Koran > Bible
Do the claims made by religion hold up against scientific enquiry or is religion an out-dated practice created by early man who had huge gaps in their understanding of the natural world and needed quick and easy answers to their burning questions about life, the universe and everything?
Nonlocality or nonseparability is asking us to revise completely our ideas about objects, to remove a pervasive projection we have upon nature. We can no longer consider objects as independently existing entities that can be localized in well-defined regions of spacetime. They are interconnected in ways not even conceivable using ideas from classical physics, which is largely a refinement and extrapolation from our normal macroscopic sense of functioning. (Mansfield, 1995, p.122).
Nature has shown us that our concept of reality, consisting of units that can be considered as separate from each other, is fundamentally wrong. For this reason, Bell's theorem may be the most profound discovery of science. (Kafatos and Kafatou, 1991, 64-65).
Quantum nonlocality proves that "particles that were once together in an interaction remain in some sense parts of a single system which responds together to further interactions" (Gribbin, 1984). Since the entire universe originated in a flash of light known as the Big Bang, the existence of quantum nonlocality points toward a profound cosmological holism and suggests that
If everything that ever interacted in the Big Bang maintains its connection with everything it interacted with, then every particle in every star and galaxy that we can see "knows" about the existence of every other particle. (Gribbin, 1984).
http://www.braungardt.com/Physics/Quantum%20Nonlocality.htm
Are you religious? Do you practice religion as a tradition or because you believe that your particular religion is 'correct'? Do your experiences validate the existence of god or do humans retro-fit their experiences to fit their pre-conceptions and ideology.
Mankind needed religion as an excuse for things they couldn't possibly explain with their current knowledge. As technology developed over the past couple of centuries, more and more people realized that the stories in the Bible for instance are obviously not true (and every single person who has just a little sense realizes that - no matter how truly religious they are).
But that's not only with religion. You know about witches, stories, books about such tales, those cannot be true either! All for the favor of explaining unexplainable things.
But! For example catholic religion is not only a crap made up for this reason. Stories in the Bible help you get by, they give you a wider look at things so you can apply them in your life and make your life better.
Christianity is supposed to be that - a help that lets you get by better in life. That's all, and I'm saying that even though I think all this religion-thing is a big bag of bullshit.
It's somewhat a way of teaching people to a better attitude, positive thinking and such, since - even though it's never been proven - THAT helps you a lot in life, and I found that out the hard way. ;)
P.S.: this is my opinion! I am not willing to hurt anyone's feelings with it, I am not looking for an argument here - this is what I think. If you believe something different, you are free to express it, I will read it, and even if I do disagree with what you say, I won't chukkle it in your face, you are free to believe whatever you want and live by that. And I have no rights to take that or the freedom of expressing it away from you.
I just believe in Jesus
... and I respect all other religions. :)
Despite all this, I'm not sure how one can generalise quantum discoveries to be part of a 'holistic' view of the universe and that developments in quantum physics somehow go against previous scientific discoveries.
Despite all this, I'm not sure how one can generalise quantum discoveries to be part of a 'holistic' view of the universe and that developments in quantum physics somehow go against previous scientific discoveries.
Well in the holistic interpretation of the universe everything is linked together by subtle connections. Isn't that what quantumphysics confirms?
The most interesting subject is maybe the idea of non-locality when it comes to human conciousness. There are some who claim conciousness is not tied to the brain, but that the brain is merely an interface through which the non-local conciousness can function / can operate in this material world. In this view it is not the brain that brings forth conciousness, but conciousness exists outside of it, independently..
If this were true (I'm in doubt myself), it would, in essence, be possible to experience conciousness outside of the body (like in near death experiences) and thus allow for the possibility of conciousness before birth and after death.. what one might call an afterlife. And that would pretty much confirm the validity of the central doctrine of most religions.
But again, I'm not sure whether to believe this.
btw, the new album of Bad Religion is out. enjoy it ae http://www.megaupload.com/?d=MYFALB18
Bible > Koran
islam is religion of peace
@Cue and HHC, reading your posts with quantum physics involved, first that has crossed my mind is to recommend U to watch the movie (if U already haven't): "What the Bleep do we Know?". It's a half documentary half featured movie in which some of the greatest minds/scientist talks about quantum physics, God, human brains etc.. I think U'll both like it and maybe U even get to understand quantum physics.. ;x Not that U need any knowledge about physics to watch it, it's made for "wide audience".. If U like it, there's also the second part called "Down the Rabbit hole".. Just search for it on torrents, so I don't leave torrents links here (dunno if it's allowed)..
I think that the human brain is (still?) unable to comprehend and realize what the "God" is. We are kinda "stuck" in a 3rd dimension (with a Dot and a Circle) and we cannot see further than that, but we can guess that there's something beyond that 3rd dimension, which is our consciousness capability that we have develop (again*) in last few centuries... *I mean, Earth had Great Civilizations like Maya's or Egyptian that used to know so much about the World and Cosmos around, their level of consciousness was on a higher level. But then all went to hell, and again (just few centuries back from present!) U have ppl being hanged for claiming that the Earth is not flat but round! At the beginning of 17th century Galileo had to go to the Catholic Church authorities to convince them that Copernicus was right and that the Earth is not the center of the Universe and that not everything is spinning around her, but that the Earth is spinning around the Sun.. Once, when they were the most powerful organizations in society, church and it's head authorities used to annihilate the Science for the sake of their own manipulations with human kind. I'm just glad that those ages are gone and passed.. ;x
But for sure we live in the age where Science rapidly develops and progress, it's great times for those who like Science. Explorations and understanding of outer Cosmos and inner Cosmos (quantum physics) are on highest level than ever before..
So for me, my "religion" is Science. ;x
No you are Free.
The question is, does this prove that the mind or consciousness can exist outside of our body? If this were true then we're starting to talk about everlasting existence which is pretty heavy shit. I wouldn't actually worry about dying if my consciousness would continue to exist for eternity. I also think it's pretty darn unlikely and I think that there is also no compelling evidence for it to be true. But some people disagree.
Another thing to remember is that neurologists know exactly how to make people have these strange out of body experiences. They can trigger them in a person by stimulating a certain part of the brain.
I thoroughly recommend listening to a debate between a believer and a non-believer on the topic of near death experience and the out of body experience. It is extremely interesting and entertaining, especially considering Stephen Novella is such a gifted debater and knows every logical fallacy in the book.
Stephen Novella is a practicing neurologist and Alex Tsakiris is not a scientist but believes in the importance of scientific experiments to provide evidence for his alternative view.
http://www.skeptiko.com/near-death-experience-research-debate-with-steven-novella/
I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to.. but there is a substance called DMT which is said to trigger visions that correlate to NDE's and that possibly, in a state of near death or fear of death, this substance is released by the brain in greater quantities, thus sparking 'supernatural' visions.
You may call these hallucinations, but that wouldn't be correct as hallucinations call forth a reality that is entirely fictional, while the visions reported in NDE's (or through DMT) correspond with things in reality (like seeing the actual roof of the hospital rather than a fictional one).
btw, the new album of Bad Religion is out. enjoy it ae http://www.megaupload.com/?d=MYFALB18
supernatural powersIn fact, this is natural (we're all able to do things like that), but we don't know how to make it.
Or is god just a man-made theory [...] ?Yes.
supernatural powersIn fact, this is natural (we're all able to do things like that), but we don't know how to make it.
Basically there is one creator - the Blacksmith - who forged the entire universe with his powerful hammer and anvil of steel, wearing nothing but a loincloth. He's undoubtedly the manliest of men, standing in his burning forge and sweating in eternity while hurling his mighty hammer at those who are not worthy.
What did your secretary say about avi had a bf?
god = santaclaus, open ur eyes!
What did your secretary say about avi had a bf?
hahahha pretty good MI that was funny :D
and nino.. damn, why did u have to tell about my BF :(
I don't belive god created the world. But on the other hand I don't belive that there is nothing after life. But if there is only nothing then what is nothing how can you just be nothing??? Lol :o
I was nothing before I was born and I'll be nothing after.
Before you were born, you weren't nothing: since you have never been created, you just weren't at all.
But when you die, I guess there is something after: can't tell what, but something.
I mean it's hard to believe your spirit just go away. Anway, this question won't have answer until you die.
That's why I'll enjoy dying, so I'll have some answers on my questions. :)
(And being free sounds to be sooo awesome.)
I don't belive god created the world.
But on the other hand I don't belive that there is nothing after life. But if there is only nothing then what is nothing how can you just be nothing??? Lol :o
I also find it amazing how some people see right through the bullshit and care about the actual truth. Not just what comforts them.
Ask yourself this, what is it that even makes you care?
Ask yourself this, what is it that even makes you care?
I love being a skeptic because I can sit back and not be tied to a particular view point because it makes me happy or comforts me. I can take a step back and all I care about is truth. Even if the truth isn't interesting I would rather live in a real world.I love you Cue ! :-*
This is insane....but why does Homeopathy still exist anywhere in the world?You're right, it's litteraly nothing, but as you should know, the human can heals himself just with beliefs.
what brings me to whole this, is simply things I've experienced in my life, or my friends have...
the only thing that can divert my beliefs is if somone will be able to answer the question - How did it all start? and I'm not talking about the theories of the big bang, I'm talking about the first-ever tiniest energy made... until then - I stick to believe god did all this
well, it's hard for me to explain this, but I'll try
God created everything you know, including the Time dimension.. hence God isn't subordinated to (hope it's the right word) time. that means in god's terms, being allmighty and creating the time, there isn't a future, present, or past, therefore - there was nothing before him
I know it's hard to understand or believe even, but the blible is not only a story, there are 4 ways to read it, when the first one is yeah reading and understanding the story, but every level deeper you reveal the bible is a code and everything is written there..
but every baby burns atheist until someone start to say stuff to him/her.. then that kid grow up believing in something that he/she isnot so mature to think about yet.
I personally mean no offence, but also, I can't believe there are people that actually believe in something that has NEVER even had any slight chance of their being ANY proof.dude, hypnosis brings people back to their previous lives.. for example a guy I know during hypnosis was speaking fluent german as if it was his main language, and this guy didn't even know a word when he was awake.. and the number of strories like that only raises everyday... so if that's not enough proof for you that there is reincarnation I don't know what is, can science explain it?
I really don't intend to upset or anger anyone here but this IS what this thread is about, sharing your opinion, but to me, people that believe in god are weak minded and deep down inside just scared of death and other things we can't explain. It's like they are sheep, following a life that has already been determined and they really have no choice over their events in their life, I can't sit back and accept this, if I believed in this, i'd rather die than have no choice in my own fate.who said anything about not having a choice? any each of us has a free will and choice and makes his own fate
Even using the word "God" to me is just stupid, God is just a word that Humans made up and even IF their was a "God" I doubt this being would call itself "God" as this would imply a "godlike complex" which seems a bit selfish, so why would a being that created everything have a higher personality than the very things it created itself?
I am with nino here, everything must be created, your explanation is jibberish and extremely flawed.that's just impossible, cuz if everything must be created there's never a first creator, so it's a paradox that science will never figure
For example, you call "God" a "him" which implies he must have a Mother, so technically someone DID create him.once again, English word "him", obviously god has no body, so he can't have a mother, so he wasn't born
If there WAS nothing before "God" then what would be the point of his existence?again wrong, or you just repling to my post without even reading it carefully
If there was nothing in the present then nothing would have happened therefor he didn't create mankind...what are you talking about
To me the Bible is just like a bedtime story, makes people feel safe and loved and wanted, because all bedtimes storys end nice, although I know everything in the Bible is not "nice" the jist of it implies it's the moral thing to believe in.have you ever tried to look differently in the bible other than bedtime story?
I do respect your choice to believe what you believe Almog, and I really don't mean any offence, because you believe what you believe and I believe what I believe and we still get along just fine, so theres no harm done.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and thats that.
komo, you're just WRONG in almost everything you say
first, I weren't taught religion by my parents , I chose to be a believer only a few years ago, and it was after I already had some biology background the the evolution theory stuff of darvin which is btw proven to be false.
dude, hypnosis brings people back to their previous lives.. for example a guy I know during hypnosis was speaking fluent german as if it was his main language, and this guy didn't even know a word when he was awake.. and the number of strories like that only raises everyday... so if that's not enough proof for you that there is reincarnation I don't know what is, can science explain it?
who said anything about not having a choice? any each of us has a free will and choice and makes his own fate
once again, you are wrong and it all comes from not learning deeply the bible
another time being wrong, or just not-accepting
god gave the name for himself, in fact, god has over 70 names in the bible, but yeah, it's in Hebrew and the English word "God" wasn't there.. and each of his names have a meaning of his exsistance and clues for his characterictis
that's just impossible, cuz if everything must be created there's never a first creator, so it's a paradox that science will never figure
but I tell you there is an answer for this, which I can't explain here, and it basically about god being exist forever, outside time scale
once again, English word "him", obviously god has no body, so he can't have a mother, so he wasn't born
please don't go into stupid things like that. language can't always express spiritual stuff
again wrong, or you just repling to my post without even reading it carefully
I said god has always been there, cuz he created the time, so there was nothing before him. therefore there's no need in point of existing him, but dicuss the point of why he made us exist
have you ever tried to look differently in the bible other than bedtime story?
have you even considered that maybe, just maybe, it's true ? and there is more into it than just stories?
thanks
dude, hypnosis brings people back to their previous lives.. for example a guy I know during hypnosis was speaking fluent german as if it was his main language, and this guy didn't even know a word when he was awake.. and the number of strories like that only raises everyday... so if that's not enough proof for you that there is reincarnation I don't know what is, can science explain it?
