright, I wasn't exactly clear after all. Evolution as used as the basis of all life. We observe mutations, adaptation etc, but as of yet I have read nothing that convinced me it occurs on the level where one species becomes a completely different one. One day, who knows? I might. Right now, I doubt it. My point is, there is a double standard.
I don't think people were arrogant on the same level as some scientists can be today (honestly I hate even saying "scientists".. I am not anti-science, but what else to label them.. the conundrum!) when they wrote the bible and other religious texts, either they were divinely inspired or plain full of bull****. And certainly there was bull**** then just as there is today. I don't personally believe all religious writings are bunk, but whatever IS bunk, could be because they wanted to dupe people, because they were just bat**** insane and believed the things they wrote, and so on. But they most likely did not say or write the things in those books because they wanted so badly to disprove some other group - which is precisely the way some scientists work. Carl Sagan, for instance, was one arrogant prick. Adam Savage of Mythbusters, while I'd hardly call him a scientist per se, is another example of a poster boy for this crowd. His ultimate "myth bust" would be to dedicate an episode to disproving God's existence. And he was dead serious! Now THAT, my friends, is arrogance.
Last edited:
This.
It's pretty retarded to beat on someone for believing in a religion (or not believing in a religion, whatever). What someone believes and whatnot really doesn't matter. Does it change the kind of person they are?
As far as I'm concerned, anything people believe in that, generally, makes them better people cannot really be considered a bad thing. People doing bad things in the name of religion are people doing bad things. If they didn't have religion, they'd use some other method to control people. There are plenty of ways to get people to do what you want without involving God.
Getting away from the other pointless exchange I got caught up in, I agree with what you said about faith and dealing with stress. Faith is the most important thing in changing the way I dealt with my own illness and problems these last few years. Logic by itself tells me, "if thinking a certain way makes you stressed, don't think that way." And I can use logic to try to change behaviors til I'm blue in the face but not change anything.
Also, if I followed a completely humanistic logic, I might not be married now, just because I went through some issues and the "logical" thing to do then is either get counseling or divorce. (From my observation divorce eventually comes anyway for those who choose counselling) Our mutual faith allowed us to work through those issues together, and I'm glad we did. If one of us didn't have that faith I don't think the result would have been the same. This is a culture that more and more commonly can't take responsibility. If a couple fights, a couple should be able to work out their own problems not hire some random quack who doesn't know them to pretend to sort out their lives. Or if you have health problems, you should make sure that you haven't overlooked psychological factors before becoming addicted to prescription drugs and probably doing as much or more damage to yourself in the process. In this day and age, faith is the glue that I think allows us to sort ourselves out.
Look at Michael Jackson.. he relied on all these meds to help him sleep and function in other ways, but because that stuff is really not meant for the body, it lost effectiveness and he'd have to take more, and more, and more.
I wonder what would have happened if he had broken the addiction before it got too late, and learned to deal with his problems in other ways?
I was given an anxiety medication at one point because I'd been developing bad palpitations and this led to panic attacks. They thought that the panic preceded the palps I guess, but they didn't. I would have them out of the blue even if I wasn't thinking about anything in particular. But it was something in my mindset even if it was not panic, there was an extreme amount of negativity in my life and rediscovering my faith was what got me out of that rut. I threw that bottle away after using only 1 of the pills, which by the way, made me feel disgusting, like I was not me but just observing my life. This was about 2 years ago, and the difference in my life now is night and day.
Last edited: