Why is hard for people to let go a belief in a ? ?
Options
Comments
-
alissowack wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »alissowack wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »alissowack wrote: »
I don't think it is clear what you mean by the unknown. If what is unknown is simply something that no one has discovered or experienced, then there is no reason to fear it. It just may be that the ancient world feared what it meant to be caught in an earthquake or struck by lightning according to religious texts but not whether they know the science behind it. I would even go as far to say that death wouldn't be feared if it is just something that hasn't been discovered or experienced. It is fearing the things the religious associate death that is more paralyzing. Besides, I don't think it would be any more comfortable getting struck by lightning if I knew "? did it" or that there is a build-up of electricity that caused it. In either case, I don't want to get struck because I don't want to die.
Some atheists make the mistake that every theist is making a scientific argument. It may be that there are philosophical and logical reasons to conclude that ? exist. It wouldn't clear things up, but it would help if they knew what type of argument is being presented.
@Oceanic already made the statement that he ultimate fear is what occurs post death. We actually learned to harness the power of lightning by understanding it and we still fear it because of it's ability to fry you regardless of it's origin. No one knows what occurs post death. Even those who claimed they were dead weren't completely brain dead. I think people do know but don't want to accept that this is the one and oly life so they grasp on to something that promises a post life. Philosophy ponders while Science investigates. For instance, Philosophy pondered many human traits and why we did what we do, while science found the origins of why those traits occur and their necessity in surviving. Just because people don't know something, that doesn't give them the pass to just make ? up and indoctrinate others to believe what they came up with as an excuse because it's soothing to the soul.
Logic would dictate that you can't claim a pagan ? is a lie on the same basis that can be easily applied to your beliefs. You erase all potential correct assertions based on the evidence at hand. You wonder how accurate something is why you find that what was once considered genuine is now considered a metaphor or an event was claimed to occur from a higher power in a book but excavations and investigations showed it to be just another day in nature. If there is no evidence, then you don't make any conclusions. If there is, then you postulate a theory and try to prove it. If the evidence is obviously written by man based on their individual and then consolidated pondering or grand dreaming, then you take it with a grain of salt and ask for a show of proof, like turning on a light switch via harnessed electricity.
The funny thing is, practices that were considered philosophy at a time was actually Science and Mathematics because even the religious minded at the time investigated and showed their claims via theorems but then were burned at the stake. You can use Philosophy to argue the ethics of applying scientific discoveries on society and the means by which one obtains those discoveries. You don't require religion to do that. You do require an awareness of societal harm by being knowledgeable of the science.
You are doing exactly what I was saying. There are philosophical and logical arguments for the existence of ? , but you are only interested in the scientific argument...which put theists in a position to argue for something they are not making a case for. Coming to a philosophical and logical conclusion of the existence of a deity is not evidence. But, it helps to see that when people do think about the existence of a deity, it's not just about something miraculous or some sneaky way to indoctrinate people.
Present these arguments please. It is just an argument of convenience if you aren't using the scientific method. What else is there? You can show me a formula if you wish. Well how did one come up with that theory? Should we stick to the tenants of that theory when we know that it's origin was conceived in ignorance? The way we observe the universe is through science regardless if we call what we find ? . Until then I'll keep it moving but the fable that people currently put forward is that a grand consciousness is needed for the universe to exist. I say, prove it. If you can't, what's the ? religion based on?
If you can prove that there is something post death, that can't be dismissed by what we know through science, then please let me know? Don't tell that it has to be, it just has to.
Most people get into religion by way of indoctrination. The share fact that you are ostracized if you are not part of a religion and are surrounded by this widespread practice makes people joiners. And then there is the cult level brainwashing that took hold centuries ago in old America which found root in waring nations that forced their religions on natives. This is but a few ways in which religion initially passed from old wives tales and sacrificial promises; into emperor level forced indoctrination.
Well...consider the cosmological argument. The first premise says that everything that begins to exist has a cause. The second premise says the universe began to exist. The conclusion says the universe has a cause.
Now logically it checks out...but it is not a slam dunk in respect to proving the existence of ? . But, because of a misunderstanding of what the argument is, it is dismissed as an attempt to provide scientific evidence. Some of those against the argument don't want to argue that way for whatever reason and think all that is being done is further religious causes.
You're assuming that there must be a beginning. Just because we formed from various elements and those elements formed from various pressures doesn't mean that there wasn't an underlining unconscious form of the universe there all along as you claim ? to be which had no purpose to create. Many present a claim that the universe contracts and expands or that other universes came before. If you look at it like that, the universe has elements that are hold overs from older forms of itself. If you claim everything must have a beginning, then so must ? .
But theist claim ? always existed. You can make the same claim from the universe always existing in many forms. There is also a theory put out that the universe did indeed form from nothing. The many dimensions that are claimed today are all facets of various conditions of this universe with no absolute claim for an outside knowledge existing and thinking without taking the form that allows humans to exist and think. If you aren't attempting to provide scientific evidence for your claims, then your claims shouldn't be merited as absolute as religions do because nothing was proved. There are many scientific positions that shouldn't be taking as absolute either like string theory. String theory is considered a religious approach because people are using factual data to come to grand erroneous conclusions. At least they're trying and they also don't make absolute claims with religious doctrine.
-
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »There is no need too, plus you can gain more by theism than from non-theism.
You can gain more from learning things in life than you can gain from theism. Non-theism isn't a thing. It's just the absence of theism. Weren't you just having this discussion in another thread? There is far more out there to fill that non-void left by not being a theist.
I can learn everything this would has to learn and still keep my ? . having my belief grounds me and connects me to a larger group it also gives me examples that prove the wisdom of the doctrine.
I came from a third world nation were I was literaly born on mountain. To now I don't even have to work if I don't want too. I survived what I did because I followed the doctrine of my theism. ? has not proven to be a hinderence but a help to me and mines.
The absence of theism is not atheism.
I I I I.. The I's have it. Why is it that you must use you awesome situation as proof of ? or the wisdom of it's doctrine. You just said you can learn anything, so what you learned didn't get you there? You're skills couldn't connect you to people who require those skills? Smh. I'm glad you followed the doctrine and found great success. Still there are others who did the same and found their dead bodies in a trash bin. Also, you're life story dismisses the chance that somebody could be more successful without following your doctrine?
I can learn anything but what I learned from the world did not get me into the great situation I am in. What I gained from my doctrine was not just money that came but it was never the goal of my doctrine to give me that. I could have ended up in the bin, success is following the doctrine for it's own sake so I still would have won. My doctrine did not only connect me with people who need me but with those I need and don't need.
People can say what they want but I know for a fact that belief has Many enormous benefits
Lol, smh. Do you know anything about odds? Are you implying that your belief as you practiced it kept you out the bin because you were true believer? You missed my entire point. So i guess those people that were left to rot on your mountain weren't true believers. You seem to be ignoring fact that people have found success (I never mentioned money) and happiness without your doctrine, so how does that support the validity of your doctrine. It tells me that your doctrine isn't required to arrive at that point. You can make connections joining a frat or in school. You can make connections in life just being a descent and approachable, and knowledgeable person. Give yourself some credit. Your requirements of connecting with people seems limited. Is your religion so stringent with the connections it generates that it ignores and individuals talent and human characteristics?
I am saying that my belief Helped me when nothing else could have, but it did not promise me the nice physical things I enjoy ,it rains on those who believe and those who don't. Death comes to all even the innocent. Jesus is the perfect example of that.
The kinds of connections that are made by religion is unlike any other. These connections are not requirements they are extras just like the money. You can have every thing in this world without ? or you can have all the good things in this world with ? . Man is wonderful we are great. But ? is greater. Belief in ? keeps man ego in control.
What you really get from belief is a calmness of mind, a joy and a fearlessness that is beyond anything words can describe and a deep deep love and unselfish reason for being. It changes your reality
You keep bringing up money, but you were the one proud of your accomplishments through ? because 'You came from a third world nation were and was literally born on mountain. Now you don't even have to work if I don't want too.' This is you showing that you are getting it because of ? and your religious connections while ignoring those who aren't even with those same beliefs in a ? . Saying death comes to all doesn't negate the suffering that i mentioned which in turn you seem to be proud of avoiding because ? blessed you. A very selfish position that i see many religious people take.
? blessed me so I'm doing my thing and you should pray harder. I'm sure the ingenuity of man takes place to grant you your position off the mountain top and laws damping our egos. But this ego that you speak of seems to imply that man shouldn't attempt to better their positions without this ? that you have no proof for. It seems you can change your reality, be unselfish, and find peace with religion standing as an unnecessary component to obtaining those things. Scientology can say all that you just said which proves to me that convincing yourself that something is true to sooth your fears and joining in group think can benefit an individual that knows how to take advantage of those situations for personal gain. -
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »There is no need too, plus you can gain more by theism than from non-theism.
You can gain more from learning things in life than you can gain from theism. Non-theism isn't a thing. It's just the absence of theism. Weren't you just having this discussion in another thread? There is far more out there to fill that non-void left by not being a theist.
I can learn everything this would has to learn and still keep my ? . having my belief grounds me and connects me to a larger group it also gives me examples that prove the wisdom of the doctrine.
I came from a third world nation were I was literaly born on mountain. To now I don't even have to work if I don't want too. I survived what I did because I followed the doctrine of my theism. ? has not proven to be a hinderence but a help to me and mines.
The absence of theism is not atheism.
I I I I.. The I's have it. Why is it that you must use you awesome situation as proof of ? or the wisdom of it's doctrine. You just said you can learn anything, so what you learned didn't get you there? You're skills couldn't connect you to people who require those skills? Smh. I'm glad you followed the doctrine and found great success. Still there are others who did the same and found their dead bodies in a trash bin. Also, you're life story dismisses the chance that somebody could be more successful without following your doctrine?
I can learn anything but what I learned from the world did not get me into the great situation I am in. What I gained from my doctrine was not just money that came but it was never the goal of my doctrine to give me that. I could have ended up in the bin, success is following the doctrine for it's own sake so I still would have won. My doctrine did not only connect me with people who need me but with those I need and don't need.
People can say what they want but I know for a fact that belief has Many enormous benefits
Lol, smh. Do you know anything about odds? Are you implying that your belief as you practiced it kept you out the bin because you were true believer? You missed my entire point. So i guess those people that were left to rot on your mountain weren't true believers. You seem to be ignoring fact that people have found success (I never mentioned money) and happiness without your doctrine, so how does that support the validity of your doctrine. It tells me that your doctrine isn't required to arrive at that point. You can make connections joining a frat or in school. You can make connections in life just being a descent and approachable, and knowledgeable person. Give yourself some credit. Your requirements of connecting with people seems limited. Is your religion so stringent with the connections it generates that it ignores and individuals talent and human characteristics?
I am saying that my belief Helped me when nothing else could have, but it did not promise me the nice physical things I enjoy ,it rains on those who believe and those who don't. Death comes to all even the innocent. Jesus is the perfect example of that.
The kinds of connections that are made by religion is unlike any other. These connections are not requirements they are extras just like the money. You can have every thing in this world without ? or you can have all the good things in this world with ? . Man is wonderful we are great. But ? is greater. Belief in ? keeps man ego in control.