@ your first post
it's hard for me to read it in English, but at glance it's not quite the SAME as it is in Hebrew
besides, like I said.. bible is not only about bedtime story and the simplicity of it, it's very complicated, and again, it's a code
obviously in that langauge you can't see what I can see in Hebrew "the holy letters" and stuff, and sorry but I can't express myself like I wanted
@2nd post
lets distinguish evolution from theory of evolution
evolution is a scientific fact, mutations happen in cells causing them to change to something little bit different everytime they multiply causing creatures to change in time, also why your kids don't look exactly like you
so perhaps men were taller or small back in the days, and had more hair, or bigger brain, but then comes the 2nd part,
theory of evolution
which talks about human coming from monkeys and all creatures developing from 1 living cell
I'm creationist, I do think the humans were created by Go in our present form, maybe little different and that's what evolution changed, but definately not coming from monkeys
now why I know this theory has been proven false? for one thing, if every creature evolving from its previous forms is better surviver, like the creatures between monkeys and humans (lets call them half humans), we should see these forms today living like us, it makes no sense that monkeys survived but half humans didnt
2nd thing, if all living creatues began from 1 cell, we should find fossils of 1 creature that are oldest, but what were found are fossiles in same age of many different creatures
3rd and maybe most important, only the odds and co-incidence of the current life forms developing from a few cells are so f@#!ing impossible that's it's simply too imaginary to be true, more imaginary than having a god
komo, dinosaurs are mention in the bilble :)
Theres no paradox, what you are saying just can't exist, how can "God" create us, but nothing creates him? This just doesn't make sense and you know it, deep down you KNOW this just can't be true.
Theres no paradox, what you are saying just can't exist, how can "God" create us, but nothing creates him? This just doesn't make sense and you know it, deep down you KNOW this just can't be true.
The Big Bang-theory suffers from the same issue though.. you can't have an 'explosion' without matter to ignite, as well as something/someone to ignite it.
There is no time before the big bang. Yet there has had to be something to trigger the explosion. And thus, that 'something' must have existed outside time, as a timeless being.
A timeless God really isn't such an absurd notion if you stop to take the linear timescale for granted (which is what I said before.. most people denounce God based on an outdated 18th century Newtonian worldview).
I don't believe in the Big Bang Theory either.
I don't believe in the Big Bang Theory either.
Hmm... I find it hard to belief you found an answer to the creator of the creator-paradox without the support of a timeless entity. A cyclical time-notion perhaps?
Who says I found an answer, my point was I don't believe in any it, my point from the start was all I believe in is my 5 senses, and things 100% proven, at least to my senses.
As I said, people used to believe that the Earth was a flat plate, but then Human intelligence proved that it's a round ball and they knew. No need for beliefs. At that time Catholic Church "main Bible servants" have ordered to kill/burn those godless blasphemers that dare to claim that. Looks like "God" forgot to mention in that code that Earth is ball-shaped when he was talking about creations of things.. And btw, I've seen many books with "codes".. Allegorical stories are grateful for 100 different interpretations that U can call "codes", but that do not prove that they were written with a help of a "higher force" or "God"...
Who says I found an answer, my point was I don't believe in any it, my point from the start was all I believe in is my 5 senses, and things 100% proven, at least to my senses.
And those senses cannot be deceived?
And what is 100% proven? Nothing is.
There are lots of things in the universe as of yet unexplained or the subject of mere speculation. They are not 100% facts (nor ever will be) and they are not perceivable with any of the senses. That doesn't mean that they don't exist though. I mean, what goes on in a black hole? That's something we will never know. Should we just stop the investigation there and say that black holes don't exist as they aren't perceivable with the eye?
You can bash religious people (or big bang followers) all you like but when you're too lazy to even speculate what may beyond our horizons and dismiss any such theories as bogus from the start there really isn't much point in discussing the big questions of life..
Of course senses can be deceived, but most times when this happens, you know about it
and so many things are 100% proven its unbelievable you can even think this let alone say it, for example, if I walked up to you and slapped your face, it's 100% proven that I just walked up to you and slapped your face, so don't say things that aren't true.
I am not bashing anyone, you are being extremely ignorant HHC, i've stated I don't agree with them, and I think it's stupid in my opinion, but I highly respect their choice to believe what they believe, if you can't understand this then YOU should be the one I see with no point in discussing this matter.
You know about it only because you have been taught that it is so. You go by convention rather than direct experience.
Hmm.. that isn't a real natural law is it? That's an event happening at a set location in time and space. Kinda like Hagar the Viking hitting Charles the Frank on the head with a battleaxe. I'm fairly sure both would agree at the time that it was a 100% fact that it happened (unless both of them were psychotic, or liars), but when Hagar goes back to his camp the next day and tells the story, would everyone believe him? What evidence would Hagar have to back up his claims? What evidence do we have now that Hagar even existed 1200 years ago?
A natural law on the other hand could be recreated through experiment. Suppose Komo and HHC were robots instead (and thus live forever), everytime Komo walked to HHC he would have to hit him in order for the natural law to have any validity. Yet.. what if one day Komo walked up to me and instead slipped over a banana on the way there. The robot would fall, HHC would not get hit and the natural law would not be 100% correct anymore. This is something that can happen to any natural law. If a certain object defies the law of gravity tomorrow then we've got a bit of a problem and the law of gravity would not be 100% applicable anymore.
Furthermore, the experiment may have been done on a false basis. Outside of the experiment there may not be electricity for the robots to move, thus the robots would only behave this way in the labratory and not in reality. Or.. what if the robots only moved because they were instructioned by the doctor's mind to do so? In quantum physics this is a real problem because the observer seems to have a direct influence on the behaviour of the matter he's experimenting with:
I dunno, it just seems that calling people's opinion stupid is not a sign of high respect. But nm, let's stick to the topic.
In quantum physics this is a real problem because the observer seems to have a direct influence on the behaviour of the matter he's experimenting with.This goes too far for us, but it's so beautiful and frustating. :]
One thing I thought was cool, well annoying also at times, is like, 2 storys here, I was sitting in my house one day listening to music, not very loud, just calm and relaxed, I turned everything off as normal, went to the shop, came back like 15-20 minutes later, turned everything back on, speakers weren't working anymore, i'm like, wtf's up with that, and now, last week, same thing happened, but with my 32"HDTV - I can't even BnG anymore properly cuz I am using this little stupid monitor, but the point is, I think it's weird that everytime something electrical to do with my PC that break, breaks when I am not there lol, it's weird, but sure there is explanation, even if it's one I can't understand yet.
...Do we on Earth really know that that is how far away those other galaxies are? And how exactly? ...
....I can't possibly believe there isn't life somewhere else.....
...Do we on Earth really know that that is how far away those other galaxies are? And how exactly? ...
"How exactly?" Heh, tell me U don't expect a scientific explanation? I know that Astrometry (a branch of Astronomy that do measuring) uses some method called Parallax and Red-shift to measure the distance to stars/galaxies and other celestial objects.. They measure wavelengths, light spectrum and other info that they get from a light of an object.. I cannot tell U exactly how, since it's a serious science talk with physics involved, but I can tell U that YES, they really know precisely how far is anything out there and what size it is and even from what elements it's made of. Astronomy is a HUGE science with much physics involved into it, so for precise understandings I guess U need to have a background in physics..
...
I guess I will never know..
@Cue, (Since you bumped this topic)
I'm not religious to answer you but I live in a religious country. Why you are not considering the change that has been done to bible through time (and all other religious books)?
I mean the editing/adding that people did to it. Bible is so old. People used to rewrite history the way the wanted. Some crazy priests could have add a line to it to make bible make more sense to his time events. I'm saying it is not possible to compare 2 lines in such books.
People believed in many magic stuff in the past 100-200 years, imagine what they were believing in 1000-2000 years go.
Also, Cue, biblical scholars usually say taking single verses out of context to prove a point is a logical fallacy..
But considering that it was written like 3000, 4000, dunno, years ago, couldn't it be a clever allegory of big bang and evolution and stuff?
But considering that it was written like 3000, 4000, dunno, years ago, couldn't it be a clever allegory of big bang and evolution and stuff?
I think you just touched the reason atheists have problems with religion :) I think most atheists have no problem with people having their own religion and their own ways of dealing with it.
The problem is with people who claim authority and use the bible (or really any other religious book) to serve their own purposes.
As for the 10 commandments: should children honour abusive parents? Should hospitals be closed on sunday?
And thirdly, the code is more what you call "guidelines" than actual rules.;D
Rok, people must be able to read religious books literally. That's something a "divine book" must have. Because if not, everybody could come up with any fictional thing, and under any criticism they would say, "no it doesn't mean this, it meant something else". The words shouldn't say something and then expect people to get another meaning. Remember, different age/culture/sex read the book, the book must have literal meaning.
Unless people who wrote it were inspired by some divine voice, then yes, I agree. :P
God is a paradox. Religion is the child of an uneducated human race.
[...]i bet theres that one huge asteroid mofo, just on its way to bump earth into the right direction (sun). [...]
"For God so love the world, that he give his only begotten son, that who so ever believes in Him, putting their faith and trust on him, they will not go to hell or devil, will never perish and will have everlasting life.
I can do everything through Christ who strengthens me. Philippians 4:13"
Quote from: Gengar"For God so love the world, that he give his only begotten son, that who so ever believes in Him, putting their faith and trust on him, they will not go to hell or devil, will never perish and will have everlasting life.
I can do everything through Christ who strengthens me. Philippians 4:13"
Ok, I'm not goding anyone. And I don't want to offend anyone.
Gengar posted this in a public forum which therefore becomes open to critisicm.
When I hear that 20 thousand people are dead because a shit load of water drowned them, destroyed them without mercy, I don't need to be confused. I don't believe in god. I believe that we live on a fragile planet where stuff like this happens. Events so catastrophic like the 170km wide meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs and left a HUGE imprint in the ground to prove it happened.
They ruled the planet, like we do now. And then nothing. Over huge periods of time crazy shit happens. And minor events like the Japan earthquakes continue to kill masses of people at various times while the major catastrophies lie in wait.
Even dying from old age after a happy life is tragic to me, so 20 thousand lives cut short. By an all-loving god???
I don't even want to think about the pain and suffering that this loving god unleashed on our planet so recently that the fires still burn.
Please let me publicly and respectfully disagree that 'God loves the world'.
It's a bit offensive to me in light of recent events that I read that kind of filth, but free speech is both our rights.
Quote from: Gengar"For God so love the world, that he give his only begotten son, that who so ever believes in Him, putting their faith and trust on him, they will not go to hell or devil, will never perish and will have everlasting life.
I can do everything through Christ who strengthens me. Philippians 4:13"
Ok, I'm not goding anyone. And I don't want to offend anyone.
Gengar posted this in a public forum which therefore becomes open to critisicm.
When I hear that 20 thousand people are dead because a shit load of water drowned them, destroyed them without mercy, I don't need to be confused. I don't believe in god. I believe that we live on a fragile planet where stuff like this happens. Events so catastrophic like the 170km wide meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs and left a HUGE imprint in the ground to prove it happened.
They ruled the planet, like we do now. And then nothing. Over huge periods of time crazy shit happens. And minor events like the Japan earthquakes continue to kill masses of people at various times while the major catastrophies lie in wait.
Even dying from old age after a happy life is tragic to me, so 20 thousand lives cut short. By an all-loving god???
I don't even want to think about the pain and suffering that this loving god unleashed on our planet so recently that the fires still burn.
Please let me publicly and respectfully disagree that 'God loves the world'.
It's a bit offensive to me in light of recent events that I read that kind of filth, but free speech is both our rights.
TOTALLY agree ! +1
So let's be nice and not crack down on other people's distractions. ;)
I disagree with you right from the start, HHC. If you follow the christian philosophy, you'll find that the thing that matters is what happens after death. There are a lot of christians that believe the rapture will come in their lifetime. Not sure how you can see meaning in life and the things you do if you think the world is going to end soon anyway. Why do something about global? The world's going to end anyway. And if your afterlife is going to be eternal and filled with happiness, it just takes away the meaning of life. It's going to be such a short portion of your existence, why bother at all with it?
Life has meaning because it's finite. I think we can all mention things we take for granted in every day life, but that would've been incredible for other people. Clean drinking water is such a luxury, but we don't notice it because we get it any time we want at any place. In most parts of africa, they know how valuable clean drinking water is. There's your meaning of life for people that lived before us. They won't experience this anymore, but their efforts have led to an increased standard of life for us.
I sure hope my future family will have an even better standard of life after me, even though I personally can't complain about my standard of life.
And to say that "god is all-loving" when you see earthquakes and tsunamis and volcanos, flooding from rivers, forest fires, cancer in young people, hereditary diseases, famine, infectious diseases and religious violence (everybody's favourite at the moment) kill off so many people, including the very young, that's such an incredible insult to people to whom life is all that matters. I just don't understand how anyone can trivialise such disasters.
Yeah, but they were on drugs Thouson...
I disagree with you right from the start, HHC. If you follow the christian philosophy, you'll find that the thing that matters is what happens after death. There are a lot of christians that believe the rapture will come in their lifetime. Not sure how you can see meaning in life and the things you do if you think the world is going to end soon anyway. Why do something about global? The world's going to end anyway. And if your afterlife is going to be eternal and filled with happiness, it just takes away the meaning of life. It's going to be such a short portion of your existence, why bother at all with it?
Life has meaning because it's finite. I think we can all mention things we take for granted in every day life, but that would've been incredible for other people. Clean drinking water is such a luxury, but we don't notice it because we get it any time we want at any place. In most parts of africa, they know how valuable clean drinking water is. There's your meaning of life for people that lived before us. They won't experience this anymore, but their efforts have led to an increased standard of life for us.
I sure hope my future family will have an even better standard of life after me, even though I personally can't complain about my standard of life.
Life isn't meaningless to atheists. Life is all that matters to atheists. And to say that "god is all-loving" when you see earthquakes and tsunamis and volcanos, flooding from rivers, forest fires, cancer in young people, hereditary diseases, famine, infectious diseases and religious violence (everybody's favourite at the moment) kill off so many people, including the very young, that's such an incredible insult to people to whom life is all that matters. I just don't understand how anyone can trivialise such disasters.
You are right about one thing though, Bart. We shouldn't rob them of their illusion (whether or not it's true, though I clearly don't think it is :)), but then, they shouldn't rob us of our possibilities. I'm happy to live in a secular country myself, but to further our knowledge in medicine, physics, chemistry etcetera, a higher volume of research makes it go faster. And as much as we grumpy europeans would like to deny it, we need the US as much as they need us (or perhaps more). However, the religious right is putting shackles on research on stem cells and on decisions that should be between doctors and patients. I'm very happy to live in a country that gives people the choice of euthanasia for example, but the people that are stopping this from happening in other countries are the religious people. Gay rights are suppressed by religious people. Female rights are suppressed by religious people. Children's rights are suppressed by religious people.
And yes, most religious people are moderate and nice and reasonable and wear tidy jumpers and eat cheese like real people. But they have to accept that they are the powerbase for the nutters. (copyright Marcus Brigstocke on the last 2 sentences :))
Religion is fine if you keep it to yourself. Currently, this is not the case.
I dunno, I say we cherish the games that make our lives enjoyable, even if we deep down know they hold no meaning and are just that, games.
So let's be nice and not crack down on other people's distractions. ;)
Because you have to prove to God that you are worthy of rapture. Being a christian itself is not good enough to deserve a ticket to heaven/eternal life, you need to be a good person. And life here on earth is where you get the chance to prove your worth: by taking care of yourself and of others.
As such, there's definitely a point to living: it's the preparation for the afterlife.
But what is the meaning of this other than basic survival?
If you survive merely for survival's sake there still isn't any point, because you'll die anyway. You might as well not be born, in the end the result is the same. You're merely delaying the inevitable.
You don't know why these things happen. Maybe they serve God's plan, maybe the just happen outside of God's control.There is a very firm understanding of the world we live in. We don't know everything, but there are quite clear explanations for earth quakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, diseases etcetera, so that covers how it happens. I don't understand the need for the question "why", except if you naturally assume that there is a god. Except we don't need one to explain the universe.
These catastrophies may cause tremendous suffering, but at the same time, isn't it the suffering that brings us closer together? Aren't the challenges we face, grave they may be, the things that make us grow as human beings? I'm fairly sure that looking back at past troubles most of us will feel grief, but at the same time, they have made us what we are today. There's bad influences in them, but also value.
People who haven't had any trouble in life rarely grow out to be respectable people. They are like children. Only those who have suffered themselves know what other people go through and how important their support can be. Without individual pain there's really no empathy.
But for christians, with the afterlife in mind, death does not have to be such an awful thing.
But HHC, to say that beliefs themselves are simply games is pure, unadulterated nihilism. If everything were a game, you would have to accept that there's no more reason to hold any one belief more than another. But then on the other hand, I'd suggest that if your viewpoint were true depending on what you mean by 'game', it wouldn't really change anything about the importance of a person's beliefs, if your idea of a game connotes subjective importance devoid of objective importance.
It's kind of a tired argument to say that because there's no universal recipe for determining the correct beliefs, we should abandon all hope of finding meaning in life.
More importantly, it's kind of a misnomer to deem something a game when a person is neither intentionally treating something as a game
nor is capable of doing something outside the game.
I think it's pretty clear that I don't. Nevertheless, I'm not so sure about an impersonal 'God' or the existence of an afterlife.
I'm only defending the christians' right to be left alone. You should be free to have a sig with the G-word in it without being publicly criticized and harassed.
I'm only defending the christians' right to be left alone.
I'm not saying there are no valuable lessons to learn in the bible, but I refuse to take it as truth, because I can quote too :o
Genesis 6:6-7 And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ground, man and beast and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."
mass murder by a god who regrets his mistake.
Romans 26-32 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.
bigotry and condoning their deaths for being who they are.
Luke 19:27 But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me.
Please don't kill me!
I can't speak for other countries, but in the US, atheists are the most mistrusted people and there's a lot of discrimination against atheism.Because you have to prove to God that you are worthy of rapture. Being a christian itself is not good enough to deserve a ticket to heaven/eternal life, you need to be a good person. And life here on earth is where you get the chance to prove your worth: by taking care of yourself and of others.
As such, there's definitely a point to living: it's the preparation for the afterlife.
John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
I John 5:11 ...God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
I John 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
Says nothing about how you lead your life. In fact, people who lead good lives, but don't believe in christ are condemned to eternal torture. Seems fair to me! :)But what is the meaning of this other than basic survival?
If you survive merely for survival's sake there still isn't any point, because you'll die anyway. You might as well not be born, in the end the result is the same. You're merely delaying the inevitable.
Guess we don't have to celebrate your birthday and holidays and such because they're going to end anyway :( Such a pity.
Marriage is meaningless, because it's going to end when death sets in.
As I've tried to explain earlier, things are only special if they're, you know, special! Not always present, they are a positive mark compared to the average.
I think it's safe to say that life is quite positive in comparison to death and not yet existing :)You don't know why these things happen. Maybe they serve God's plan, maybe the just happen outside of God's control.There is a very firm understanding of the world we live in. We don't know everything, but there are quite clear explanations for earth quakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, diseases etcetera, so that covers how it happens. I don't understand the need for the question "why", except if you naturally assume that there is a god. Except we don't need one to explain the universe.These catastrophies may cause tremendous suffering, but at the same time, isn't it the suffering that brings us closer together? Aren't the challenges we face, grave they may be, the things that make us grow as human beings? I'm fairly sure that looking back at past troubles most of us will feel grief, but at the same time, they have made us what we are today. There's bad influences in them, but also value.
People who haven't had any trouble in life rarely grow out to be respectable people. They are like children. Only those who have suffered themselves know what other people go through and how important their support can be. Without individual pain there's really no empathy.
I can say I've had a relatively problem-free childhood. Does that make me immature and not a respectable person? shadymilkman is someone who's had a privileged childhood as well. Is he immature and not a respectable person? The kind of person you end up being is not dependant on how hard your life is, at least not as much as you describe it. It's dependant on how good your parents were. There are plenty of people who've had their share of hardships and it turns them bitter, sometimes even malicious.
There are plenty of marriages that break up because of financial problems. Are you saying this makes them grow as a person? If they had a child, does this make things better for that child in later life? Do orphans usually turn out better people than people who have had parents?But for christians, with the afterlife in mind, death does not have to be such an awful thing.
This is a terrifying idea to me, because if life has no meaning, then what prevents them from becoming a suicide bomber? What would prevent a christian leader to send soldiers to meaningless wars?
Aren't you working 5 days a week?
I believe in a God of my understanding, though.
(and thus a worthy domain for philosophy and religion).
intergalactic fairies.
What about flying spaghetti monsters, ropa? :o
What about flying spaghetti monsters, ropa? :o
there's two theories that prove that if earth was able to reset indefinetly to an era without religion that eventually, humans would be worshipping anything you could possibly imagine, including flying spaghetti monsters.
What about flying spaghetti monsters, ropa? :o
there's two theories that prove that if earth was able to reset indefinetly to an era without religion that eventually, humans would be worshipping anything you could possibly imagine, including flying spaghetti monsters.
yeah your so f@#!in right ropa:) greetings from van brinski, an over 10000 years old samurai (ye samurai founder and also an excellent supernatural entity) riding on his purple steed with ivory tooth. i always enjoy our meetings.
i dont see any difference between someone who believes in god and someone who says god is certainly non existent. Because both are believing in something not proven.
i dont see any difference between someone who believes in god and someone who says god is certainly non existent. Because both are believing in something not proven.
I loved the way Douglas Adams thinks religion came about :)
Basically, mankind evolved into using tools and everything he therefore makes also has a purpose.
So then he starts to think what the purpose is of caves and rivers and trees and mammoths (mammoths are great! you can make clothes out of its fur, you can eat its meat and you can use its tusks to make weapons to kill other mammoths!).
"Well, they seem to make my life much easier, so they must've been made for me! But who made them? Must be someone who looks like me, because we're the only kind that makes tools. He has to be bigger, because he can make really big things that I can't. And he has to be invisible, because I can't see him."
It all started from the misconception that something has to have been "made".
i dont see any difference between someone who believes in god and someone who says god is certainly non existent. Because both are believing in something not proven.
You're very naive or trying very hard to come up with an opinion that differentiates you from the social mass.
There's no such a thing as a proof for something to not exist, you're basically saying it's fine to believe in anything your mind can imagine.
i dont see any difference between someone who believes in god and someone who says god is certainly non existent. Because both are believing in something not proven.
You're very naive or trying very hard to come up with an opinion that differentiates you from the social mass.
There's no such a thing as a proof for something to not exist, you're basically saying it's fine to believe in anything your mind can imagine.
your right im a supporter of constructivism, you totally got my point.
i dont see any difference between someone who believes in god and someone who says god is certainly non existent. Because both are believing in something not proven.
You're very naive or trying very hard to come up with an opinion that differentiates you from the social mass.
There's no such a thing as a proof for something to not exist, you're basically saying it's fine to believe in anything your mind can imagine.
your right im a supporter of constructivism, you totally got my point.
and I'm a supporter of
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html
"all of humanity is atheist to most gods, us atheist just go one god further"
two more for those who like listening to intelligent people talk:
http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shermer_on_believing_strange_things.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/julia_sweeney_on_letting_go_of_god.html
Who Created the creator? and who Created the creator creator? and who created the creator creator creator?
Who Created the creator? and who Created the creator creator? and who created the creator creator creator?
she did:
(http://images.wikia.com/discordia/images/2/21/Eris-apple.jpg)
Anyone Believe in Reincarnation???I guess I do because my mind can't comprehend my self just not existing anymore ??? Isn't that f@#!ed up to think? That when you die your thoughts and mind may or may not just end? I'm tripping the f@#! out right now man!
Hmm, It's easy to come across atheist arguments though. It's not like the pope censors forums like these lol. It's just that most people visit the websites that confirm their beliefs and point of view.
Furthermore, there aren't many good arguments against the belief in God.
As a divine being he moves about in the metaphysical sphere, and as Kant tells us, that's out of reason's reach. That's why you cannot prove ór disprove his existence with scientific arguments. You can merely speculate.
For me personally, the biggest counter-argument against the christian view (or the religious view in general) is that it happens to meet all of our wishes. Our greatest wish is living eternally and in good health, religion promises us just that, that can't be coincidence.
Furthermore, there aren't many good arguments against the belief in God.
As a divine being he moves about in the metaphysical sphere, and as Kant tells us, that's out of reason's reach. That's why you cannot prove ór disprove his existence with scientific arguments. You can merely speculate.
Kind of a weak argument imo :) You can use the metaphysical as an excuse to prove anything you like.
but I invoked the metaphysical, so you can't argue against it according to Kant. Not even sure how you'd define the metaphysical tbh. Everything that exist outside the physical reality? Wouldn't that by definition be called fiction then?
Whether that is a fruitful way to spend your time, I don't know..
Komo, can you wait five billion years? The sun will run out of hydrogen, causing it to fuse helium at an increased, which will make the surface of the sun expand to about the orbit of the earth. Basically, earth will go out in big ball of fire, right after all water on earth vaporizes :)Don't worry, I'd pee on the sun. :]
Red giants, love 'm or hate 'm, right?
We're not humans experiencing spirituality, we're spirits experiencing humanity.