What you really get from belief is a calmness of mind, a joy and a fearlessness that is beyond anything words can describe and a deep deep love and unselfish reason for being. It changes your reality
You keep bringing up money, but you were the one proud of your accomplishments through ? because 'You came from a third world nation were and was literally born on mountain. Now you don't even have to work if I don't want too.' This is you showing that you are getting it because of ? and your religious connections while ignoring those who aren't even with those same beliefs in a ? . Saying death comes to all doesn't negate the suffering that i mentioned which in turn you seem to be proud of avoiding because ? blessed you. A very selfish position that i see many religious people take.
? blessed me so I'm doing my thing and you should pray harder. I'm sure the ingenuity of man takes place to grant you your position off the mountain top and laws damping our egos. But this ego that you speak of seems to imply that man shouldn't attempt to better their positions without this ? that you have no proof for. It seems you can change your reality, be unselfish, and find peace with religion standing as an unnecessary component to obtaining those things. Scientology can say all that you just said which proves to me that convincing yourself that something is true to sooth your fears and joining in group think can benefit an individual that knows how to take advantage of those situations for personal gain.
No one avoids suffering I brought up money because it is some thing I believe you can gain by following the wisdom of my religion, this is not to suggest that it's the only way but it was the way I chose because it was the only way for me. The money however is extra prosperity happens almost by accident. Some people follow my path and still stay broke.
? wants man to strive for a better existence ,better yourself. But never forget ? . The belief in the concept ? will allow you to suffer anything while you are bettering yourself and you will do it with a smile on your face. It will allow you to fight the same way.
Really mans ego pride and selflove are the reasons for our trouble. And I am not talking on a one one one level here. Look fact is theism has saved countless people from the worst this world has to offer. Saved them in mind and or in body. It has inspired greatness in all arts, the greatest arts. And makes most people feel safe in a way non theism cannot. ? makes everything deeper -
@ furious one you can have your way to the good life without ? . But I got my good life with ? I see no reason why I should drop what I know for a fact helped me. I am almost 1oo% sure your fight will not be as joyful and painfull as mines was. Because I had ? with me and you will have nothing but yourself.
-
FuriousOne wrote: »You're assuming that there must be a beginning. Just because we formed from various elements and those elements formed from various pressures doesn't mean that there wasn't an underlining unconscious form of the universe there all along as you claim ? to be which had no purpose to create. Many present a claim that the universe contracts and expands or that other universes came before. If you look at it like that, the universe has elements that are hold overs from older forms of itself. If you claim everything must have a beginning, then so must ? .
But theist claim ? always existed. You can make the same claim from the universe always existing in many forms. There is also a theory put out that the universe did indeed form from nothing. The many dimensions that are claimed today are all facets of various conditions of this universe with no absolute claim for an outside knowledge existing and thinking without taking the form that allows humans to exist and think. If you aren't attempting to provide scientific evidence for your claims, then your claims shouldn't be merited as absolute as religions do because nothing was proved. There are many scientific positions that shouldn't be taking as absolute either like string theory. String theory is considered a religious approach because people are using factual data to come to grand erroneous conclusions. At least they're trying and they also don't make absolute claims with religious doctrine.
But isn't this something that even scientists hold to? They say the universe began with the Big Bang. Your disagreement suggests that the Big Bang is not what set things in motion. It goes both ways. While you are implicitly suggesting that something created or caused ? , you are also suggesting that something created or caused the Big Bang...like a bigger bang or something. So...scientists are really lying to the public about the universe having a beginning...or to be specific...an absolute beginning.
I doubt that serious theists are making claims. They are merely saying if ? is to exist, this deity exists eternally; that it is a necessity that ? is infinite. Something coming from nothing is a bit of a stretch for now you are saying that nothing...can create or cause something. Well, what consist of nothing so it can take any action? And also given that you don't think the universe has a beginning, even "nothing" can't be credited for creating or causing something. -
alissowack wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »You're assuming that there must be a beginning. Just because we formed from various elements and those elements formed from various pressures doesn't mean that there wasn't an underlining unconscious form of the universe there all along as you claim ? to be which had no purpose to create. Many present a claim that the universe contracts and expands or that other universes came before. If you look at it like that, the universe has elements that are hold overs from older forms of itself. If you claim everything must have a beginning, then so must ? .
But theist claim ? always existed. You can make the same claim from the universe always existing in many forms. There is also a theory put out that the universe did indeed form from nothing. The many dimensions that are claimed today are all facets of various conditions of this universe with no absolute claim for an outside knowledge existing and thinking without taking the form that allows humans to exist and think. If you aren't attempting to provide scientific evidence for your claims, then your claims shouldn't be merited as absolute as religions do because nothing was proved. There are many scientific positions that shouldn't be taking as absolute either like string theory. String theory is considered a religious approach because people are using factual data to come to grand erroneous conclusions. At least they're trying and they also don't make absolute claims with religious doctrine.
But isn't this something that even scientists hold to? They say the universe began with the Big Bang. Your disagreement suggests that the Big Bang is not what set things in motion. It goes both ways. While you are implicitly suggesting that something created or caused ? , you are also suggesting that something created or caused the Big Bang...like a bigger bang or something. So...scientists are really lying to the public about the universe having a beginning...or to be specific...an absolute beginning.
I doubt that serious theists are making claims. They are merely saying if ? is to exist, this deity exists eternally; that it is a necessity that ? is infinite. Something coming from nothing is a bit of a stretch for now you are saying that nothing...can create or cause something. Well, what consist of nothing so it can take any action? And also given that you don't think the universe has a beginning, even "nothing" can't be credited for creating or causing something.
Scientist make no absolute claims; they investigate, name, and present the data with logical observations that are testable for proof. They formulate a theorem based on the known facts discovered via their investigations. They have a magnitude more info to work with from their prior discoveries unlike theist. Scientist theorize but they aren't settling on that thought, they are attempting to prove it. You can't say theist aren't making claims and then say "? exist because x,y and z because anything else is a stretch." That's making an absolute claim. I state ? as presented isn't necessary because of the characteristics one gives ? and the goal people think this conscious ? has.
If you take away those attributes, then anything that you find that you consider to be an absolute beginning can be named ? with no requirement for purpose of consciousness. It isn't implicit that an intelligent or all powerful being is required to start what we have currently when considering the basic characteristics of the universe. You can absolutely ask how a conscious being came about before universal form if you make such claims. I know consciousness to occur in the brain with a combination of elements that were created in the universe from energy\matter. Btw, the big bang isn't about explosions. It fits into the theory of expansion and contraction which is the big crunch or cooling and warming. Still, that theory at least has a leg to stand on.
Scientist have offered equations for the possibility of that theory but I'm sure they will not tell you to create a religion around that. Still yet, they have proved many of the facts in that theory. Nothing refers to state prior to the physical properties of the universe which was close to zero energy\matter with no space\time but produced random quantum fluctuations of particles. The theory is still being studied and no one has settled on it as absolute. Physicist don't actually use the word nothing as a descriptive measure. I'm arguing the question of whether an intelligent being was needed to kick-start the reality or it just is without a focused purpose.
-
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »There is no need too, plus you can gain more by theism than from non-theism.
You can gain more from learning things in life than you can gain from theism. Non-theism isn't a thing. It's just the absence of theism. Weren't you just having this discussion in another thread? There is far more out there to fill that non-void left by not being a theist.
I can learn everything this would has to learn and still keep my ? . having my belief grounds me and connects me to a larger group it also gives me examples that prove the wisdom of the doctrine.
I came from a third world nation were I was literaly born on mountain. To now I don't even have to work if I don't want too. I survived what I did because I followed the doctrine of my theism. ? has not proven to be a hinderence but a help to me and mines.
The absence of theism is not atheism.
I I I I.. The I's have it. Why is it that you must use you awesome situation as proof of ? or the wisdom of it's doctrine. You just said you can learn anything, so what you learned didn't get you there? You're skills couldn't connect you to people who require those skills? Smh. I'm glad you followed the doctrine and found great success. Still there are others who did the same and found their dead bodies in a trash bin. Also, you're life story dismisses the chance that somebody could be more successful without following your doctrine?
I can learn anything but what I learned from the world did not get me into the great situation I am in. What I gained from my doctrine was not just money that came but it was never the goal of my doctrine to give me that. I could have ended up in the bin, success is following the doctrine for it's own sake so I still would have won. My doctrine did not only connect me with people who need me but with those I need and don't need.
People can say what they want but I know for a fact that belief has Many enormous benefits
Lol, smh. Do you know anything about odds? Are you implying that your belief as you practiced it kept you out the bin because you were true believer? You missed my entire point. So i guess those people that were left to rot on your mountain weren't true believers. You seem to be ignoring fact that people have found success (I never mentioned money) and happiness without your doctrine, so how does that support the validity of your doctrine. It tells me that your doctrine isn't required to arrive at that point. You can make connections joining a frat or in school. You can make connections in life just being a descent and approachable, and knowledgeable person. Give yourself some credit. Your requirements of connecting with people seems limited. Is your religion so stringent with the connections it generates that it ignores and individuals talent and human characteristics?
I am saying that my belief Helped me when nothing else could have, but it did not promise me the nice physical things I enjoy ,it rains on those who believe and those who don't. Death comes to all even the innocent. Jesus is the perfect example of that.
The kinds of connections that are made by religion is unlike any other. These connections are not requirements they are extras just like the money. You can have every thing in this world without ? or you can have all the good things in this world with ? . Man is wonderful we are great. But ? is greater. Belief in ? keeps man ego in control.
What you really get from belief is a calmness of mind, a joy and a fearlessness that is beyond anything words can describe and a deep deep love and unselfish reason for being. It changes your reality
You keep bringing up money, but you were the one proud of your accomplishments through ? because 'You came from a third world nation were and was literally born on mountain. Now you don't even have to work if I don't want too.' This is you showing that you are getting it because of ? and your religious connections while ignoring those who aren't even with those same beliefs in a ? . Saying death comes to all doesn't negate the suffering that i mentioned which in turn you seem to be proud of avoiding because ? blessed you. A very selfish position that i see many religious people take.
? blessed me so I'm doing my thing and you should pray harder. I'm sure the ingenuity of man takes place to grant you your position off the mountain top and laws damping our egos. But this ego that you speak of seems to imply that man shouldn't attempt to better their positions without this ? that you have no proof for. It seems you can change your reality, be unselfish, and find peace with religion standing as an unnecessary component to obtaining those things. Scientology can say all that you just said which proves to me that convincing yourself that something is true to sooth your fears and joining in group think can benefit an individual that knows how to take advantage of those situations for personal gain.
No one avoids suffering I brought up money because it is some thing I believe you can gain by following the wisdom of my religion, this is not to suggest that it's the only way but it was the way I chose because it was the only way for me. The money however is extra prosperity happens almost by accident. Some people follow my path and still stay broke.
? wants man to strive for a better existence ,better yourself. But never forget ? . The belief in the concept ? will allow you to suffer anything while you are bettering yourself and you will do it with a smile on your face. It will allow you to fight the same way.