I do believe that Conciousness exists outside the body and that we are "everlasting". It's only scary if you don't trust that you were made from LOVE.
We're not humans experiencing spirituality, we're spirits experiencing humanity.
I do believe that Conciousness exists outside the body and that we are "everlasting". It's only scary if you don't trust that you were made from LOVE.
Its scary if you dont have the balls to realise there's nothing "beyond" what exists around us and that we're only just "elements" mostly comprised of CO2 and that this life is all you get. People with no courage resort to religion since "faith" is easy to achieve if you "know" someone's gonna take care of you in the "afterlife".
1 life is all we have, we're creatures just like everything else on this planet, no one "made" us, and we do not need someone's approval to live our lives, our judgement, as shaped by our upbringing and our natural predisposition (genes) is what we have in order to make sense of the world and coninside happily with the planet and other human beings. Hence, there need not be anyone's "rules" and "guidelines to live" in order to be happy and have ppl around us be happy as well.
I'm pretty sure I'll hear all sorts of religious junk now so I'll try stay out of this, usually ppl are victims of their upbringing or cultural influences or even their own predisposition/"weakness".
Things are simple, this is what we have, it is "scary" if you need to feel someone's always above your head watching you and making sure you get punished. All it takes is a clear head and bravery to enjoy this life and have fun, without restraints, punishment and ppl telling you what to do, common sense is all you need.
Peace.
What is scary, it's that you all claim for one thing or another without even knowing what you're talking about.
None of us (on the earth) knows the answer and the only way to know is death (weither we "live" and understand or die and "can't know": it's still an answer).
So talking about it is one thing, claiming it is the truth is just dumb.
What is scary, it's that you all claim for one thing or another without even knowing what you're talking about.
None of us (on the earth) knows the answer and the only way to know is death (weither we "live" and understand or die and "can't know": it's still an answer).
So talking about it is one thing, claiming it is the truth is just dumb.
What is scary is that YOU claim that we ALL claim for everything to be certain when we express our opinions. Many of us here obviously are just talking and talking about our own opinions and beliefs. You claim that nobody can know for sure before we die, and it's a pretty hefty CLAIM also m8 ;)
Edit: What actually is even funnier is that by claiming we know for sure when we die you are implying that there is "something" that is aware that we died. :D
1 life is all we have, we're creatures just like everything else on this planet, no one "made" us, and we do not need someone's approval to live our lives, our judgement, as shaped by our upbringing and our natural predisposition (genes) is what we have in order to make sense of the world and coninside happily with the planet and other human beings. Hence, there need not be anyone's "rules" and "guidelines to live" in order to be happy and have ppl around us be happy as well.
For me brain-consciousness and consciousness is different thing, other is created by brain and other I like to call "spirit" or as Pierre Teilhard de Chardin puts it "spirit-matter" (if I understand him correctly). What I'm saying is that I believe that when we "die" we are fully conscious about it and some "other" consciousness than brain-consciousness becomes dominant. Call it God, Spirit, Jizz.. whatever.. they are only words.
I must seriously ask, what would be the point?
Ok. Well to answer the question which was nowhere in your post, nothing happens. We just die and disappear like other life on this planet.
What if there is a natural/realistic/scientific reason for the now called "supernatural" things ?
I sincerely have a problem with people trying to make their point with "look at what we don't know!". If you can't make your point with things you know/can explain/can reason, then you don't have a point.
We make our conclusions on the things we know, not on the things we don't know. If we're going to make conclusions based on what we don't know, then nobody can function at any job/project/hobby/whatever. It's not a hasty conclusion if all the evidence points to a certain conclusion.
About using "supernatural" as an argument. Can anyone explain the difference between supernatural and magic? If you can't explain it, then that means you would be using magic as an argument - do you really want to do that?
Hmm... I'll make my conclusion on what I know, and what I think know is you might have taken this out of context.
I sincerely have a problem with people trying to make their point with "look at what we don't know!".
...
It's not out of context, I see it as a reply to Abnax, no? ;x
Hmm... I'll make my conclusion on what I know, and what I think know is you might have taken this out of context.
The supernatural thing is something I saw in several posts and I see it used a bit too often for my taste as "proof" of something someone believes in.
The first thing: just look at Abnaxus' post ;D
Sure it's in context, if you see it just as a reply to abnax :-X
Sure it's in context, if you see it just as a reply to abnax :-X
Dunno how do U see it, but we're both out of context after Free's post.. :P
And where have U find the context at the first place? It's a God/religion debate, can't expect any context there, can U? ;x
YOUniversum as Consciousness and "us" is ultimately all just Energy which vibrates on different frequencies.. and when "your" consciousness vibrates on different frequencies, you experience the nature of things differently. Therefore you have different understanding of surrounding reality when your consciousness hits higher/lower frequencies. The amount of data you can process on your current frequency and "supernatural" frequencies is VERY different.. and this is what changes people. You've experienced more than you thought was ever even possible.
Everything that is/was/will be experienced, has its origin on the ABSOLUTE CORE TRUTH (we are energy) and it's only our MAN MADE LABELS that give meaning to things that we perceive with our senses.. so nothing is really dualistic in the true nature of experiencing reality. It's all pure truth, whatever happens.. whether you play a game of worms or whether you die. Nothing actually changes, it's just your dualistic point of view which might think otherwise. <- This is key point to understand IMO.
I believe that when we started to separate from collective/unite consciousness to singular consciousness we lost touch to our true CORE self.. which I believe to be everlasting (as we/consciousness/YOUniversum is all just energy that vibrate on different frequencies).
You can create/experience ANYTHING you want (astral travel/lucid dreaming) without the limits of your physical body.. and these are just the frequencies that we can experience with "brain-consciousness".. and in the end.. you have created this whole human experience yourself.. your pretty damn good.
Why do you think you can't create endless other dimensions/life forms AT WILL when the limits of your physical body are removed?
It's said that humans produce DMT in their pineal gland (third eye) and it's believed to be the main activator of dream states (not scientifically proven yet, but pretty damn close).
Quite interesting read Free, thanks for that :)
But I still just see it as another "theory" that some "humans" have thought up, and if it were true what you say, I wouldn't like that reality... I think it'd suck lol.
I sincerely have a problem with people trying to make their point with "look at what we don't know!". If you can't make your point with things you know/can explain/can reason, then you don't have a point.I don't know how to make myself being understood (it's goddamn rare tho)...
We make our conclusions on the things we know, not on the things we don't know. If we're going to make conclusions based on what we don't know, then nobody can function at any job/project/hobby/whatever. It's not a hasty conclusion if all the evidence points to a certain conclusion.
About using "supernatural" as an argument. Can anyone explain the difference between supernatural and magic? If you can't explain it, then that means you would be using magic as an argument - do you really want to do that?Yes I do, and that's what I meant, I just used "scientific" word not to bother you. :)
EVERYTHING I'M ABOUT TO SAY IS MY OPINION ONLY. I'm not trying to force feed anyone anything.. but I understand these are tender subjects so I wanted to make sure everyone understands this. :)Lol. xD
"Look at what we don't know" in combination with "what if.." Yeah, it's hard to communicate with those ppl.. It's like those astrology guys/chicks.. Hard to explain anyshit and after some time U give up and let them be.Don't take hasty conclusions. Especially cause you're digging yourself into the pit (cause most of the time, you don't understand me and so you start spreading stupid conclusions).
And just for the record, there's three of "what if" in Abnax 1 simple question.. .. .
There's a saying here about those "what if's"... says "If grandma had a dick she would be grandpa!" ;x
....."Look at what we don't know" in combination with "what if.." Yeah, it's hard to communicate with those ppl.. It's like those astrology guys/chicks.. Hard to explain anyshit and after some time U give up and let them be.Don't take hasty conclusions. Especially cause you're digging yourself in the pit (cause most of the time, you don't understand me and so you start spreading stupid conclusions).
And just for the record, there's three of "what if" in Abnax 1 simple question.. .. .
There's a saying here about those "what if's"... says "If grandma had a dick she would be grandpa!" ;x
You don't like me, I don't like the way you're argumenting/talking, that's fine. Just shut up together.
PS: I heard a scientist found a particle which could go faster than the light (which is supposed to be the fastest, and almost every researches and the physic is based on so: which would lead to a total remake of physic if it was false), and they are making a particle accelerator big enough to proove so (in asia if I remember well).
I heard that on a scientific documentary, so except if I missunderstood some things, you can't tell I dreamed it. :D
glad i have faith and spirituality. i dont have to worry about this stuff, i just let God take care of it. makes things a lot easier. :)
| p |
Frodo: "It's a pity Bilbo didn't kill him when he had the chance!"
Gandalf: "Pity? It was pity that stayed Bilbo's hand. Many that live deserve death, and some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo?
Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise can not see all ends. My heart tells me that Gollum has some part to play yet, for good or evil before this is over.
The pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many."
Frodo: "I wish the Ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened."
Gandalf: "So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. There are other forces at work in this world, Frodo, besides the will of evil. Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, in which case you also were meant to have it. And that is an encouraging thought."
Let me give you an easy example:
Long time ago, people used to think the earth was flat, why ?
Because when they were looking at the horizon, there were seeing a flat land far as the eyes.
They used your way of thinking: the "look at what we have". But that doesn't mean you're right.
Cause first, you could be missing clues (what I'm hardly pointing on) and second, your clues could be false.
This is a point, weither you can admit it or not.
BUT, I did (weither it was hallucination or not, I did, you can't deny it). I'm not saying this is true, but since I saw some things incredible, it's not my base, but I can't discard it.
I'm just trying to show you I already took this fact in consideration.
So you can't just call a thing that has already been excluded (I'm sure you won't get me now xD).
Plus, do you really think we would know what we currently know if some physicians & philosophers weren't "looking at what we don't know" and using the "what if" ?
If I remember well, that was one of the basic methods of Einstein. And it led him to the string theory for example.
PS: I heard a scientist found a particle which could go faster than the light (which is supposed to be the fastest, and almost every researches and the physic is based on so: which would lead to a total remake of physic if it was false), and they are making a particle accelerator big enough to proove so (in asia if I remember well).
I heard that on a scientific documentary, so except if I missunderstood some things, you can't tell I dreamed it. :D
PSS: D1, I'd like to have your opinion about "magnetisers" ?
Not that I believe it is real and works, I'll give you a funny anecdote.
Did you know that before the middle ages, the ancient greeks knew the earth was round, just like the romans did? They looked at the sea and noticed that they first saw the sails of the ship and only later did they see the bottom part. They also saw that the shadow on the moon was round and concluded that the earth was causing this shadow.All the "new" observations you gave were missing to the one telling the earth was flat.
Did you know there was even a greek a coule of hundred years before we started counting who knew the earth revolved around the sun? Look up aristarchus. That man was a badass :)
They even knew how to calculate the size of the sun and moon in relation to the earth!
Their observations gave them wrong numbers to work with, but their methods were flawless.
I'd like to think our methods of observation have improved over time, though :)
No, I can't argue against your experiences, but personal experiences are notoriously unreliable, one of the reasons is the one you mentioned already. This is why we need to verify observations to show that someting is true. going by personal experience only is what I would call a hasty conclusion (e.g. The earth looks flat, so, it must be flat)Did you notice I said I don't take it as a basis ?
As for the particle faster than light: did you try a bit of reading on that subject? It was a conclusion based on experiments at CERN in Geneva. The speed mesured was about 30 micrometers per second. This is well within the margin of error of measurements and they actually done the experiment again with different, independant scientists, which showed that it was indeed a measurement error (an accepted concept in the scientific community). Te scientist you were talking about is professor Brian Cox btw.Nop, I just watched that documentary and waited for that gigantic particle accelerator (they said about 5 years to construct it).
Magnetisors are hacks. Look up James Randi. An ex-magician, who spends a lot of time exposing frauds, very successfully, I might add.Then I'll tell you the anecdote (well, I have already told it, but, interesting enough imo):
My father used to have an unkown desease which made him gets tumors (benign or not, we don't know, it was just "balls") randomly appear on his body and then randomly dissapear to go somewhere else, from feet to head. He went to many doctors and no ones found what it was.What do you think of it ?
He went to a magnetisor, and after some meeting, it totally dissappeared and never came back again.
PSS: All I want is that you realise there is a possibility all this exists.
@Ramone: If you're that dumb, then I'll satisfy myself by ignoring you mate.
...
And so I think we're missing clues to tell another end to physic. :)
If you don't understand what I mean with that, then I give up, I don't know how to make you realize my point... :-X
Did you notice I said I don't take it as a basis ?
I saw something not prooven, so I can't, but I also can't ignore it.
Example: During a fight, you think having found the weakness of your opponent, what do you do ?
You rush on it ? Even if it was false and it leads you to death ?
No, you keep it in mind until getting a proof of it (or at least another occasion to analyze it).
That's what I mean about magic: I saw it, but I can't believe in it. BUT, I can't ignore it in case it was true.
Nop, I just watched that documentary and waited for that gigantic particle accelerator (they said about 5 years to construct it).
But ok, you get the point here. :P
Then I'll tell you the anecdote (well, I have already told it, but, interesting enough imo):QuoteMy father used to have an unkown desease which made him gets tumors (benign or not, we don't know, it was just "balls") randomly appear on his body and then randomly dissapear to go somewhere else, from feet to head. He went to many doctors and no ones found what it was.What do you think of it ?
He went to a magnetisor, and after some meeting, it totally dissappeared and never came back again.
Imo, it's just psycologic. I mean, he healed the desease on his own: seeing the magnetiser was just the trigger (yeah, you know what I think about human capabilities :) ).
As a doctor, do you have anything to tell about it ? Don't you agree it's very strange ? Plus it was not hallucination, otherwise hundreds of person constantly did the same hallucination at a different time.
So you and your girlfriend tripped on the same shit. Like both of you started seeing Smurfs at the same time, how could that be? How could two different people claim to be seeing the same magic at the same time? Must prove Smurfs exist.
Too bad your brain might be tricking you into thinking you're seeing them or have seen them just because the other person is claiming he is seeing them.
There's a lot of psychological theories on the subject of telepathy (hormonal work, etc), what they conclude? Telepathy is but an illusion but it's impossible by definition. Very possible to unconscionably fake it though, to the point you actually believe it's happening, specially with the use of narcotics.
Surely a person like you Freeman, not naive by conception, can understand that whilst your experience feels really real, it's still chemicals affecting your brain, and if the narcotics industry was advanced enough, we would already have God pills. Eat one, realize Christianity was always right. I mean, why not?
edit: one could argue these so called shamans aren't very happy themselves either (in reference to scientists not being happy people themselves), what with having to experience a different reality, which they claim to be real, to enjoy the actual one?
As opposed to me not already knowing?I didn't pretty understood your post, but I'll tell you something (maybe it will help): I'm atheist and don't believe in god.
We cannot prove the nonexistence of anything, therefore, anything could exist. However, here we are, focusing on the figure of God as opposed to more interesting things that could exist, like Elves. The only reason one can get away talking about certain magic (Christian magic) is culture, history and fear for death. Face it, become a free man.
edit: and if you're one of those agnostics of sorts, it's the same thing except culture and history don't play a role, fear for death does, hope or desire for the existence of something greater than you and other very simply explained sociological traits. It only takes a poor kid to desire magic existed for it to become recorded in his brain, he only has to say it and it will retro-aliment for ever and ever thanks to the approval and constant repetition of their dogma by people who share this same desire, and with this sectary procedure, we have people that believe in magic and are not slapped in the face by common sense because democracy enhances it.
But the pattern is clear, either the existence of God is proven in the next 30 years or religion will be seen as fanaticism and be embraced only by minorities (regarding numbers) and freaks. We'll have stronger drugs though, so we'll always have people like Free.
There's no need to resort to calling anyone dumb Abnaxus.A guy talking as Ramone did to "answer" my post is just a dumb guy.
What do you base this on? Einstein based this feeling on Newtonian physics because Mercury's orbit didn't add up. Even a brilliant mind like his needed more than just a gut feeling.I can't tell. Sorry to have brought this up.
The only point I can get from what you're saying is that all knowledge is useless until we know everything because we're missing a viewpoint and therefore don't know anything.Yes and no, you went too far.
Does that mean that if you're in a fight, you think there's a weakness and no evidence reaches your perception of that weakness - do you keep waiting for that proof to pop up for years and years until evidence finally arises? I have bad news for you then - you'll have lost the fight before the evidence arises.Can't I keep it in mind while trying to find another weakness ?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/11/neutrinos_not_faster_than_light/I really love the links you provide, but I'm not good enough in english to greatly understand it... I need subtitles or it to be in french...
Must have been a very quickly made documentary if they come up with new facts :)
Now who's jumping to conclusions? :) You're asking me to make an assumption on the diagnosis based on sketchy descriptions (there's entire book cases written about discerning one type of lump from another) and then to make an assumption on an unproven treatment. For all I know, your dad had a self limiting disease. There's plenty of those around, I can't exclude that possibility from your little anecdote.It's just an anecdote, not a conclusion. About the psycologic, it's just my opinion, I have zero proof about it but my belief.
Were they regular bumps? What's the colour? What was their consistency? Did they contain fluid? How long were they on their location? Were they accompanied by any other symptoms (fever? joint ache? shortness of breath?)? Medical history? Maximum size of the lumps? Growth rate? Were they clustered or spread diffusely? Any other skin lesions? Did they appear on skin only or also on mucous membranes (eg in his mouth)? How long did he have these symptoms? Were they recurring? When did he start having them? Didn't they ever take a biopsy of one of those tumors?I can give you the answer if you want them (just need to ask my dad: I can't remember myself since I was young).
Of course you understand why I have a hard time believing it, I mean, you come here claiming to have experienced telepathy (amongst many others things) with you girl friend after taking sense altering narcotics (she didn't, doesn't matter)...Some of us didn't take narcotics.
What do you mean by 'frequencies'?Thanks god, I found someone who believe in frequencies !
Well, it's like a radio station, you turn the knob and the frequency and therefore channel changes. If you are feeling low energy state as in "lazy", you can't be "super pumped" at the same time for example.. therefore you only experience what you're tuned into. On one of my trips when I drank Ayahuasca, I could see with my eyelids closed (even put my hands in front of my eyes to make sure) the same space I could see with my eyes open, and it wasn't just "me tripping balls" as I could describe the room and the changes my girlfriend (she was fully sober) tried to make in there so we could "prove" it wasn't just my imagination. I was tuned into frequency that scientists would think is not humanly possible probably. It's a common thing to have an objective trip (as in others experience/see the same thing you do) with Ayahuasca (its possible with other substances also I'm sure). I believe that when you switch dimensions from 3d to higher ones, you are able to experience a whole new range of frequencies that your not able to experience with 3d alone. When you dream, I believe you are not bound by 3d reality.
And I used to be one of the most realistic man ... until I lived what I lived.
Some people prefer to live in uncertainty until further evidence appears, other choose the easy way out: it must have been god, nothing to worry about.Yes and no.
What if this substance - through chemical process - just increases human senses (rather increasing the brain capability to "understand/analyze" the senses the human feels) ?
And so Free just was able to analyze the room through his senses (hearing, feeling) ?
Here again, it's just presumption. But we need a start, don't we ?
What if the world Ends in 20 seconds?
It's just my experience, not the "ultimate truth".. I sincerely hope that anyone of "you" will "understand" this. :) After this "realiziation" I'm ready to answer anyones questions and "debate" if it's not like ropa's disrespectul "statements".
It's just my experience, not the "ultimate truth".. I sincerely hope that anyone of "you" will "understand" this. :) After this "realiziation" I'm ready to answer anyones questions and "debate" if it's not like ropa's disrespectul "statements".
(Edit: ^^ Also, it would pretty much defeat the whole point of "Earth ending" lol...)Not if the whole world doesn't exist but in our mind. ^^'
"Another substance used in South America, especially in the Amazon basin, is a drink called ayahuasca, caapi, or yajé, which is produced from the stem bark of the vines Banisteriopsis caapi and B. inebrians. Indians who use it claim that its virtues include healing powers and the power to induce clairvoyance, among others.
Another method of divination was to drink ayahuasca, a narcotic that had profound effects on the central nervous system. This was believed to enable one to communicate with the supernatural powers."
----------
Ok, so this substance is widely acknowledged to produce some interesting sensations and effects.
@Free. So you took this stuff and experienced what you believe to be kind of remote viewing or something. Seeing with your eyes closed. But you actually attempted to apply some scientific controls to account for the possibility that it was just in your imagination.
The controls you applied was that your girlfriend changed something in the room and with your eyes closed you worked out what it was.
After succeeding in this challenge you have concluded that there definitely wasn't a boring mundane explanation for this. Instead, you literally saw through closed eyes because of reaching a higher plane/dimension through this substance?
Am I right so far?
@Free: I'm genuinely interested in an explanation about these "frequencies". My understanding of the word frequency is number of repetitions of some event in a certain time interval. When we say that two radio stations transmit on different frequencies, we know we're talking about oscillations of electric currents (electro engineers will kindly correct me where I'm wrong, but you get the point...).
What frequencies are you talking about, what phenomena do they describe?
How can I better describe it other than the whole universe consists of energy and the atoms vibrate and this enables there to be different frequencies (herz). Think of it like a radio, those are the frequencies I'm talking about.+1
Yes pretty much. It definately felt like I was observing "out of body", and I could even see through physical objects also, I could see what I had in my fridge for example or how my bedroom looked "through" walls. If a table might look and feel solid, it's only atoms packed densely and at the time it felt like atoms we're pretty "loose", I could see and feel the sofa when I went to lay there, but I could also see through the sofa.
Think of it like a radio, those are the frequencies I'm talking about.
But they can't describe the topside of the machinery for the anaesthesiologist, because they had no previous knowledge of what was on top of it.I have been able. Was a roof, not a machine, but the same. I'd say the surface I could see was more or less 25 meters around me.
It's just my experience, not the "ultimate truth".. I sincerely hope that anyone of "you" will "understand" this. :)
...
I have been able. Was a roof, not a machine, but the same. I'd say the surface I could see was more or less 25 meters around me.
And this was happenning when I was feeling the noise, not just hearing (always happenned during my absences): that might be why I could listen all the conversations at once.
If you were to pay close attention to your fellow humans, you would see casual unconscious telepathy happening among friends and family members constantly. We are a species that forms telepathic bonds and needs their nourishment to survive. It's only when you start getting self-conscious about it that it starts becoming like the caterpillar considering how to run.
The other day I was sitting there and I thought of my friend Ian. And then he called. And we all do that. Why??? Because we're all telepathic.
If you ever find yourself in such a situation again, ask them to write a number on a piece of paper and put that on top of the anesthesiology equipment (without telling you which number it was) :)I'm not really able to talk to someone in that situation, don't you remember I'm high in the sky ? <.<
A 2 or 3 digit number would be good, so guessing it would be hard, but you'd still be able to remember the number. A word could work as well.
Telepathy works best when going unnoticed, taken for granted. When I was young my sister and I used to practice telepathy intentionally, and we found consistently that it worked least well when we were "trying" to do it, and best when it went something like, "Hey, what animal am I looking at a picture of?" "I'm busy, I'm not in the mood to do it now." "Come on, just guess something!" "I told you, I don't feel like trying it now!" "Come on, guess something!" "I don't know, a lion! Now quit bugging me!"Yes, and I believe that when you're focusing on telepathy, in fact you're not focusing on the good thing (and so "you" can't focus on the real one).
If you were to pay close attention to your fellow humans, you would see casual unconscious telepathy happening among friends and family members constantlyCan't be more true.
I think I know Cueshark well enough to reply with this picture, Rok :)Yeah, Cue changing his mind suddenly was kinda suspicious.
PS: Anyway Cue, I really wish you could live such a thing.
I'm sure you wouldn't say such things so easly anymore.
Why are people so arrogant to think that they can experience what they think is telepathy and conclude that telepathy therefore exists!?Why are people so arrogant to think telepathy doesn't exist while they've never lived such a thing ?
When did I say such thing ?
From this quote you have been able to conclude so much thing ? Dude...
It's just an experience, but seeing it from your own eyes is much more different.
Would you just deny it happenned ? That's what you seem to mean.
You're implying that I would believe in the impossible / supernatural if I experienced something which I couldn't immediately explain.Nop, I implyed that you wouldn't deny it so easly, that's pretty different. :)
I wonder that Doc1 haven't mention the term "psychosis" already to you Abnaxus.
And what if I have 2 contrary opinions on the same thing ? I told you, I don't know if it was real or if I'm insane.
Since then, I have 2 points of view. And it's kinda hard to live with (what can you trust in ?).
Meanwhile, it doesn't mean I can't argue.
WOAH :D
Maybe I'll find the value to respond here later but obviously this thread ain't going nowhere productive anymore. Let's just agree to disagree.
Just because science (scientist Thomas Campbell has studied this kind of area a lot so anyone interested should read My Big TOE, link is on earlier posts) hasn't figured out YET the mechanics behind supernatural events doesn't mean they don't have the possibility of existing.
If you go back in time and start explaining to cavemans what fire is, they'd probably rock you to death. Earth was once flat etc. etc.
Why do you guys go through such lengths to disprove Free's and Abnaxus' claims?
The men are entitled to their opinion. And I'm fairly sure they are gonna stick to it, no matter what you say.
They don't need to be persuaded to view the world in a different light. Not everyone has to believe what you think, even if you feel you are 100% correct, let it be. Noone's forcing you to listen.. I kinda get the feeling you guys are just 'exorcising' your own doubts and frustrations.
If someone is wrong then I will try and argue that point. Same as I hope others do to me.
Do you think there is something offensive about being shown the truth? Even if it goes against cherished beliefs then it's still more important to uphold the truth.
The men are entitled to their opinion. And I'm fairly sure they are gonna stick to it, no matter what you say.I wouldn't if they had bring me proofs (such as they ask).
Do you think there is something offensive about being shown the truth? Even if it goes against cherished beliefs then it's still more important to uphold the truth.It is your truth. I'm sure there are many subjects where your truth won't be other people's truth.