Really mans ego pride and selflove are the reasons for our trouble. And I am not talking on a one one one level here. Look fact is theism has saved countless people from the worst this world has to offer. Saved them in mind and or in body. It has inspired greatness in all arts, the greatest arts. And makes most people feel safe in a way non theism cannot. ? makes everything deeper
Theism has created wars and burned people at the stake for thinking outside the box with an attempt to better ones existence. I guess you can blame man for that right? Except in the good times. You're idea of pride is not very defined as you can claim that anything that one strives for that doesn't include praise in your ? must be a sin. I can only imagine where mankind would be if it wasn't for religious warriors burning manuscripts as they are doing in Timbuktu because they consider them an affront to their ? . Everything else you said is your personal feelings and magical ability to attribute everything to the supposed blessings you received that you believe you received, which holds no weight to the question of gods existence.
-
because the world feels cold, lonely,dark, and random when you take ? out of the picture.
Either way the world is cold,lonely, and dark -
FuriousOne wrote: »alissowack wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »You're assuming that there must be a beginning. Just because we formed from various elements and those elements formed from various pressures doesn't mean that there wasn't an underlining unconscious form of the universe there all along as you claim ? to be which had no purpose to create. Many present a claim that the universe contracts and expands or that other universes came before. If you look at it like that, the universe has elements that are hold overs from older forms of itself. If you claim everything must have a beginning, then so must ? .
But theist claim ? always existed. You can make the same claim from the universe always existing in many forms. There is also a theory put out that the universe did indeed form from nothing. The many dimensions that are claimed today are all facets of various conditions of this universe with no absolute claim for an outside knowledge existing and thinking without taking the form that allows humans to exist and think. If you aren't attempting to provide scientific evidence for your claims, then your claims shouldn't be merited as absolute as religions do because nothing was proved. There are many scientific positions that shouldn't be taking as absolute either like string theory. String theory is considered a religious approach because people are using factual data to come to grand erroneous conclusions. At least they're trying and they also don't make absolute claims with religious doctrine.
But isn't this something that even scientists hold to? They say the universe began with the Big Bang. Your disagreement suggests that the Big Bang is not what set things in motion. It goes both ways. While you are implicitly suggesting that something created or caused ? , you are also suggesting that something created or caused the Big Bang...like a bigger bang or something. So...scientists are really lying to the public about the universe having a beginning...or to be specific...an absolute beginning.
I doubt that serious theists are making claims. They are merely saying if ? is to exist, this deity exists eternally; that it is a necessity that ? is infinite. Something coming from nothing is a bit of a stretch for now you are saying that nothing...can create or cause something. Well, what consist of nothing so it can take any action? And also given that you don't think the universe has a beginning, even "nothing" can't be credited for creating or causing something.
Scientist make no absolute claims; they investigate, name, and present the data with logical observations that are testable for proof. They formulate a theorem based on the known facts discovered via their investigations. They have a magnitude more info to work with from their prior discoveries unlike theist. Scientist theorize but they aren't settling on that thought, they are attempting to prove it. You can't say theist aren't making claims and then say "? exist because x,y and z because anything else is a stretch." That's making an absolute claim. I state ? isn't necessary because of the characteristics one gives ? and the goal people think this conscious ? has. It isn't implicit that an intelligent being is required to start what we have currently when considering the basic characteristics of the universe.
You can absolutely ask how a conscious being came about before universal form if you make such claims. I know consciousness to occur in the brain with a combination of elements that were created in the universe from energy\matter. Btw, the big bang isn't about explosions. It fits into the theory of expansion and contraction which is the big crunch or cooling and warming. Still, that theory at least has a leg to stand on. Scientist have offered equations for the possibility of that theory but I'm sure they will not tell you to create a religion around that.
Still yet, they have proved many of the facts in that theory. Nothing refers to state prior to the physical properties of the universe which was close to zero energy\matter with no space\time but produced random quantum fluctuations of particles. The theory is still being studied and no one has settled on it as absolute. Physicist don't actually use the word nothing as a descriptive measure. I'm arguing the question of whether an intelligent being was needed to kick-start the reality or it just is without a focused purpose.
What I presented was an argument...not a claim. The argument doesn't even mention ? . However, given that I believe in ? , you took the liberty of saying that is what I meant by presenting the argument. I've even said earlier that the argument doesn't settle things. Something started the universe and the argument only addresses it.
Science is in the business of presenting absolutes. It's nothing wrong with it if the facts present itself. But, you have textbooks that put the Big Bang Theory as the only option in which the universe began. Just the fact that there are no other well-known explanations out there makes it more acceptable as the truth by the public. Yet, you think the universe always existed. That would mean the Big Bang Theory would itself need a theory...and on and on into an infinite regress. As you've mentioned before, this same infinite regress could be made against ? , but the theists are saying that it is a necessity for ? to always exist. What this necessity means in respect to any religious convictions of these theists has nothing to do with it. There are many theistic religions that do not agree with each other but have common ground on the infinite presence of ? . -
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »There is no need too, plus you can gain more by theism than from non-theism.
You can gain more from learning things in life than you can gain from theism. Non-theism isn't a thing. It's just the absence of theism. Weren't you just having this discussion in another thread? There is far more out there to fill that non-void left by not being a theist.
I can learn everything this would has to learn and still keep my ? . having my belief grounds me and connects me to a larger group it also gives me examples that prove the wisdom of the doctrine.
I came from a third world nation were I was literaly born on mountain. To now I don't even have to work if I don't want too. I survived what I did because I followed the doctrine of my theism. ? has not proven to be a hinderence but a help to me and mines.
The absence of theism is not atheism.
I I I I.. The I's have it. Why is it that you must use you awesome situation as proof of ? or the wisdom of it's doctrine. You just said you can learn anything, so what you learned didn't get you there? You're skills couldn't connect you to people who require those skills? Smh. I'm glad you followed the doctrine and found great success. Still there are others who did the same and found their dead bodies in a trash bin. Also, you're life story dismisses the chance that somebody could be more successful without following your doctrine?
I can learn anything but what I learned from the world did not get me into the great situation I am in. What I gained from my doctrine was not just money that came but it was never the goal of my doctrine to give me that. I could have ended up in the bin, success is following the doctrine for it's own sake so I still would have won. My doctrine did not only connect me with people who need me but with those I need and don't need.
People can say what they want but I know for a fact that belief has Many enormous benefits
Lol, smh. Do you know anything about odds? Are you implying that your belief as you practiced it kept you out the bin because you were true believer? You missed my entire point. So i guess those people that were left to rot on your mountain weren't true believers. You seem to be ignoring fact that people have found success (I never mentioned money) and happiness without your doctrine, so how does that support the validity of your doctrine. It tells me that your doctrine isn't required to arrive at that point. You can make connections joining a frat or in school. You can make connections in life just being a descent and approachable, and knowledgeable person. Give yourself some credit. Your requirements of connecting with people seems limited. Is your religion so stringent with the connections it generates that it ignores and individuals talent and human characteristics?
I am saying that my belief Helped me when nothing else could have, but it did not promise me the nice physical things I enjoy ,it rains on those who believe and those who don't. Death comes to all even the innocent. Jesus is the perfect example of that.
The kinds of connections that are made by religion is unlike any other. These connections are not requirements they are extras just like the money. You can have every thing in this world without ? or you can have all the good things in this world with ? . Man is wonderful we are great. But ? is greater. Belief in ? keeps man ego in control.
What you really get from belief is a calmness of mind, a joy and a fearlessness that is beyond anything words can describe and a deep deep love and unselfish reason for being. It changes your reality
You keep bringing up money, but you were the one proud of your accomplishments through ? because 'You came from a third world nation were and was literally born on mountain. Now you don't even have to work if I don't want too.' This is you showing that you are getting it because of ? and your religious connections while ignoring those who aren't even with those same beliefs in a ? . Saying death comes to all doesn't negate the suffering that i mentioned which in turn you seem to be proud of avoiding because ? blessed you. A very selfish position that i see many religious people take.
? blessed me so I'm doing my thing and you should pray harder. I'm sure the ingenuity of man takes place to grant you your position off the mountain top and laws damping our egos. But this ego that you speak of seems to imply that man shouldn't attempt to better their positions without this ? that you have no proof for. It seems you can change your reality, be unselfish, and find peace with religion standing as an unnecessary component to obtaining those things. Scientology can say all that you just said which proves to me that convincing yourself that something is true to sooth your fears and joining in group think can benefit an individual that knows how to take advantage of those situations for personal gain.
No one avoids suffering I brought up money because it is some thing I believe you can gain by following the wisdom of my religion, this is not to suggest that it's the only way but it was the way I chose because it was the only way for me. The money however is extra prosperity happens almost by accident. Some people follow my path and still stay broke.
? wants man to strive for a better existence ,better yourself. But never forget ? . The belief in the concept ? will allow you to suffer anything while you are bettering yourself and you will do it with a smile on your face. It will allow you to fight the same way.
Really mans ego pride and selflove are the reasons for our trouble. And I am not talking on a one one one level here. Look fact is theism has saved countless people from the worst this world has to offer. Saved them in mind and or in body. It has inspired greatness in all arts, the greatest arts. And makes most people feel safe in a way non theism cannot. ? makes everything deeper
Theism has created wars and burned people at the stake for thinking outside the box with an attempt to better ones existence. I guess you can blame man for that right? Except in the good times. You're idea of pride is not very defined as you can claim that anything that one strives for that doesn't include praise in your ? must be a sin. I can only imagine where mankind would be if it wasn't for religious warriors burning manuscripts as they are doing in Timbuktu because they consider them an affront to their ? . Everything else you said is your personal feelings and magical ability to attribute everything to the supposed blessings you received that you believe you received, which holds no weight to the question of gods existence.
I don't care about trying to prove ? 's existence it is impossible to even fully describe ? . I try to never argue for proof of ? 's existence. What I am telling you is that the ? concept is important and humanity is better off with it. Also I never said that anything you strive for without ? is a sin. I was trying to explain to you that mankind must never let our power go to our heads. Don't strive for things and just because you get it say ? ? . rom religion.
religion was central to keeping nations together religion pulled the arab out of the sands and the white out of darkness. The mandate of heaven kept china in peace sometimes for centuries. Nothing can replace the motivation given to man by the ? concept, in all things it pushes man above and beyond -
I don't care about trying to prove ? 's existence it is impossible to even fully describe ? . I try to never argue for proof of ? 's existence. What I am telling you is that the ? concept is important and humanity is better off with it. Also I never said that anything you strive for without ? is a sin. I was trying to explain to you that mankind must never let our power go to our heads. Don't strive for things and just because you get it say ? ? . rom religion.
religion was central to keeping nations together religion pulled the arab out of the sands and the white out of darkness. The mandate of heaven kept china in peace sometimes for centuries. Nothing can replace the motivation given to man by the ? concept, in all things it pushes man above and beyond
How can you partially describe ? if you have no data of it's existence? I kinda like the deal with facts if someone is telling me to believe something to see if what they are telling me holds up. I guess at times we must live in a lie to sooth our fears. I see that common civil and criminal laws built upon cause and effect (too many robberies dwindle the coffers) helped form and keep order while ? based religion was created to satiate while true knowledge was held for the privileged. It's why they want to control the internet now. You don't have to say ? a religion, you don't have to have one to start.