I am into Ancient Aliens theories. Many "holy" writings are wrongly translated to fit into religion and when you look at them now, they actually rather describe people that saw things, just like we do nowadays, that we would call UFOs. Be it Meteors, unusual lightning or some unknown energy/light.
I am not saying the ancestors were visited by Aliens, I just like the theories. But they sure did see things up in the sky just like we do nowadays and religion just ripped it apart and fooled people to believe that it was god.
What I do believe is, that we really underestimate our ancestors and they were more advanced than we thought, there are many sightings of stone work that, even with 21st Century technology, would be rather hard, in some cases impossible to do.
Another thing, that I recently sunk my head into, are the Hessdalen Lights in Norway. They are actually scientific researched UFOs, pointing to potential point-zero energy or a natural event that still remains unexplained to us. I highly recommend to watch the video:
(don't know about our troll though)
Anubis, of course people of old saw UFOS, ignorant village people existed since the ancient times. That's not to say I don't consider alien life a possibility, I'd very much bet my own money on that possibility against the alternative of us being alone in the universe.
I think truth is absolute. There either are supernatural forces at work in the universe or there are not.
the universe is infinite, thus by definition, everything you can imagine lives in it.
the universe is infinite, thus by definition, everything you can imagine lives in it.
Yes this is the way I think.
Think about it, how can it NOT exist, if you can imagine it.
the universe is infinite, thus by definition, everything you can imagine lives in it.
Yes this is the way I think.
Think about it, how can it NOT exist, if you can imagine it.
So basically what you are saying is, that if I imagine I can breath under water, I can do it?
Or better yet, when I imagine a human being under water breathing, it is possible?
What I said in that quote was true though. Are you actually disagreeing with it?
Either there is telepathy or there isn't. Can we agree on that?
So have we concluded yet that Free's only viable argument that we don't know anything therefore anything might be?
So have we concluded yet that Free's only viable argument that we don't know anything therefore anything might be?
My viable argument to what? You haven't added anything valuable to this thread except your trolling and twisting of my words.
I've already said multiple times that if one is interested on reading scientific approach to topics we're talking about, read My Big TOE since you guys claim there has been no scientific field-work done considering topics like these.
Edit: scientific field-work that backs up some of my wacky and psychotic claims*
I already tried to explain and I think it's quite simple and that we could all agree on that at least: There is no "your truth" and "his truth", truth is one and universal. Although, there is "your belief" and "his belief", beliefs are individual.
I do miss one thing though, northern countries seem to be more balanced when it comes to being open-minded, religion or equality amongst other cultures, as Crazy said about Norway above.
They have become lazy, spoiled hedonists who care only about their personal pursuit of happiness.What easy come easy go... when you have all for free, some people don't give a shit about work hard for their stuff, what for...
Northern europeans don't believe in anything anymore, neither in God nor in any other big scheme. They have become lazy, spoiled hedonists who care only about their personal pursuit of happiness.
It's OK living in societies like that, but I don't consider them 'healthy'. On the contrary, they are likely to self-pwn into non-existence.
In that respect the countries of eastern & southern Europe and the USA are much healthier. They also lack a religion, but they still got a vivid national cultus to keep people united, proud and hard-working.
since most winners of the nobel price come from a very religious country, your point is utterly bullshit.
besides, religious organisations do the majority of social support. simply because religion is about social values. it goes from building up communities to direct financial help. but maybe there are atheist organisations in oregon doing the same thing haha. you dont need to believe in god to notice its a good thing to help people. speaking from germany, the major adress for people in trouble are christian organisations. its quite a huge offer, including guidance when you have debts, psychological illnes... . they also organise integration courses for workless or take care of homeless, or ambulant care for ill people.
well said peja, I don't believe in god, but I believe in the good work church does =)
Your claim that religious organizations do the majority of support is true, merely because there are many more religious people than non-religious people, the question is what proportion of each is doing good. There are plenty of non-religious organizations doing good in the US and elsewhere, like Doctors Without Borders, which the atheist section of reddit has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for, Oxfam, the ACLU, Unicef, the Red Cross, Foundation Beyond Belief, Planned Parenthood, KIVA, The American Humanist Association, the British Humanist Association (many countries have these), Direct Relief International, etc. And these organizations help people without the added harm of proselytizing irrational beliefs. There is precious little evidence to suggest a religion-free world would somehow do less good than a religious one, given how much good secular organizations accomplish in relation to their small numbers.I think you are in the same ballpark as I am on this one Mab, but there are a few points I think you took some liberties with. You claim that proportionally there are more religious people than non-religious people, which is true. You claim that there is a question of what proportion of each is doing the most good. You really don't have an argument on this one. Religious people, say, per capita for our uses, give more than non-religious people. Adjusting for the overall disparity of numbers still yields raw data that the religious are giving money at a much, much higher rate than the non-religious. I've seen the numbers, I can't really remember where, but should you choose to dispute this point I'm sure I can dig it up.
Your claim that religious organizations do the majority of support is true, merely because there are many more religious people than non-religious people, the question is what proportion of each is doing good. There are plenty of non-religious organizations doing good in the US and elsewhere, like Doctors Without Borders, which the atheist section of reddit has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for, Oxfam, the ACLU, Unicef, the Red Cross, Foundation Beyond Belief, Planned Parenthood, KIVA, The American Humanist Association, the British Humanist Association (many countries have these), Direct Relief International, etc. And these organizations help people without the added harm of proselytizing irrational beliefs. There is precious little evidence to suggest a religion-free world would somehow do less good than a religious one, given how much good secular organizations accomplish in relation to their small numbers.
I think you are in the same ballpark as I am on this one Mab, but there are a few points I think you took some liberties with. You claim that proportionally there are more religious people than non-religious people, which is true. You claim that there is a question of what proportion of each is doing the most good. You really don't have an argument on this one. Religious people, say, per capita for our uses, give more than non-religious people. Adjusting for the overall disparity of numbers still yields raw data that the religious are giving money at a much, much higher rate than the non-religious. I've seen the numbers, I can't really remember where, but should you choose to dispute this point I'm sure I can dig it up.
If you really wanted to argue the disparity, I would stick with the fact that more money is given by religious people because the majority of the upper class, the people who give the most, are the religious right in the USA. The few of this class gives more than any other group at very high rates, bolstered by the fact they are receiving tax breaks, which further incentivizes them to continue "giving". These folks basically blow any atheist grassroots type programs out of the water in aggregate gross donations. We don't know how much donating the atheists would do if they controlled the upper class, perhaps as much, but the numbers seem to suggest otherwise. In short, of course religious people are giving more money. They have more money to give.
The "proselytizing", or purveying of these irrational and harmful beliefs extends far less than I imagine you conceive it does. How many deeply held beliefs are harmful to society at large? A minority, to be sure. I could make the argument that a minority of atheistic views, namely ones that damn autonomy, are harmful to the masses. Each group has it's zealots that conjure up their own spin to their cause that instigates harmful movements.
To me, the answer lies in the middle. Countries are different because the ruling bodies have been composed of like-minded people who have either usurped power or forced out opposition, and rarer still, the countries who have balanced both sides. The atheists must be balanced with the religious to ensure harmony, because neither side is going away. I submit to you that countries such as Sweden are inherently flawed as a Iran, for example. Not to the extent of overall happiness, but philosophically. One group has become too strong and drowned out the minority opinion. The smartest thinkers in my estimation are those that can compromise, and a solution is only as good as its application by the people it is intended for.
I love the USA because it is a country where discourse is as free as the Obamaphones.
Walrus
(Your friendly neighborhood evangelical)
How many deeply held beliefs are harmful to society at large? A minority, to be sure.
I could make the argument that a minority of atheistic views, namely ones that damn autonomy, are harmful to the masses. Each group has it's zealots that conjure up their own spin to their cause that instigates harmful movements.
What exactly is unhealthy about more atheistic societies? By measurements such as the Human Development Index, there's actually a very clear correlation with more religiosity and worse quality of life, which could imply that religion worsens quality of life (should be obvious in many countries like Afghanistan), and/or that those with poor quality of life seek religion, and/or various underlying factors. But I don't see any way to argue that a lack of theism, deism, etc, worsens society, when all the evidence points the other way: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/05/13/the-correlation-between-religiosity-and-well-being-among-u-s-states/
We're becoming less religious for sure, but nearly 100% of our politicians are religious; you can barely even run for office if you're not a Christian.
so where does this drive eastern europeans and asians come from besides world domination?
are you saying communism keeps a country going because it stops everyone from getting rich and thus falling into lazyness?
goals.. aims.. "spiritual drive"... all this should be covered by a modern education that focuses on motivations and creativity and not industriality and teachers building teachers.
I believe the claim that religious people give more (even as a percentage of their disposable income if we're going to account for wealth differences), has no evidence going for it. The only studies I've seen making this claim include church donations as charitable ones, even though the majority of church donations go towards operating costs. The Mormon Church, for example, gives only about 0.7% of its annual income to charity. If we dismiss 'church' counting as 'charity', religious states in the US don't actually donate more than the less religious states: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/11/28/are-religious-people-really-more-generous-than-atheists-a-new-study-puts-that-myth-to-rest/The study you posted is an absolute joke, lol. It's "evidence" includes a non-conclusive map of the US, as if all southerners are religious, and all northerners atheist. All donations that were given to a religious charity were discounted, even though the largest charity network in the US, catholic charities USA, operates solely to distribute money for the greater good, and not for the gain of the church. There is no differentiation between giving to the church and giving to a church-established charity, even though there is an explicit difference into where the money goes (If you don't understand what the difference is, just google tithing, then compare to donating to charity). I can't believe your stomach can digest this pallette of bullshit that this article has served up.
Not quite sure what you mean about Iran versus Sweden though, happiness or well-being is the only thing that I think can possibly matter in terms of morality.I made the argument they are philosophical inverses of one another. That is what I mean.
Comparing Sweden to Iran is very extreme, Wally.Again, I claimed they are philosophical inverses of one another. Not so much a comparison as I was pointing out they are complete opposites. Broadstrokes, D1.
For example, if you're saying Sweden is losing its capacity for critical thought, because there are too many people who agree with each other on the god issue, this would seem to be an argument that they could be missing out on some important philosophical realizations that would engender greater happiness for them if they had more theists around (and producing greater happiness would seem to be the only reason philosophy is important). I don't really see this as an issue though, we're not losing out on anything by having a society where everyone's in agreement that say, racism, homophobia, etc, are wrong, or that Santa Claus isn't real.Mablak, you got the thrust of what I was saying perfectly before you lost your mind and cited racism, homophobia, and santa claus.
Morality doesn't even enter the equation. Just the idea that people are free to practice and the state doesn't hinder their ability to do so.Quote from: the walrusHow many deeply held beliefs are harmful to society at large? A minority, to be sure.
you mean historically or right now? are you trying to put in a balance the hinder to progress religion has in a society versus the good it makes making everyone support each other? I have assumptions of my own you see, and it has to do with religion education being more accesible than genuine education. There's plenty of poor ass countries with religious working class, you think these people are genuinely good because of god or are stupid enough that they believe that doing their deeds is their only way out of the slump? Is it moraly right for those societies because it keeps the working class from giving up on life completely?
I could make the argument that a minority of atheistic views, namely ones that damn autonomy, are harmful to the masses. Each group has it's zealots that conjure up their own spin to their cause that instigates harmful movements.
really now, idiots do exist everywhere, but tell me what sort of atheist views damn autonomy? and how many people have been murdered on the name of atheism?The quote is in reference to zealotry, not the widely held beliefs of the group, but merely the radicals. Example that damn autonomy: The atheist radicals that want to punish parents for child abuse in the instances of teaching their children their religion. But there is a million, just google "atheist radical beliefs" or something to that effect, I don't think you need to though, it seems by the content of your posts you basically get it.
As much as it may hurt your atheist heart.. I wouldn't complain about it. God is one of the major pillars of American society, if you break it down you will surely hurt the moral fabric of society, and thereby, society itself.Truer words have never been spoken. Instead of focusing on the inherent positives that religion brings, Mablak has chosen to go down the road of demonizing all religious motives. It's a slippery slope that I choose not to go down with my view on atheism. I'm no atheist, but if I start damning everything they stand for, I lose my objectivity, which appears to be what has happened to Mablak with his views on Christians and the like.
It has a lot to do with the Auschwitz experience, but that doesn't explain all. As the UK and Australia are equally drifting in messed up and self-destructive political correctness, even though they have absolutely no reason to feel inner guilt about things that happened in the past.
Perhaps it's just a matter of old glory lost.
OMG did you just seperate state from church? OMFG!There is no point arguing with the lunatic fringe. I've done the best I can but some atheists are fixated on religion as a social evil, or even a redux on freedom that should be abolished. I really don't have much incentive to carry on a dialogue when people start making the inference that religion is a product of being poorly informed or ignorant of scientific fact.
The debate was kinda over neway? :-[
IMO that evidence is bogus. The south has been doing shitty economywise ever since the civil war. At that time the north was just as religious, but not dependent on slave labour, cotton and other outdated sources of wealth.