Deist based Religion isn't needed in the first place but a cool catch phrase and a banner will always incite the plebeians to follow your cause. I will say that there are many religions that are based in reality and not ? based but then, that's not what this thread is about. Maybe the fantasy should be stripped from the bible leaving the knowledge for better living if order is what you receive from your religions doctrine. Didn't Jefferson do just that with the Christian bible?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible
Still the blind following of any occult practice that limits humanity's potential through oppressive laws is a negative in my book. -
Good thread because we didn't attack each other yet.
-
alissowack wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »alissowack wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »You're assuming that there must be a beginning. Just because we formed from various elements and those elements formed from various pressures doesn't mean that there wasn't an underlining unconscious form of the universe there all along as you claim ? to be which had no purpose to create. Many present a claim that the universe contracts and expands or that other universes came before. If you look at it like that, the universe has elements that are hold overs from older forms of itself. If you claim everything must have a beginning, then so must ? .
But theist claim ? always existed. You can make the same claim from the universe always existing in many forms. There is also a theory put out that the universe did indeed form from nothing. The many dimensions that are claimed today are all facets of various conditions of this universe with no absolute claim for an outside knowledge existing and thinking without taking the form that allows humans to exist and think. If you aren't attempting to provide scientific evidence for your claims, then your claims shouldn't be merited as absolute as religions do because nothing was proved. There are many scientific positions that shouldn't be taking as absolute either like string theory. String theory is considered a religious approach because people are using factual data to come to grand erroneous conclusions. At least they're trying and they also don't make absolute claims with religious doctrine.
But isn't this something that even scientists hold to? They say the universe began with the Big Bang. Your disagreement suggests that the Big Bang is not what set things in motion. It goes both ways. While you are implicitly suggesting that something created or caused ? , you are also suggesting that something created or caused the Big Bang...like a bigger bang or something. So...scientists are really lying to the public about the universe having a beginning...or to be specific...an absolute beginning.
I doubt that serious theists are making claims. They are merely saying if ? is to exist, this deity exists eternally; that it is a necessity that ? is infinite. Something coming from nothing is a bit of a stretch for now you are saying that nothing...can create or cause something. Well, what consist of nothing so it can take any action? And also given that you don't think the universe has a beginning, even "nothing" can't be credited for creating or causing something.
Scientist make no absolute claims; they investigate, name, and present the data with logical observations that are testable for proof. They formulate a theorem based on the known facts discovered via their investigations. They have a magnitude more info to work with from their prior discoveries unlike theist. Scientist theorize but they aren't settling on that thought, they are attempting to prove it. You can't say theist aren't making claims and then say "? exist because x,y and z because anything else is a stretch." That's making an absolute claim. I state ? isn't necessary because of the characteristics one gives ? and the goal people think this conscious ? has. It isn't implicit that an intelligent being is required to start what we have currently when considering the basic characteristics of the universe.
You can absolutely ask how a conscious being came about before universal form if you make such claims. I know consciousness to occur in the brain with a combination of elements that were created in the universe from energy\matter. Btw, the big bang isn't about explosions. It fits into the theory of expansion and contraction which is the big crunch or cooling and warming. Still, that theory at least has a leg to stand on. Scientist have offered equations for the possibility of that theory but I'm sure they will not tell you to create a religion around that.
Still yet, they have proved many of the facts in that theory. Nothing refers to state prior to the physical properties of the universe which was close to zero energy\matter with no space\time but produced random quantum fluctuations of particles. The theory is still being studied and no one has settled on it as absolute. Physicist don't actually use the word nothing as a descriptive measure. I'm arguing the question of whether an intelligent being was needed to kick-start the reality or it just is without a focused purpose.
What I presented was an argument...not a claim. The argument doesn't even mention ? . However, given that I believe in ? , you took the liberty of saying that is what I meant by presenting the argument. I've even said earlier that the argument doesn't settle things. Something started the universe and the argument only addresses it.
Science is in the business of presenting absolutes. It's nothing wrong with it if the facts present itself. But, you have textbooks that put the Big Bang Theory as the only option in which the universe began. Just the fact that there are no other well-known explanations out there makes it more acceptable as the truth by the public. Yet, you think the universe always existed. That would mean the Big Bang Theory would itself need a theory...and on and on into an infinite regress. As you've mentioned before, this same infinite regress could be made against ? , but the theists are saying that it is a necessity for ? to always exist. What this necessity means in respect to any religious convictions of these theists has nothing to do with it. There are many theistic religions that do not agree with each other but have common ground on the infinite presence of ? .
The Big Bang itself is a theory but it is not complete. Even on the journey, discoveries are made that aid human kind like the discovery of the electron. The theory itself has undergone several changes and has integrated varying theories from various scientific fields. Evidence such as the Higgs Bosson has rendered the path a correct one. This is what science does. Being that all of the facts aren't there yet, it's not considered absolute. Also scientist measure within reason because nothing can be absolutely measured. It's all about probability. If you are not offering evidence for a competing theory which I'm sure you have the freedom to do, then what are you offering here other than the ? did it position? -
FuriousOne wrote: »
I don't care about trying to prove ? 's existence it is impossible to even fully describe ? . I try to never argue for proof of ? 's existence. What I am telling you is that the ? concept is important and humanity is better off with it. Also I never said that anything you strive for without ? is a sin. I was trying to explain to you that mankind must never let our power go to our heads. Don't strive for things and just because you get it say ? ? . rom religion.
religion was central to keeping nations together religion pulled the arab out of the sands and the white out of darkness. The mandate of heaven kept china in peace sometimes for centuries. Nothing can replace the motivation given to man by the ? concept, in all things it pushes man above and beyond
How can you partially describe ? if you have no data of it's existence? I kinda like the deal with facts if someone is telling me to believe something to see if what they are telling me holds up. I guess at times we must live in a lie to sooth our fears. I see that common civil and criminal laws built upon cause and effect (too many robberies dwindle the coffers) helped form and keep order while ? based religion was created to satiate while true knowledge was held for the privileged. It's why they want to control the internet now. You don't have to say ? a religion, you don't have to have one to start.
Deist based Religion isn't needed in the first place but a cool catch phrase and a banner will always incite the plebeians to follow your cause. I will say that there are many religions that are based in reality and not ? based but then, that's not what this thread is about. Maybe the fantasy should be stripped from the bible leaving the knowledge for better living if order is what you receive from your religions doctrine. Didn't Jefferson do just that with the Christian bible?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible
Still the blind following of any occult practice that limits humanity's potential through oppressive laws is a negative in my book.
You are sounding a little bit like alex jones right now, religions originally arose organically there was no elite holding some secret knowledge somewhere that intentionally created theism to control people that came much much later on. The intent of religion especially theist based religion was to free man of his ? to his instincts, not too erase them the way eastern religions like buddhism try to do but to give man a way to civilize himself and deal with those instincts, allowing us to impose order on our selves. WHICH is what the ? of the major 3 religions really wants for us, to chose to impose his order on ourselves not an elites order his order.
By the way i am not talking strickly christian here i am talking about theism in general. You cannot strip the unknowable from theism it is the ground that holds everything up, you have to have the ? concept or it won't work. the ? concept causes a diminishing of ego the humbling of man's power. In any society there will arise an elite, If their ego is out of control then we run the risk of ending up with people like caligula. I am convinced that people will worship something either the untouchable ? , science or nature or something as petty as money and power. we cannot escape it. most people worship these things and don't even realize it. I am strong in my faith and i mean strong, when i hear people say ? does not exist i really cannot understand how you can say that. it's like a fish in the sea saying their is no water.
-
FuriousOne wrote: »
I don't care about trying to prove ? 's existence it is impossible to even fully describe ? . I try to never argue for proof of ? 's existence. What I am telling you is that the ? concept is important and humanity is better off with it. Also I never said that anything you strive for without ? is a sin. I was trying to explain to you that mankind must never let our power go to our heads. Don't strive for things and just because you get it say ? ? . rom religion.
religion was central to keeping nations together religion pulled the arab out of the sands and the white out of darkness. The mandate of heaven kept china in peace sometimes for centuries. Nothing can replace the motivation given to man by the ? concept, in all things it pushes man above and beyond
How can you partially describe ? if you have no data of it's existence? I kinda like the deal with facts if someone is telling me to believe something to see if what they are telling me holds up. I guess at times we must live in a lie to sooth our fears. I see that common civil and criminal laws built upon cause and effect (too many robberies dwindle the coffers) helped form and keep order while ? based religion was created to satiate while true knowledge was held for the privileged. It's why they want to control the internet now. You don't have to say ? a religion, you don't have to have one to start.
Deist based Religion isn't needed in the first place but a cool catch phrase and a banner will always incite the plebeians to follow your cause. I will say that there are many religions that are based in reality and not ? based but then, that's not what this thread is about. Maybe the fantasy should be stripped from the bible leaving the knowledge for better living if order is what you receive from your religions doctrine. Didn't Jefferson do just that with the Christian bible?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible
Still the blind following of any occult practice that limits humanity's potential through oppressive laws is a negative in my book.
You are sounding a little bit like alex jones right now, religions originally arose organically there was no elite holding some secret knowledge somewhere that intentionally created theism to control people that came much much later on. The intent of religion especially theist based religion was to free man of his ? to his instincts, not too erase them the way eastern religions like buddhism try to do but to give man a way to civilize himself and deal with those instincts, allowing us to impose order on our selves. WHICH is what the ? of the major 3 religions really wants for us, to chose to impose his order on ourselves not an elites order his order.
By the way i am not talking strickly christian here i am talking about theism in general. You cannot strip the unknowable from theism it is the ground that holds everything up, you have to have the ? concept or it won't work. the ? concept causes a diminishing of ego the humbling of man's power. In any society there will arise an elite, If their ego is out of control then we run the risk of ending up with people like caligula. I am convinced that people will worship something either the untouchable ? , science or nature or something as petty as money and power. we cannot escape it. most people worship these things and don't even realize it. I am strong in my faith and i mean strong, when i hear people say ? does not exist i really cannot understand how you can say that. it's like a fish in the sea saying their is no water.
Well you sound like Jim Jones (not the rapper), but let's not get personal. I'm sure the legislation that power brokers put forward to control the internet such as SOPA and PIPA was just a myth. It sounds like you are saying religion was created to free man of free thinking. You don't know what ? wants because you don't know anything about ? outside of the major one religion and it's 2 offspring. Buddhism can still be corrupted. Look at Shinto in Japan and what they did during ww2. Religion arose from a question that could not be answered so it was filled in with imagination. It started as a concept of things having human like spirits. If anything, religion is a very human concept because mankind's ego is all in it. How is thinking that you are made special and are the master of earth not egotistical?
I'm talking about the religion sir not the introduction of theism. The Abrahamic religion was created for influence and control even in its inception via Moses and the laws. The point was to give people order and force them to follow rules but the same can be had with civil laws and rules. Why wasn't religion not good enough where as civil laws and government weren't required? Constantine was the fist Roman emperor to co-op Christianity but not the first ruler to co-opt religion. Even Egyptians kept the knowledge amongst priest. Caligula was trained to be a living ? from the jump. The Roman way was to dispose of the previous emperor in order to properly take rightful power as a descendent of Jupiter. A lovely excuse for perpetual family rule.