The West achieved dominance in the world when atheism didn't even exist yet. And it persists to this day.. why? I don't think anyone really knows."
The real health of a society is hard to measure, as it encompasses immaterial factors such as 'citizenship', 'responsibility', 'self-confidence', 'ambition', 'philosophical views' (optimism vs pessimism or nihilism), etcetera.
And judging by these values I imagine the west not doing so well anymore. They may be rich, but they owe it almost entirely to the generations that came before them. They lack the inner drive of the people that live in the upcoming economies. The people in East Asia & Eastern Europe work much harder, don't dwell in decadent nihilism, but are proud of who they are and know what they are working to achieve. That makes their societies more healthy than ours IMO.. there's much more potential there and it will only be a matter of time before they have gathered enough wealth to set up supreme health care & education.
But unfortunately for them, they too define their goal merely in material terms. So they are likely to end up at the same place as us.
If a nation (or empire) wishes to maintain its dominance it's vital not only to hold onto its economic & political dominance, but also to maintain its 'spiritual' drive.
The failure to do so is IMO one of the most important reasons for the collapse of the Roman Empire, as well as it is for the "downfall" of the US in modern times. The sense of mission that drove the Americans is quickly being replaced by a general feeling of doubt and apprehension. I'm pretty sure people in the future will consider the Iraqi affair as the death sentence of US supremacy, not because there they encountered the boundaries of their might, but solely because they lost faith in the validity of the American mission worldwide to bring freedom & democracy to people supposedly eagerly craving for it.
As much as it may hurt your atheist heart.. I wouldn't complain about it. God is one of the major pillars of American society, if you break it down you will surely hurt the moral fabric of society, and thereby, society itself.
OMG did you just seperate state from church? OMFG!There is no point arguing with the lunatic fringe. I've done the best I can but some atheists are fixated on religion as a social evil, or even a redux on freedom that should be abolished. I really don't have much incentive to carry on a dialogue when people start making the inference that religion is a product of being poorly informed or ignorant of scientific fact.
The debate was kinda over neway? :-[
I believe the claim that religious people give more (even as a percentage of their disposable income if we're going to account for wealth differences), has no evidence going for it. The only studies I've seen making this claim include church donations as charitable ones, even though the majority of church donations go towards operating costs. The Mormon Church, for example, gives only about 0.7% of its annual income to charity. If we dismiss 'church' counting as 'charity', religious states in the US don't actually donate more than the less religious states: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/11/28/are-religious-people-really-more-generous-than-atheists-a-new-study-puts-that-myth-to-rest/The study you posted is an absolute joke, lol. It's "evidence" includes a non-conclusive map of the US, as if all southerners are religious, and all northerners atheist. All donations that were given to a religious charity were discounted, even though the largest charity network in the US, catholic charities USA, operates solely to distribute money for the greater good, and not for the gain of the church. There is no differentiation between giving to the church and giving to a church-established charity, even though there is an explicit difference into where the money goes (If you don't understand what the difference is, just google tithing, then compare to donating to charity). I can't believe your stomach can digest this pallette of bullshit that this article has served up.Not quite sure what you mean about Iran versus Sweden though, happiness or well-being is the only thing that I think can possibly matter in terms of morality.I made the argument they are philosophical inverses of one another. That is what I mean.For example, if you're saying Sweden is losing its capacity for critical thought, because there are too many people who agree with each other on the god issue, this would seem to be an argument that they could be missing out on some important philosophical realizations that would engender greater happiness for them if they had more theists around (and producing greater happiness would seem to be the only reason philosophy is important). I don't really see this as an issue though, we're not losing out on anything by having a society where everyone's in agreement that say, racism, homophobia, etc, are wrong, or that Santa Claus isn't real.Mablak, you got the thrust of what I was saying perfectly before you lost your mind and cited racism, homophobia, and santa claus.As much as it may hurt your atheist heart.. I wouldn't complain about it. God is one of the major pillars of American society, if you break it down you will surely hurt the moral fabric of society, and thereby, society itself.Truer words have never been spoken. Instead of focusing on the inherent positives that religion brings, Mablak has chosen to go down the road of demonizing all religious motives. It's a slippery slope that I choose not to go down with my view on atheism. I'm no atheist, but if I start damning everything they stand for, I lose my objectivity, which appears to be what has happened to Mablak with his views on Christians and the like.
Just imagine all people will realize there is no god and judgment day... people have to believe in something (or drink vodka).There are other things to believe in than supernatural stoneage myths from the middle east, like humanity, peace, love, music, the beauty of the universe, nature, each other, volunteering, anti-racism, gay rights, animal rights, the list goes on xD
Just imagine all people will realize there is no god and judgment day... people have to believe in something (or drink vodka).There are other things to believe in than supernatural stoneage myths from the middle east, like humanity, peace, love, music, the beauty of the universe, nature, each other, volunteering, anti-racism, gay rights, animal rights, the list goes on xD
90% of all statistics are made up!
As for inherent positives, no one has demonstrated that there are in fact positives that religion brings, that secularism doesn't also bring (on the whole). I did not demonize religious motives in any way; I may think the religious who do good are sometimes doing so for the wrong reasons, but I wouldn't suggest they're not doing good when they perform acts that genuinely help people. You seem to have assumed I'm saying that religion reduces empathy, giving, etc, when I'm merely arguing there's no evidence that it boosts these things above what the non-religious do.
Buddhists are atheists by definition, yet they believe in a lot of things like empathy and forgiving. Imo they're the prime example of why the belief in a supernatural being is not at all necessary to be(come) a good and caring person.Buddhism is a great philosophy for that reason. Not a religion by definition, but in my estimation is a guiding force for the greater good. Also, I apologize for not clarifying my beliefs earlier, but Darkz post made me remember, I have a strong belief that people live a spiritual life to fulfill their potential, whatever that may be. I believe that people that live a life not dedicated to self are destined for enlightenment in the afterlife. I think I made religion my vessel for argument because the two are obviously interrelated and it was convenient to use the same vernacular.
Social evil? I already asked if you were trying to balance the good vs the bad of religion for the overall of society. You didn't answer. Speaking for myself, I'd never go there. However, there's lots of bad coming from religion. People live happier with faith sure. There are studies revealing that being a slave also offers comfort to one's live.I'm not trying to balance anything, but if I was omnipotent, I would.
Sure, there's money laundering, there's food for the poor and there's erm... spiritual guidance... sure that's good for society. But what about all the actual documented evils religion has brought, and brings by nature?
Is it because us humans got religion all wrong? Is religion good but our intepretation of it leads us to do bad things because we're bad but religion isn't? I really don't get why we're the crazys because we see things for what they are? What are we missing? A revelation?Good questions. I believe that human beings inherently mess up religion as well as pretty much everything else. We are a sloppy, self-involved, corrupted species, myself included. Religion is inherently good, selfish interpretation of spirituality is bad. A bad interpretation would be pontiff worship in the Catholic church. A single man should never be elevated by religion like he is. There is much wrong with that religion, I renounced it many years ago. The Catholic church does a lot of good, but is utterly corrupt.
As for inherent positives, no one has demonstrated that there are in fact positives that religion brings, that secularism doesn't also bring (on the whole). I did not demonize religious motives in any way; I may think the religious who do good are sometimes doing so for the wrong reasons, but I wouldn't suggest they're not doing good when they perform acts that genuinely help people.No one has demonstrated the positives secularism brings eclipse those of religion, as a whole. See what I did there? Both are anomalous statements.
You seem to have assumed I'm saying that religion reduces empathy, giving, etc, when I'm merely arguing there's no evidence that it boosts these things above what the non-religious do.Then you don't realize that your pervasive and running point is that religion creates more evil than it does good. It is written all up and down your posts.
You seem to have assumed I'm saying that religion reduces empathy, giving, etc, when I'm merely arguing there's no evidence that it boosts these things above what the non-religious do.Then you don't realize that your pervasive and running point is that religion creates more evil than it does good. It is written all up and down your posts.
As far as your cited source, the church gave 4.7b of it's revenue to charity, not 4.7%, but it looks to be about 4.7% anyways so that is kosher regardless. Catholic charities, however, in not represented in your graph and is what I was referencing. Catholic charities gives far more than 4.7% of their gross; your graph shows the Church giving 4.7% to charity, most of that which goes to Catholic charities.
Catholic church spending is not the same as the charitable foundation that they have established. Catholic charities is a wonderful organization, but represents a small part of the gross revenue of the church.
There is no documented evil that religion (as a discipline) brings by nature. I challenge you to show me this 'documentation.'
"The West achieved dominance in the world when atheism didn't even exist yet" Really? Atheism has always existed.
'Hurting the fabric of society', it's these claims I take issue with. You don't seem to have any evidence to support them. God is one of the major pillars of various parts of America, but millions of us do fine without this concept. If you think we're somehow worse off, less charitable, etc, than the religious, try finding some evidence to back up your assertions.
Yes, I do think religion causes a great deal of harm; virtually any belief in something that's not true is harmful, if not in the short run, then in the long run.
But the claim in question was HHC's. If we're looking purely at the positives that religion creates for society, there's little evidence that those positives exceed what the non-religious do. Regardless of which religious organization you want to focus on, the fact remains that by any estimations I've seen, the majority of the average religious organization's money goes towards other factors such as operating expenses, rather than direct charity, and thus the original graph I posted is accurate enough.
religion would by now be a lot closer to being a thing of the past, and people in large parts of the world would objectively be freer (and thus happier, since everyone wants to bring happiness into this) for it, no?
When that happens
And anyway, the study of religion would still exist in this future, the ideas wouldn't be lost forever or anything, they would merely be treated as myths
leverages of power over lower classes or over women or whatever, i.e. what they actually are.
To anyone who believes the UK has nothing to feel guilty about, I highly recommend watching this documentary series: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_%282012_TV_series%29A series like that could be made about any culture. As if these places were paradise before the English came.. or after the English left..
than treating other cultures and systems of belief as intrinsically equal and equally interesting and worthy of study?
"The West achieved dominance in the world when atheism didn't even exist yet" Really? Atheism has always existed.
Not really. Perhaps one or two individuals prior to the 17th century can be considered real atheists, the rest all worshipped a diety or recognized the existence of some form of higher principle.
Faith can bring people together. It's a unifying factor. Sure, you still got the flag, and the anthem, and Stephen Colbert... but you no longer share a common spiritual life, a common 'idea' of the world. The christian worldview is far more than just a set of silly rules & beliefs, it erects an entire universe that is both of this world and outside of this world. The word 'church' not only refers to a concrete place of worship, but also to a metaphysical gathering of believers. Through the ceremonies people worldwide come together under Christ.
People may still behave in an atheist society, but the sense of union will be much weaker and people will mostly go about their things whichever way they see fit. .. That or search their mystical union & salvation in secular religions like national-socialism, communism or any other utopian movement that ultimately ends up in massmurder.
You know exactly what is true and what isn't?
Pretty damn sure at least 20% of your scientific views will be proven wrong in the future.
I don't see why believing in God is harmful per se. Even if it turns out to be a false belief.
Do you have proof that people who are christian suffer more than those who aren't?
I can only speak for myself... but ae, I'm envious of people who believe in God, cause my complete and utter nihilistic views on life & afterlife are anything but a blessing.
QuoteBut the claim in question was HHC's. If we're looking purely at the positives that religion creates for society, there's little evidence that those positives exceed what the non-religious do. Regardless of which religious organization you want to focus on, the fact remains that by any estimations I've seen, the majority of the average religious organization's money goes towards other factors such as operating expenses, rather than direct charity, and thus the original graph I posted is accurate enough.
You are trying to convert an immaterial asset to material means. :o
You cannot put a price on things like hope, unity & spiritual salvation.
The christian worldview is far more than just a set of silly rules & beliefs, it erects an entire universe that is both of this world and outside of this world. The word 'church' not only refers to a concrete place of worship, but also to a metaphysical gathering of believers. Through the ceremonies people worldwide come together under Christ.
There is nothing the atheists have that can match something like that.
No spiritual home for people, no shared view of the world and beyond.
And that to me seems pretty vital for a healthy society.
People may still behave in an atheist society, but the sense of union will be much weaker and people will mostly go about their things whichever way they see fit. .. That or search their mystical union & salvation in secular religions like national-socialism, communism or any other utopian movement that ultimately ends up in massmurder.
There were very few open atheists, because atheists used to be persecuted and killed. Surely you don't literally mean 'one or two' atheists, here's a handful of atheists from ancient Greece, and these are just the prominent ones: http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismhistory/a/AncientGreeceSkepticism.htm.
Also, I don't know why you're lumping in 'worshiping a deity' with 'recognizing a higher principle'. Most atheists I know have principles, and good ones at that.
Not sure what you're arguing here, atheists have weaker bonds between family and friends?I'm talking about bonds with society at large. Or even with people worldwide.
I figured you were a Christian, you're not?Nope I'm not. I'm an a-theist, but not an anti-theist :)
Faith can bring people together.