People don't worship science, they enjoy the fruits of the labor of Science, but if today's evidence is anything, they mostly dismiss it for its complexity and rather worship sudo science which fits within their doctrine as a tool convince their followers and support their claims. See Scientology. Science isn't a doctrine, it's a tool for discovery. ? doesn't exist can said you still showed no valid evidence to support your position that there is a ? and new discoveries aid in the dismissal of the entire concept. You just told me people will make religion out of anything even without a deist foundation yet you stand here assured that yours which was made out of an unsupported belief is accurate in it's central claim. -
@Furiousone
I am not saying that our leaders today are not ? with religion to control people, yes they are. I was talking about the original intent of religion. Caligula was not trained to be a living ? , his power got out of control and he took the title upon himself and died because of it, before him roman emperors only became gods after they died. Anything you give undue adoration too can be considered worship that includes science, money or the tv screen. like i said earlier it makes no difference to me if ? really exists or not, (although i think he does primarly based upon my own personal experiences) i believe the ? concept is essential and important for the betterment and survival of humanity. Also we cannot describe ? because we have no frame of reference because nothing in creation is like the fullness of ? , we are in creation and can have no experience outside of it. We will never and i mean never be able to dismiss ? , MY EXPERIENCE in creation has lead me to know ? exists.
From what i know of ancient egypt anyone could have been made a priest if he put the work in, this was very hard but that's not the same as withholding information from the public or from a certain class of people. religion was created to free man from his animal feelings and brutal actions not from thinking most religions support the attainment of knowledge, islam for example places great respect on scholars. The bible says that the "beginning of wisdom starts with the knowledge of ? " not the end of it. To some people in the west today knowledge starts with the end of it. Also nothing is wrong with human ego it is only when it reaches to far that it becomes a problem, we are special and we are the masters of every other life form on the planet, but we are not masters of our instincts religion is an attempt to help us do that so that we can live together. Civil laws do not always exist to control your feelings they ONLY exist to control your behavior, they can only be imposed from the outside. Religious laws can come from both the outside and the inside. In fact the teachings of christ is basically an inside law.
I have studied other religions from african religions to eastern religions, the goal of MOST far eastern religions is to attain nothingness to have no ego and attachments because they lead to suffering. -
@Furiousone
I am not saying that our leaders today are not ? with religion to control people, yes they are. I was talking about the original intent of religion. Caligula was not trained to be a living ? , his power got out of control and he took the title upon himself and died because of it, before him roman emperors only became gods after they died. Anything you give undue adoration too can be considered worship that includes science, money or the tv screen. like i said earlier it makes no difference to me if ? really exists or not, (although i think he does primarly based upon my own personal experiences) i believe the ? concept is essential and important for the betterment and survival of humanity. Also we cannot describe ? because we have no frame of reference because nothing in creation is like the fullness of ? , we are in creation and can have no experience outside of it. We will never and i mean never be able to dismiss ? , MY EXPERIENCE in creation has lead me to know ? exists.
From what i know of ancient egypt anyone could have been made a priest if he put the work in, this was very hard but that's not the same as withholding information from the public or from a certain class of people. religion was created to free man from his animal feelings and brutal actions not from thinking most religions support the attainment of knowledge, islam for example places great respect on scholars. The bible says that the "beginning of wisdom starts with the knowledge of ? " not the end of it. To some people in the west today knowledge starts with the end of it. Also nothing is wrong with human ego it is only when it reaches to far that it becomes a problem, we are special and we are the masters of every other life form on the planet, but we are not masters of our instincts religion is an attempt to help us do that so that we can live together. Civil laws do not always exist to control your feelings they ONLY exist to control your behavior, they can only be imposed from the outside. Religious laws can come from both the outside and the inside. In fact the teachings of christ is basically an inside law.
I have studied other religions from african religions to eastern religions, the goal of MOST far eastern religions is to attain nothingness to have no ego and attachments because they lead to suffering.
You are wrong about Caligula. All emperors received tributes as Gods. Christ took lessons from old laws (the old testament). Whatever it's original intent, it was still We are not the masters of all other lifeforms outside creation of that title. Nothing should exist to control your feelings, you should embrace them and learn from them. That is the point of having them and learn how to use them in the world when communicating with others. Self control doesn't require that you give up your physical existence and become empty. If that's what they want to do, more power to them. Laws are created because crime is based on emotional synapse and the desire to survive by means of co-opting or consuming.
Greed, Murder, Robbery to get what you desire to feed oneself and survive. It comes down to organisms joining forces to increase their potential while attempting to negate rouge outside influence. Emotion is nothing more than message signals to aid you with your awareness of the world. Of course humans can go too far, but laws are normally created because one organism stands the chance of destabilizing the foundation that others built. This can mean that knowledge that creates individuals stands the chance of turning the group away from cohesion. It isn't a supernatural process.
Islam is also guilty of destroying the scholarship of competing philosophies. Religions support obtainment of knowledge which aids in pushing that religion. The point is that the knowledge wasn't generally available unless you submitted and held the knowledge. Priest were extensions of pharaohs (who were also considered living Gods). Of course anyone deemed worthy can join. You an become rich, doesn't mean you will not start to think like others in order to consolidate your influence to become more wealthy while blocking others from doing what you did in order to maintain your position.
Just because we are self aware (other animals are too) and strategic in our ability to conquer other species, doesn't mean that we were granted those powers by default. We had to work on it through nature and evolution and in many instances luck and adaptation when it came to surviving catastrophes. Other organisms such as bacteria and Virii are as resilient as we are in influencing other species on the planet. Even with all of our exulted abilities, they are only abilities required to keep us alive as we propagate. There isn't an end goal there other than that besides expiration which is an end result for organisms that deplete their energy, and can no longer maintain cohesion. You can study all the tales based on fantasy around the world, but unless they can point to evidence to support your ? position, then you are just grasping at straws.
-
FuriousOne wrote: »@Furiousone
I am not saying that our leaders today are not ? with religion to control people, yes they are. I was talking about the original intent of religion. Caligula was not trained to be a living ? , his power got out of control and he took the title upon himself and died because of it, before him roman emperors only became gods after they died. Anything you give undue adoration too can be considered worship that includes science, money or the tv screen. like i said earlier it makes no difference to me if ? really exists or not, (although i think he does primarly based upon my own personal experiences) i believe the ? concept is essential and important for the betterment and survival of humanity. Also we cannot describe ? because we have no frame of reference because nothing in creation is like the fullness of ? , we are in creation and can have no experience outside of it. We will never and i mean never be able to dismiss ? , MY EXPERIENCE in creation has lead me to know ? exists.
The imperial occult was all about worshiping emperor as gods since Augustus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_cult_(ancient_Rome)
From what i know of ancient egypt anyone could have been made a priest if he put the work in, this was very hard but that's not the same as withholding information from the public or from a certain class of people. religion was created to free man from his animal feelings and brutal actions not from thinking most religions support the attainment of knowledge, islam for example places great respect on scholars. The bible says that the "beginning of wisdom starts with the knowledge of ? " not the end of it. To some people in the west today knowledge starts with the end of it. Also nothing is wrong with human ego it is only when it reaches to far that it becomes a problem, we are special and we are the masters of every other life form on the planet, but we are not masters of our instincts religion is an attempt to help us do that so that we can live together. Civil laws do not always exist to control your feelings they ONLY exist to control your behavior, they can only be imposed from the outside. Religious laws can come from both the outside and the inside. In fact the teachings of christ is basically an inside law.
I have studied other religions from african religions to eastern religions, the goal of MOST far eastern religions is to attain nothingness to have no ego and attachments because they lead to suffering.
You are wrong about Caligula. All emperors received tributes as Gods. Christ took lessons from old laws (the old testament). Whatever it's original intent, it was still We are not the masters of all other lifeforms outside creation of that title. Nothing should exist to control your feelings, you should embrace them and learn from them. That is the point of having them and learn how to use them in the world when communicating with others. Self control doesn't require that you give up your physical existence and become empty. If that's what they want to do, more power to them. Laws are created because crime is based on emotional synapse and the desire to survive by means of co-opting or consuming.
Greed, Murder, Robbery to get what you desire to feed oneself and survive. It comes down to organisms joining forces to increase their potential while attempting to negate rouge outside influence. Emotion is nothing more than message signals to aid you with your awareness of the world. Of course humans can go too far, but laws are normally created because one organism stands the chance of destabilizing the foundation that others built. This can mean that knowledge that creates individuals stands the chance of turning the group away from cohesion. It isn't a supernatural process.
Just because we are self aware (other animals are too) and strategic in our ability to conquer other species, doesn't mean that we were granted those powers by default. We had to work on it through nature and evolution and in many instances luck and adaptation when it came to surviving catastrophes. Other organisms such as bacteria and Virii are as resilient as we are in influencing on the planet. Even with all of our exulted abilities, they are only abilities required to keep us alive as we propagate. There isn't an end goal there. You can study all the tales based on fantasy around the world, but unless they can point to evidence to support your ? position, then you are just grasping at straws.
We are the masters of this planet we can ? and drive to extinction any other life form on earth, we have already done this, we can poison the water and air if we want too and ? or control all other life. We can ? with their dna and make them into what we want. if all these things do not make us masters of the earth then what does? Listen we are not really animals, we are so far above any creature that it is a joke for you to compare our influence to that of bacteria.
It does not matter if we had too work on it or not, the truth is we are masters of this earth. Also i never said anything about feelings being supernatural i just said they exist and one of the reasons religion arose/ evolved is to help us not only deal with them but to help us change our emotional make up.
I disagree with you, feelings need to be controlled me not controlling my feelings can lead to your death. i might learn from these feelings but only after your death and if i am determined no law made by man can convince me to stop. My FAITH in Religious laws, however can stop me from killing, how? they can change my feelings and system of thought. WHY ? BECAUSE OF THEIR BELIEVED SOURCE their is a gravity given to law when it comes from ? that cannot be replicated by civil law.
Not controlling your feelings can lead to destruction on a grand scale. greed murder and robbery have nothing to do with feedings oneself or survival especially greed, have you actually lived in a slum or ghetto ? I have, most murders and robberies have nothing to do with survival and everything to do with wanting more than you need and ego aggrandizement.
What do you believe is my ? position. I don't think you understand what i am saying at all. -
We are the masters of this planet we can ? and drive to extinction any other life form on earth, we have already done this, we can poison the water and air if we want too and ? or control all other life. We can ? with their dna and make them into what we want. if all these things do not make us masters of the earth then what does? Listen we are not really animals, we are so far above any creature that it is a joke for you to compare our influence to that of bacteria.
It does not matter if we had too work on it or not, the truth is we are masters of this earth. Also i never said anything about feelings being supernatural i just said they exist and one of the reasons religion arose/ evolved is to help us not only deal with them but to help us change our emotional make up.
I disagree with you, feelings need to be controlled me not controlling my feelings can lead to your death. i might learn from these feelings but only after your death and if i am determined no law made by man can convince me to stop. My FAITH in Religious laws, however can stop me from killing, how? they can change my feelings and system of thought. WHY ? BECAUSE OF THEIR BELIEVED SOURCE their is a gravity given to law when it comes from ? that cannot be replicated by civil law.
Not controlling your feelings can lead to destruction on a grand scale. greed murder and robbery have nothing to do with feedings oneself or survival especially greed, have you actually lived in a slum or ghetto ? I have, most murders and robberies have nothing to do with survival and everything to do with wanting more than you need and ego aggrandizement.
What do you believe is my ? position. I don't think you understand what i am saying at all.
Any species can drive another species to extinction but we can not drive all species to extinction . Bacteria isn't an animal either, but be sure that it is the most resilient lifeforms known to us and doesn't require external tools. It can invade and use your body for it's own purposes. I didn't say we weren't the masters, i said we had to work at it and didn't start out that way. My point to show that other species made the same attempts so it wasn't a divine goal. No matter where were are, we are still made up of the same elements of other creatures. Even people who go to church and believe ? .
Actually most killers in jail in America are Christians because most Americans are. The gravity that this is the only life you have and the respect for life should give enough weight to stop you from killing. Jim Jones believed ? wanted him to ? . What happens when the religion is twisted to support situations that aren't desirable for those who don't believe? I guess they aren't worthy so they can be offed right? Do you think that sort of interpretation of what ? wants isn't possible? Look at the Crusades or Muslim conquering. It is the fear of mans punishment and reprisal that keeps most people at bay.
Learning from your feelings doesn't mean succumb to them and take illogical leaps. It is as just as much about controlling your feelings but not muting them. It is about learning what they are attempting to tell you because they are there to aid you. Fear of punishment stops people from killing but none is foolish enough to think it is an absolute deterrent, it is a measure to stop things from getting out of hand. I'm am from Brooklyn my brother born one block over from biggie smalls and grew him and his crew ? on the corners. People become what they had to in order to survive and of course things got out of hand, it's a dishonorable profession which feeds on people and turns off ones emotions.
Your position is that ? is real. It surely isn't a theory. I understand that you believe in ? but don't care to support your position that it is real. You also believe that religion is a path for good which it can be, but then you think only ? being included with religion can make it successful. I think you are wrong and you haven't proven why you are correct in your assertions other than telling me it feels good. I'm thinking any Self Help Guide or philosophy can assert mastery in how to live a good life but you just gotta throw ? in there for whatever reason. ? this is the same reason people read the 48 Laws of Power and Rich Dad Poor Dad. Regardless, it's all the musings of man and doesn't prove (oh you aren't concerned about proof) that you ? exist or needs to exist. -
FuriousOne wrote: »
We are the masters of this planet we can ? and drive to extinction any other life form on earth, we have already done this, we can poison the water and air if we want too and ? or control all other life. We can ? with their dna and make them into what we want. if all these things do not make us masters of the earth then what does? Listen we are not really animals, we are so far above any creature that it is a joke for you to compare our influence to that of bacteria.
It does not matter if we had too work on it or not, the truth is we are masters of this earth. Also i never said anything about feelings being supernatural i just said they exist and one of the reasons religion arose/ evolved is to help us not only deal with them but to help us change our emotional make up.
I disagree with you, feelings need to be controlled me not controlling my feelings can lead to your death. i might learn from these feelings but only after your death and if i am determined no law made by man can convince me to stop. My FAITH in Religious laws, however can stop me from killing, how? they can change my feelings and system of thought. WHY ? BECAUSE OF THEIR BELIEVED SOURCE their is a gravity given to law when it comes from ? that cannot be replicated by civil law.
Not controlling your feelings can lead to destruction on a grand scale. greed murder and robbery have nothing to do with feedings oneself or survival especially greed, have you actually lived in a slum or ghetto ? I have, most murders and robberies have nothing to do with survival and everything to do with wanting more than you need and ego aggrandizement.
What do you believe is my ? position. I don't think you understand what i am saying at all.
Any species can drive another species to extinction but we can not drive all species to extinction . Bacteria isn't an animal either, but be sure that it is the most resilient lifeforms known to us and doesn't require external tools. It can invade and use your body for it's own purposes. I didn't say we weren't the masters, i said we had to work at it and didn't start out that way.My point to show that other species made the same attempts so it wasn't a divine goal. No matter where were are, we are still made up of the same elements of other creatures. Even people who go to church and believe ? .
No other species cannot attempt anything they are slaves to their instincts are we not, only we can attempt total control of every other species they just do what they are programmed to do once again this reinforces our specialness.Actually most killers in jail in America are Christians because most Americans are. The gravity that this is the only life you have and the respect for life should give enough weight to stop you from killing. Jim Jones believed ? wanted him to ? . What happens when the religion is twisted to support situations that aren't desirable for those who don't believe? I guess they aren't worthy so they can be offed right? Do you think that sort of interpretation of what ? wants isn't possible? Look at the Crusades or Muslim conquering. It is the fear of mans punishment and reprisal that keeps most people at bay.
I think you overestimate how much people care about their lives if you love your life too much then you don't deserve it cause you are not really living. The ability to risk it all for the greater good is what motives crusades, that power is another benefit of the ? concept. In todays world if you are an unbeliever then you don't have to partake in the religion, in the past you had to obey the people with the swords no matter if they wanted you to pray to their gods or pay them taxes so either way if you refused you would have been offed anyway. i know nuff dutty ? in brooklyn who don't give a ? about man's punishment.Learning from your feelings doesn't mean succumb to them and take illogical leaps. It is as just as much about controlling your feelings but not muting them. It is about learning what they are attempting to tell you because they are there to aid you. Fear of punishment stops people from killing but none is foolish enough to think it is an absolute deterrent, it is a measure to stop things from getting out of hand. I'm am from Brooklyn my brother born one block over from biggie smalls and grew him and his crew ? on the corners. People become what they had to in order to survive and of course things got out of hand, it's a dishonorable profession which feeds on people and turns off ones emotions.
Religion/theism is better at this than civil law it is a superior reformatory tool than a judges gavel. because religion deals with the mind and not just the body. if i am empty on the inside and can fine no joy in life then i have reason to fear man's law. Example adam lanza, who was not as carzy as people want to make him seem but was clearly an empty soul. do you know how many drunks don't drink because of church ? alot thousands i'm willing to bet. that's another problem with civil law it can allow morally bad behavior.
Your position is that ? is real. It surely isn't a theory. I understand that you believe in ? but don't care to support your position that it is real. You also believe that religion is a path for good which it can be, but then you think only ? being included with religion can make it successful. I think you are wrong and you haven't proven why you are correct in your assertions other than telling me it feels good. I'm thinking any Self Help Guide or philosophy can assert mastery in how to live a good life but you just gotta throw ? in there for whatever reason. ? this is the same reason people read the 48 Laws of Power and Rich Dad Poor Dad. Regardless, it's all the musings of man and doesn't prove (oh you aren't concerned about proof) that you ? exist or needs to exist.
Actually my position is that i think and know ? is real. however it is irrelavent if he really exist or not. The ? concept is real it's affects are measurable and evidence for it's existence can be experienced. The bolded is wrong.
You can be successful with out ? and so can a religion, the question is successful at what. Those who have tried to create a godless society have created horrors and only horrors, in every aspect those nations have not been as good and prosperous as those that have embraced ? /gods. jim jones was an atheist who used religion for evil. Give me one example of another species other than our own that can intentionally drive others to extinction? If we want to we can ? on life on earth gamma bombs biological weapons there are a variety of ways we can destroy life here , we are thinking of new ways all the time. bacteria cannot write a sonnet so please don't compare us to germs it's ridiculous.
drug dealers in brooklyn don't ? to survive they do that ? so they can get fresh buy sneakers and expensive cars, they don't do that ? to eat.THERE IS NO REAL GHETTO IN AMERICA what you guys have is poor neigborhoods. I know ? in brooklyn WHO grew up with a roof over there heads, food free water lights and free school. if you want to see a ghetto where people are busting there gun to survive you have to leave this country.
LOOK i understand where you are coming from your ideology makes sense on paper and on screen. unfortunately it much like socialism does not really work or at least it does not work by itself, but it's a nice idea.
-
Actually my position is that i think and know ? is real. however it is irrelavent if he really exist or not. The ? concept is real it's affects are measurable and evidence for it's existence can be experienced. The bolded is wrong.
You can be successful with out ? and so can a religion, the question is successful at what. Those who have tried to create a godless society have created horrors and only horrors, in every aspect those nations have not been as good and prosperous as those that have embraced ? /gods. jim jones was an atheist who used religion for evil. Give me one example of another species other than our own that can intentionally drive others to extinction? If we want to we can ? on life on earth gamma bombs biological weapons there are a variety of ways we can destroy life here , we are thinking of new ways all the time. bacteria cannot write a sonnet so please don't compare us to germs it's ridiculous.
drug dealers in brooklyn don't ? to survive they do that ? so they can get fresh buy sneakers and expensive cars, they don't do that ? to eat.THERE IS NO REAL GHETTO IN AMERICA what you guys have is poor neigborhoods. I know ? in brooklyn WHO grew up with a roof over there heads, food free water lights and free school. if you want to see a ghetto where people are busting there gun to survive you have to leave this country.
LOOK i understand where you are coming from your ideology makes sense on paper and on screen. unfortunately it much like socialism does not really work or at least it does not work by itself, but it's a nice idea.
You have no proof of your ? other then fuzzy feelings. Does bacteria need to make a sonnet? Do we? I was actually comparing our makeup and overall intent. I was also comparing our ability to co-opt other organisms. Our ability to destroy our evironment and other animals doesn't make our position on earth a noble one. Still, with all the bombs and bio weapons we have, we will only destroy ourselves. Bacteria actually eats nuclear waste, virii adapt on the fly are are now considered super virii, and animals that can, and animals that can repopulate from a lone survivor. It only to a single organism to evolve to all of the organisms we see now including us. We wouldn't have enough anyway. We are still surviving the same as them. As i said, we had to fight to become what we are and we are fortunate no other organism beat us to the punch.
Jim Jones used religion the same way others have. To make money and draw converts to preserve a doctrine because people think it is the best method for survival. He was just crazier than most. Look at Northern Europe for an example of a society that doesn't require religion to succeed. I've never seen a society that isn't dysfunctional in spite of religion. I've seen plenty of failed states that were heavily theistic throughout history. Many societies that didn't practice theistic religion created a religion of personality (similar to a living ? ). You did mention earlier that religion aided in unifying nations, well how exactly did they go about that? Did mass murder not occur then? It guess the cameras weren't rolling at that point. As i said, following any religion (even a non theistic one) blindly is a disservice to the progress of mankind.
Please do not assume that everybody in bk was living the "paid in full" lifestyle. Personally I've starved on days and our family shopped at used clothing stores. Everybody who hustled didn't have a brand new pair of kicks and that wasn't the only hustle. Actually most people who wore fancy clothing bootlegged and boosted it unless their parents had a descent job. I was saying that the intent was to survive but it got out of hand. If you want to speak on sociology, the purpose of dressing fancy is to attract a mate and compete for top position. Humans have a tendency to pervert their survival mechanisms.
Drug dealing was glorified by the media (for economic gain) but most low level dealers were just trying to eat especially when there weren't enough jobs to go around or a proper education to obtain one. I can't say it wasn't the most ignorant choice and the majority didn't make that choice but laws were needed discourage that choice further. The church didn't do much to stop what occurred and many professed their love for the lord while poisoning their communities. The funny thing is places like Africa, and the Americas were doing just fine surviving as a society until religious religious imperialist came brandishing their banners. Sure they had war and Animist\Pagan religions, but they weren't suffering in ghettos.
-
FuriousOne wrote: »alissowack wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »alissowack wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »You're assuming that there must be a beginning. Just because we formed from various elements and those elements formed from various pressures doesn't mean that there wasn't an underlining unconscious form of the universe there all along as you claim ? to be which had no purpose to create. Many present a claim that the universe contracts and expands or that other universes came before. If you look at it like that, the universe has elements that are hold overs from older forms of itself. If you claim everything must have a beginning, then so must ? .
But theist claim ? always existed. You can make the same claim from the universe always existing in many forms. There is also a theory put out that the universe did indeed form from nothing. The many dimensions that are claimed today are all facets of various conditions of this universe with no absolute claim for an outside knowledge existing and thinking without taking the form that allows humans to exist and think. If you aren't attempting to provide scientific evidence for your claims, then your claims shouldn't be merited as absolute as religions do because nothing was proved. There are many scientific positions that shouldn't be taking as absolute either like string theory. String theory is considered a religious approach because people are using factual data to come to grand erroneous conclusions. At least they're trying and they also don't make absolute claims with religious doctrine.
But isn't this something that even scientists hold to? They say the universe began with the Big Bang. Your disagreement suggests that the Big Bang is not what set things in motion. It goes both ways. While you are implicitly suggesting that something created or caused ? , you are also suggesting that something created or caused the Big Bang...like a bigger bang or something. So...scientists are really lying to the public about the universe having a beginning...or to be specific...an absolute beginning.
I doubt that serious theists are making claims. They are merely saying if ? is to exist, this deity exists eternally; that it is a necessity that ? is infinite. Something coming from nothing is a bit of a stretch for now you are saying that nothing...can create or cause something. Well, what consist of nothing so it can take any action? And also given that you don't think the universe has a beginning, even "nothing" can't be credited for creating or causing something.
Scientist make no absolute claims; they investigate, name, and present the data with logical observations that are testable for proof. They formulate a theorem based on the known facts discovered via their investigations. They have a magnitude more info to work with from their prior discoveries unlike theist. Scientist theorize but they aren't settling on that thought, they are attempting to prove it. You can't say theist aren't making claims and then say "? exist because x,y and z because anything else is a stretch." That's making an absolute claim. I state ? isn't necessary because of the characteristics one gives ? and the goal people think this conscious ? has. It isn't implicit that an intelligent being is required to start what we have currently when considering the basic characteristics of the universe.
You can absolutely ask how a conscious being came about before universal form if you make such claims. I know consciousness to occur in the brain with a combination of elements that were created in the universe from energy\matter. Btw, the big bang isn't about explosions. It fits into the theory of expansion and contraction which is the big crunch or cooling and warming. Still, that theory at least has a leg to stand on. Scientist have offered equations for the possibility of that theory but I'm sure they will not tell you to create a religion around that.
Still yet, they have proved many of the facts in that theory. Nothing refers to state prior to the physical properties of the universe which was close to zero energy\matter with no space\time but produced random quantum fluctuations of particles. The theory is still being studied and no one has settled on it as absolute. Physicist don't actually use the word nothing as a descriptive measure. I'm arguing the question of whether an intelligent being was needed to kick-start the reality or it just is without a focused purpose.
What I presented was an argument...not a claim. The argument doesn't even mention ? . However, given that I believe in ? , you took the liberty of saying that is what I meant by presenting the argument. I've even said earlier that the argument doesn't settle things. Something started the universe and the argument only addresses it.
Science is in the business of presenting absolutes. It's nothing wrong with it if the facts present itself. But, you have textbooks that put the Big Bang Theory as the only option in which the universe began. Just the fact that there are no other well-known explanations out there makes it more acceptable as the truth by the public. Yet, you think the universe always existed. That would mean the Big Bang Theory would itself need a theory...and on and on into an infinite regress. As you've mentioned before, this same infinite regress could be made against ? , but the theists are saying that it is a necessity for ? to always exist. What this necessity means in respect to any religious convictions of these theists has nothing to do with it. There are many theistic religions that do not agree with each other but have common ground on the infinite presence of ? .
The Big Bang itself is a theory but it is not complete. Even on the journey, discoveries are made that aid human kind like the discovery of the electron. The theory itself has undergone several changes and has integrated varying theories from various scientific fields. Evidence such as the Higgs Bosson has rendered the path a correct one. This is what science does. Being that all of the facts aren't there yet, it's not considered absolute. Also scientist measure within reason because nothing can be absolutely measured. It's all about probability. If you are not offering evidence for a competing theory which I'm sure you have the freedom to do, then what are you offering here other than the ? did it position?
If the theory is not "complete", then why is there such an advancing of it? If the science community is in the business of getting things right, then it should have either waited to present it after all the facts are in, or gave a "wave of the hand" explanation for it. Now, it is incorporated into how everyone perceives the way the world came to be. Finding after of years of searching that the theory is not right would really upset things.
My position is that there people who believe in ? who are not trying to provide some miraculous revelation or trying to live in some fantasy world in their head. There are people who believe in ? who are trying to make sense of who we are, what are we doing (or what we are suppose to do), and where we are going by actually looking at the world around them and it is not particularly fair (though I can see why) that some people think that everyone's perception of a deity is the same. It has nothing to do with offering "? " as a scientific explanation. A philosophical argument does allow for unbiased inquiry, but it is treated as if it is. -
FuriousOne wrote: »Actually my position is that i think and know ? is real. however it is irrelavent if he really exist or not. The ? concept is real it's affects are measurable and evidence for it's existence can be experienced. The bolded is wrong.
You can be successful with out ? and so can a religion, the question is successful at what. Those who have tried to create a godless society have created horrors and only horrors, in every aspect those nations have not been as good and prosperous as those that have embraced ? /gods. jim jones was an atheist who used religion for evil. Give me one example of another species other than our own that can intentionally drive others to extinction? If we want to we can ? on life on earth gamma bombs biological weapons there are a variety of ways we can destroy life here , we are thinking of new ways all the time. bacteria cannot write a sonnet so please don't compare us to germs it's ridiculous.
drug dealers in brooklyn don't ? to survive they do that ? so they can get fresh buy sneakers and expensive cars, they don't do that ? to eat.THERE IS NO REAL GHETTO IN AMERICA what you guys have is poor neigborhoods. I know ? in brooklyn WHO grew up with a roof over there heads, food free water lights and free school. if you want to see a ghetto where people are busting there gun to survive you have to leave this country.
LOOK i understand where you are coming from your ideology makes sense on paper and on screen. unfortunately it much like socialism does not really work or at least it does not work by itself, but it's a nice idea.
You have no proof of your ? other then fuzzy feelings. Does bacteria need to make a sonnet? Do we? I was actually comparing our makeup and overall intent. I was also comparing our ability to co-opt other organisms. Our ability to destroy our evironment and other animals doesn't make our position on earth a noble one. Still, with all the bombs and bio weapons we have, we will only destroy ourselves. Bacteria actually eats nuclear waste, virii adapt on the fly are are now considered super virii, and animals that can, and animals that can repopulate from a lone survivor. It only to a single organism to evolve to all of the organisms we see now including us. We wouldn't have enough anyway. We are still surviving the same as them. As i said, we had to fight to become what we are and we are fortunate no other organism beat us to the punch.
Jim Jones used religion they same way others have. To make money and draw converts to preserver your doctrine because you think it is the best method for survival. He was just crazier than most. Look at Northern Europe for an example of a society that doesn't require religion to succeed. I've never seen a society that isn't dysfunctional in spite of religion. I've seen plenty of failed states that were heavily theistic throughout history. Many societies that didn't practice theistic religion created a religion of personality (similar to a living ? ). You did mention earlier that religion aided in unifying nations, well how exactly did they go about that? Did mass murder not occur then? It guess the cameras weren't rolling at that point. As i said, following any religion (even a non theistic one) blindly is a disservice to the progress of mankind.
Please do not assume that everybody in bk was living the "paid in full" lifestyle. Personally I've starved on days and our family shopped at used clothing stores. Everybody who hustled didn't have a brand new pair of kicks and that wasn't the only hustle. Actually most people who wore fancy clothing bootlegged and boosted it unless their parents had a descent job. I was saying that the intent was to survive but it got out of hand. If you want to speak on sociology, the purpose of dressing fancy is to attract a mate and compete for top position. Humans have a tendency to pervert their survival mechanisms.
Drug dealing was glorified by the media (for economic gain) but most low level dealers were just trying to eat especially when there weren't enough jobs to go around or a proper education to obtain one. I can't say it wasn't the most ignorant choice and the majority didn't make that choice but laws were needed discourage that choice further. The church didn't do much to stop what occurred and many professed their love for the lord while poisoning their communities. The funny thing is places like Africa, and the Americas were doing just fine surviving as a society until religious Christian imperialist came brandishing their banners. Sure they had war and Animist\Pagan religions, but they weren't suffering in ghettos.
My argument has nothing with to do with trying to prove the supernatural ? and i have already told you why that is impossible. so stop bringing it up lets move forward in our debate. I am talking about the concept of ? being the best way for man to free himself of his base urges. This concept civilizes man better than any other it strengthens him more than any other and motives him to survive or die BETTER than any other. You have no proof that bacteria would have evolved into intelligence you also have no proof that that evolution of intelligence is the norm for life. perhaps life does not go past bacteria maybe that's the norm in the universe and humanity is even more special than i previously thought. Yes we have to create art it's another thing that makes us different from most animals.
Sorry, but my doctrine is not jim jones doctrine that man was an atheist and a communist he used religion to push people to atheism. Northern europe is a dying society atheist always like to brag about northern europe but the native people of that land are barely having babies and have to import masses of people from other nations to keep their economies running. Religion unites A people not all people just those who believe, when they come into contact with those who don't believe this often leads to bloodshed, this is not the religions fault it is usually the fault of the people who use the religion for political and monetary gains. There have been many jim joneses in history that is the downside of all religion theistic or not so you cannot blame the ? concept for starting war you can however attribute the strength of the people fighting back against their invaders to the ? concept.
I know exactly how brooklyn is because when i came from jamaica that's where i lived and the vast majority of drug dealers that i came across did not have to do that ? and they certainly did not have to do it for so long. The whole i gotta eat i am only selling this ? to survive is an excuse for doing what you know is wrong. FOOLS out there are not selling dime bags to pay rent or pay community college bills or buy food. those who really do sell to survive are in the extreme minority. I know of no church that supported drug dealings there might have been a crooked pastor here or there but the church supporting ? ?? which church was this. religion only comes into imerialism as an excuse not a cause, WHITES cared nothing about who the africans worshiped until TheY wanted to control us for money. African people being in the ghetto today has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with economics politics and bad side of capitalism.
-
FuriousOne wrote: »Actually my position is that i think and know ? is real. however it is irrelavent if he really exist or not. The ? concept is real it's affects are measurable and evidence for it's existence can be experienced. The bolded is wrong.
You can be successful with out ? and so can a religion, the question is successful at what. Those who have tried to create a godless society have created horrors and only horrors, in every aspect those nations have not been as good and prosperous as those that have embraced ? /gods. jim jones was an atheist who used religion for evil. Give me one example of another species other than our own that can intentionally drive others to extinction? If we want to we can ? on life on earth gamma bombs biological weapons there are a variety of ways we can destroy life here , we are thinking of new ways all the time. bacteria cannot write a sonnet so please don't compare us to germs it's ridiculous.
drug dealers in brooklyn don't ? to survive they do that ? so they can get fresh buy sneakers and expensive cars, they don't do that ? to eat.THERE IS NO REAL GHETTO IN AMERICA what you guys have is poor neigborhoods. I know ? in brooklyn WHO grew up with a roof over there heads, food free water lights and free school. if you want to see a ghetto where people are busting there gun to survive you have to leave this country.
LOOK i understand where you are coming from your ideology makes sense on paper and on screen. unfortunately it much like socialism does not really work or at least it does not work by itself, but it's a nice idea.
You have no proof of your ? other then fuzzy feelings. Does bacteria need to make a sonnet? Do we? I was actually comparing our makeup and overall intent. I was also comparing our ability to co-opt other organisms. Our ability to destroy our evironment and other animals doesn't make our position on earth a noble one. Still, with all the bombs and bio weapons we have, we will only destroy ourselves. Bacteria actually eats nuclear waste, virii adapt on the fly are are now considered super virii, and animals that can, and animals that can repopulate from a lone survivor. It only to a single organism to evolve to all of the organisms we see now including us. We wouldn't have enough anyway. We are still surviving the same as them. As i said, we had to fight to become what we are and we are fortunate no other organism beat us to the punch.
Jim Jones used religion they same way others have. To make money and draw converts to preserver your doctrine because you think it is the best method for survival. He was just crazier than most. Look at Northern Europe for an example of a society that doesn't require religion to succeed. I've never seen a society that isn't dysfunctional in spite of religion. I've seen plenty of failed states that were heavily theistic throughout history. Many societies that didn't practice theistic religion created a religion of personality (similar to a living ? ). You did mention earlier that religion aided in unifying nations, well how exactly did they go about that? Did mass murder not occur then? It guess the cameras weren't rolling at that point. As i said, following any religion (even a non theistic one) blindly is a disservice to the progress of mankind.
Please do not assume that everybody in bk was living the "paid in full" lifestyle. Personally I've starved on days and our family shopped at used clothing stores. Everybody who hustled didn't have a brand new pair of kicks and that wasn't the only hustle. Actually most people who wore fancy clothing bootlegged and boosted it unless their parents had a descent job. I was saying that the intent was to survive but it got out of hand. If you want to speak on sociology, the purpose of dressing fancy is to attract a mate and compete for top position. Humans have a tendency to pervert their survival mechanisms.
Drug dealing was glorified by the media (for economic gain) but most low level dealers were just trying to eat especially when there weren't enough jobs to go around or a proper education to obtain one. I can't say it wasn't the most ignorant choice and the majority didn't make that choice but laws were needed discourage that choice further. The church didn't do much to stop what occurred and many professed their love for the lord while poisoning their communities. The funny thing is places like Africa, and the Americas were doing just fine surviving as a society until religious Christian imperialist came brandishing their banners. Sure they had war and Animist\Pagan religions, but they weren't suffering in ghettos.
My argument has nothing with to do with trying to prove the supernatural ? and i have already told you why that is impossible. so stop bringing it up lets move forward in our debate. I am talking about the concept of ? being the best way for man to free himself of his base urges. This concept civilizes man better than any other it strengthens him more than any other and motives him to survive or die BETTER than any other. You have no proof that bacteria would have evolved into intelligence you also have no proof that that evolution of intelligence is the norm for life. perhaps life does not go past bacteria maybe that's the norm in the universe and humanity is even more special than i previously thought. Yes we have to create art it's another thing that makes us different from most animals.
Sorry, but my doctrine is not jim jones doctrine that man was an atheist and a communist he used religion to push people to atheism. Northern europe is a dying society atheist always like to brag about northern europe but the native people of that land are barely having babies and have to import masses of people from other nations to keep their economies running. Religion unites A people not all people just those who believe, when they come into contact with those who don't believe this often leads to bloodshed, this is not the religions fault it is usually the fault of the people who use the religion for political and monetary gains. There have been many jim joneses in history that is the downside of all religion theistic or not so you cannot blame the ? concept for starting war you can however attribute the strength of the people fighting back against their invaders to the ? concept.
I know exactly how brooklyn is because when i came from jamaica that's where i lived and the vast majority of drug dealers that i came across did not have to do that ? and they certainly did not have to do it for so long. The whole i gotta eat i am only selling this ? to survive is an excuse for doing what you know is wrong. FOOLS out there are not selling dime bags to pay rent or pay community college bills or buy food. those who really do sell to survive are in the extreme minority. I know of no church that supported drug dealings there might have been a crooked pastor here or there but the church supporting ? ?? which church was this. religion only comes into imerialism as an excuse not a cause, WHITES cared nothing about who the africans worshiped until TheY wanted to control us for money. African people being in the ghetto today has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with economics politics and bad side of capitalism.
Stopped reading after the bolded. -
FuriousOne wrote: »Actually my position is that i think and know ? is real. however it is irrelavent if he really exist or not. The ? concept is real it's affects are measurable and evidence for it's existence can be experienced. The bolded is wrong.
You can be successful with out ? and so can a religion, the question is successful at what. Those who have tried to create a godless society have created horrors and only horrors, in every aspect those nations have not been as good and prosperous as those that have embraced ? /gods. jim jones was an atheist who used religion for evil. Give me one example of another species other than our own that can intentionally drive others to extinction? If we want to we can ? on life on earth gamma bombs biological weapons there are a variety of ways we can destroy life here , we are thinking of new ways all the time. bacteria cannot write a sonnet so please don't compare us to germs it's ridiculous.
drug dealers in brooklyn don't ? to survive they do that ? so they can get fresh buy sneakers and expensive cars, they don't do that ? to eat.THERE IS NO REAL GHETTO IN AMERICA what you guys have is poor neigborhoods. I know ? in brooklyn WHO grew up with a roof over there heads, food free water lights and free school. if you want to see a ghetto where people are busting there gun to survive you have to leave this country.
LOOK i understand where you are coming from your ideology makes sense on paper and on screen. unfortunately it much like socialism does not really work or at least it does not work by itself, but it's a nice idea.
You have no proof of your ? other then fuzzy feelings. Does bacteria need to make a sonnet? Do we? I was actually comparing our makeup and overall intent. I was also comparing our ability to co-opt other organisms. Our ability to destroy our evironment and other animals doesn't make our position on earth a noble one. Still, with all the bombs and bio weapons we have, we will only destroy ourselves. Bacteria actually eats nuclear waste, virii adapt on the fly are are now considered super virii, and animals that can, and animals that can repopulate from a lone survivor. It only to a single organism to evolve to all of the organisms we see now including us. We wouldn't have enough anyway. We are still surviving the same as them. As i said, we had to fight to become what we are and we are fortunate no other organism beat us to the punch.
Jim Jones used religion they same way others have. To make money and draw converts to preserver your doctrine because you think it is the best method for survival. He was just crazier than most. Look at Northern Europe for an example of a society that doesn't require religion to succeed. I've never seen a society that isn't dysfunctional in spite of religion. I've seen plenty of failed states that were heavily theistic throughout history. Many societies that didn't practice theistic religion created a religion of personality (similar to a living ? ). You did mention earlier that religion aided in unifying nations, well how exactly did they go about that? Did mass murder not occur then? It guess the cameras weren't rolling at that point. As i said, following any religion (even a non theistic one) blindly is a disservice to the progress of mankind.
Please do not assume that everybody in bk was living the "paid in full" lifestyle. Personally I've starved on days and our family shopped at used clothing stores. Everybody who hustled didn't have a brand new pair of kicks and that wasn't the only hustle. Actually most people who wore fancy clothing bootlegged and boosted it unless their parents had a descent job. I was saying that the intent was to survive but it got out of hand. If you want to speak on sociology, the purpose of dressing fancy is to attract a mate and compete for top position. Humans have a tendency to pervert their survival mechanisms.
Drug dealing was glorified by the media (for economic gain) but most low level dealers were just trying to eat especially when there weren't enough jobs to go around or a proper education to obtain one. I can't say it wasn't the most ignorant choice and the majority didn't make that choice but laws were needed discourage that choice further. The church didn't do much to stop what occurred and many professed their love for the lord while poisoning their communities. The funny thing is places like Africa, and the Americas were doing just fine surviving as a society until religious Christian imperialist came brandishing their banners. Sure they had war and Animist\Pagan religions, but they weren't suffering in ghettos.
My argument has nothing with to do with trying to prove the supernatural ? and i have already told you why that is impossible. so stop bringing it up lets move forward in our debate. I am talking about the concept of ? being the best way for man to free himself of his base urges. This concept civilizes man better than any other it strengthens him more than any other and motives him to survive or die BETTER than any other. You have no proof that bacteria would have evolved into intelligence you also have no proof that that evolution of intelligence is the norm for life. perhaps life does not go past bacteria maybe that's the norm in the universe and humanity is even more special than i previously thought. Yes we have to create art it's another thing that makes us different from most animals.
Sorry, but my doctrine is not jim jones doctrine that man was an atheist and a communist he used religion to push people to atheism. Northern europe is a dying society atheist always like to brag about northern europe but the native people of that land are barely having babies and have to import masses of people from other nations to keep their economies running. Religion unites A people not all people just those who believe, when they come into contact with those who don't believe this often leads to bloodshed, this is not the religions fault it is usually the fault of the people who use the religion for political and monetary gains. There have been many jim joneses in history that is the downside of all religion theistic or not so you cannot blame the ? concept for starting war you can however attribute the strength of the people fighting back against their invaders to the ? concept.
I know exactly how brooklyn is because when i came from jamaica that's where i lived and the vast majority of drug dealers that i came across did not have to do that ? and they certainly did not have to do it for so long. The whole i gotta eat i am only selling this ? to survive is an excuse for doing what you know is wrong. FOOLS out there are not selling dime bags to pay rent or pay community college bills or buy food. those who really do sell to survive are in the extreme minority. I know of no church that supported drug dealings there might have been a crooked pastor here or there but the church supporting ? ?? which church was this. religion only comes into imerialism as an excuse not a cause, WHITES cared nothing about who the africans worshiped until TheY wanted to control us for money. African people being in the ghetto today has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with economics politics and bad side of capitalism.
Stopped reading after the bolded.
What is the problem with what i have said.