The christian worldview is far more than just a set of silly rules & beliefs, it erects an entire universe that is both of this world and outside of this world.
There is nothing the atheists have that can match something like that.
No spiritual home for people, no shared view of the world and beyond.
And that to me seems pretty vital for a healthy society.
People may still behave in an atheist society, but the sense of union will be much weaker and people will mostly go about their things whichever way they see fit. .. That or search their mystical union & salvation in secular religions like national-socialism, communism or any other utopian movement that ultimately ends up in massmurder.
Secularity (adjective form secular,[1] from Latin saecularis meaning "worldly" or "temporal") is the state of being separate from religion, or not being exclusively allied with or against any particular religion.
You know exactly what is true and what isn't?
Pretty damn sure at least 20% of your scientific views will be proven wrong in the future.
I don't see why believing in God is harmful per se. Even if it turns out to be a false belief.
Do you have proof that people who are christian suffer more than those who aren't?
I can only speak for myself... but ae, I'm envious of people who believe in God, cause my complete and utter nihilistic views on life & afterlife are anything but a blessing.
You are trying to convert an immaterial asset to material means. :o
You cannot put a price on things like hope, unity & spiritual salvation.
It will never happen. You are overlooking the basic human need for spirituality. Basic questions of life and death & human ethics will always be asked and science will never be able to answer them all. There will always be room (and need) for spirituality and thereby, for religion.
It would be lost as soon as you put it into a museum.
Religion has to be experienced. It's not primarily used as a theory to explain how the universe works. It's a way of life, an EXPERIENCE. Without experience there is no understanding.
Quoteleverages of power over lower classes or over women or whatever, i.e. what they actually are.How does this in any way apply to the teachings of Christ? or Buddha, or Muhammed, or any great prophet?
These men were noted for questioning or even overthrowing ruling structures & classes and promoting the equality of every man (and to some extent) women.
You can say the religion was perverted or corrupted by emperors & popes, but you can't possibly say these religions are corrupted by nature.
There is absolutely nothing in what you say that shows that you consider other systems of belief to be equal to your own. You see them as obsolete, foolish mindsets that hamper any human progress. You only care for them as artifacts of a time long gone.
If you were more open-minded you would see that christianity has played a very healthy role in politics in the West in the last two centuries, and that the real dangers actually came from the mindset of the Enlightenment.
When you consider mankind as ultimately good & consider reason to be the ultimate & only source of progress in this world... you're bound to end up on a very dangerous road. Because if this is true, then anything that doesn't appeal to 'reason' becomes a blockade to human progress. Some like you might resort to discours then to try to persuade the others to join the 'light'-side, but many have also resorted to violence.
The communist paradise could only be achieved by destroying the 'bourgeios'-class, or basically everyone with a 'bourgeios'-mindset, whether they were aristocrats or farmers.. it didn't matter, they were all seen as roadblocks to human progress... and thus, had to be wiped out.
Likewise, the Third Reich could only be achieved if all people who weren't of the right blood, or the right mind or who suffered from all-too-human illnesses were eradicated.
The church on the other hand has always stuck to the doctrine that mankind is inherently 'broken' since the fall of Adam. That might seem a very pessimist idea, but it has saved the christian world from ever going on the same road as the modern secular religions have.
The christian utopia is not of this world, and cannot be brought about by human beings, only by God. And yes, there have been sects who thought they could bring closer the coming of Christ by acting all repressive, but the mainstream has always embraced the world as it was. Imperfect, but ruled & sanctified by God.
It's no wonder the church was one of the biggest enemies of both communism & nazism and was brutally repressed in both states.
Meanwhile, political wise, the church opted for corporatism (cooperation between the working class & the capitalists) and christian-democracy (decentralised government + focus on human rights). It's very fortunate for us that they did, cause without their support for democracy I don't think we'd be living in free societies right now.
QuoteNot sure what you're arguing here, atheists have weaker bonds between family and friends?I'm talking about bonds with society at large. Or even with people worldwide.
KHARTOUM, May 15 (Reuters) - A Sudanese court has sentenced a 27-year-old woman to death for converting to Christianity, judicial sources said.I don't even know what to say. :-X
Mariam Yahya Ibrahim had been ordered to abandon her newly adopted Christian faith and return to Islam. She had also been charged with adultery for marrying a Christian man.
Judge Abbas al Khalifa asked Ibrahim whether she would return to Islam. After she said "I am a Christian," the death sentence was handed down, the judicial sources said.
A government spokesman said the ruling could be appealed in a higher court.
"Sudan is committed to all human rights and freedom of faith granted in Sudan by the constitution and law," Foreign Ministry spokesman Abu-Bakr Al-Siddiq said. He added that his ministry trusted the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
Outside the court, around 50 people held up signs that read "Freedom of Religion", while some Islamists celebrated the ruling, chanting "God is Greatest".
Students have mounted a series of protests near Khartoum University in recent weeks asking for more freedoms and better social and economic conditions.
Western embassies and Sudanese activists have condemned what they said were human rights abuses and called on the Islamist-led government to respect freedom of faith.
:o
Define mystical union if you please. A lot of atheists also don't believe in spirituality. I don't believe in spirituality - it simply makes no sense to me.
I'm not sure what you mean by salvation either - Usually when I hear/read that word, it's in the context of christian salvation - which is basically god saving people from their punishments which were dealt to them by god in the first place.
National socialism and communism are not religions, they are idiologies. The first is a social ideology (though I think we can all agree it's a morally bankrupt one) and the second one is socio-economical. No religion involved.
When I look at your posts, I think you're more disappointed in god than that you don't believe in him/her/it/them/whatever. Nihilism is not a logical result of atheism. If there's no god that determines the value of something, then that job is up to you. Nihilism is what happens when you don't do that job.
I think you missed the bits that say "god is the only true god and no god comes before him".
Religions necessarily promote the ruling of a particular structure over the other. For Christianity, it's the church or god. For islam, it's allah and Muhammed. For jews, it's their god and their church. For hinduists, it's Krishna. Etcetera, etcetera.
I have not seen any post from religious people that respect other religions or atheism as equal systems of beliefs. Nothing wrong with that - after all, there's a reason someone follows their belief system.
Really? I thought Hitler abused the church to get people to follow him.Hitler wanted the complete destruction of the church. But at that time, it was an unachievable goal cause the majority of the german people were still very religious. Hence he settled for a momentary armistice and sealed a deal with the papacy to silence any big criticism in germany, while silently working towards the goal of abolishing the religion altogether. For the papacy it was a doable deal cause the church in germany had to deal with severe oppression and this deal seemed the only way to save what was left and prevent any real harm done to devout believers.
What about "I'm atheist"?More like "this is exactly why I'm an atheist".
Kinda relevant (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/15/mariam-yahya-ibrahim_n_5328966.html).Strikes me as more political than anything. You could replace "God" and "religion" with "alcohol" in the article and it still demonstrates why the totalitarian government there controls almost every facet of everyday life in a way detrimental to the people. A good title for the article would be, People getting sentenced to death for some dumbass reason again in this ass-backward country.QuoteKHARTOUM, May 15 (Reuters) - A Sudanese court has sentenced a 27-year-old woman to death for converting to Christianity, judicial sources said.I don't even know what to say. :-X
Mariam Yahya Ibrahim had been ordered to abandon her newly adopted Christian faith and return to Islam. She had also been charged with adultery for marrying a Christian man.
Judge Abbas al Khalifa asked Ibrahim whether she would return to Islam. After she said "I am a Christian," the death sentence was handed down, the judicial sources said.
A government spokesman said the ruling could be appealed in a higher court.
"Sudan is committed to all human rights and freedom of faith granted in Sudan by the constitution and law," Foreign Ministry spokesman Abu-Bakr Al-Siddiq said. He added that his ministry trusted the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
Outside the court, around 50 people held up signs that read "Freedom of Religion", while some Islamists celebrated the ruling, chanting "God is Greatest".
Students have mounted a series of protests near Khartoum University in recent weeks asking for more freedoms and better social and economic conditions.
Western embassies and Sudanese activists have condemned what they said were human rights abuses and called on the Islamist-led government to respect freedom of faith.
Strikes me as more political than anything. You could replace "God" and "religion" with "alcohol" in the article and it still demonstrates why the totalitarian government there controls almost every facet of everyday life in a way detrimental to the people. A good title for the article would be, People getting sentenced to death for some dumbass reason again in this ass-backward country.
These types of religious people make bad examples for this discourse, as do the idiot athiests like the Mussolinis, Stalins, and Hitlers of this world.
Yeah, you didn't read the part where I said Adolph, Benito, and Joseph made bad examples for this discussion because you immediately charged in and asked if I was suggesting a correlation, when clearly I went out of my way to say I wasn't suggesting anything.Strikes me as more political than anything. You could replace "God" and "religion" with "alcohol" in the article and it still demonstrates why the totalitarian government there controls almost every facet of everyday life in a way detrimental to the people. A good title for the article would be, People getting sentenced to death for some dumbass reason again in this ass-backward country.
These types of religious people make bad examples for this discourse, as do the idiot athiests like the Mussolinis, Stalins, and Hitlers of this world.
Well, apostasy carries the death sentence in Islam according to the Quran and the Hadith; this is at least the majority interpretation: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/012-apostasy.htm. These kinds of murders really are motivated by belief in specific Islamic doctrine, which of course is not mutually exclusive with them also being politically or culturally motivated. But religion is a key component. Also, Hitler wasn't an atheist. And if you're suggesting Stalin's genocides had anything to do with his atheism, I'd say linking his actions causally with a lack of belief in god would have as much evidence going for it as linking his actions with a lack of belief in UFOs, or any of the other billion things he presumably didn't believe in. Atheism is, after all, just a lack of belief in god, and not a worldview.
Yeah, you didn't read the part where I said Adolph, Benito, and Joseph made bad examples for this discussion because you immediately charged in and asked if I was suggesting a correlation, when clearly I went out of my way to say I wasn't suggesting anything.
Since atheism is a world view, as you so succinctly put it, it can never be held accountable as paramount in a person's behaviors. It is like criticizing vacuum in space for a lack of density. How can an atheist be held accountable for anything, since they so clearly believe in nothing? At least spiritual people have some accountability. Atheists need not take responsibility for their actions neither point the finger inward as a result of their actions.
The main criticism of your defense of atheism is you want to have it both ways, Mablak. You would have me believe that in one aspect, atheism is a greater promoter of the common good. But when provided with arguments to the contrary, atheism as a concept dissolves into nothingness, and ceases to be quantified.
In retrospect, it seems rather absurd that we have even mounted the discussion, atheism is clearly not the philosophical equal to religion, not because it is any less valid as a school of thought, but rather one is something, and the other is a lack of something.
Lots of fancy words wow.
Reality models
conditioned mind
altered stages
core lesson
Life energy
watching creation happening
Mind
True "god Nature"
DMT
excistence
Lots of fancy words wow.Reality models
conditioned mind
altered stages
core lesson
Life energy
watching creation happening
Mind
True "god Nature"
DMT
excistence
in your defense I see no difference between your stuff, Christianity stuff and K-PAX. It's a bunch of fantasy that just so happens to make you guys happy. But all your foundations are based on smoke. Get on peace with that fact, no one has a problem with you enjoying your own impression of life, but when you start trying to sell fantasy as science, or worse, then I'm not sure you have the power to call anyone conditioned and not look like a complete fool.
Because at the end of the day you would have never found the path of enlightenment without whoever guru it is that writes your branch of Scientology's/Astral Travelling/Pot smokers association dogma, so you're extremely conditioned my friend.
No offense. ::)
Lots of fancy words wow.Reality models
conditioned mind
altered stages
core lesson
Life energy
watching creation happening
Mind
True "god Nature"
DMT
excistence
in your defense I see no difference between your stuff, Christianity stuff and K-PAX. It's a bunch of fantasy that just so happens to make you guys happy. But all your foundations are based on smoke. Get on peace with that fact, no one has a problem with you enjoying your own impression of life, but when you start trying to sell fantasy as science, or worse, then I'm not sure you have the power to call anyone conditioned and not look like a complete fool.
Because at the end of the day you would have never found the path of enlightenment without whoever guru it is that writes your branch of Scientology's/Astral Travelling/Pot smokers association dogma, so you're extremely conditioned my friend.
No offense. ::)
I used to spill same kind of bs as U, until I experienced something which proved me wrong, it happens to Pretty much everyone who participates on a Ayahuasca ceremony.
No offense
Ropa is so smart.
You say u cant Experience divinity, and I say its impossible not to Experience it. You Are divinity.
You Are Looking for the "god\creator\life force" Like its outside of You, Like some dude sitting on a cloud. Answers lay Inside, guarded,by Your conditioned mind.
Bitch
Don't You find it funny that Ive seen exactly same Visual pattern as pizza has on his sig.
That's the point, evidence is All around You.
Its Beyond words, its not an concept an thinking mind can Ever realize.
Don't You find life,to Be a Pretty magical Experience When u really,think about it
Lol. No.
There's a reason to agree with someone, and a reason to disagree. I think all those butchering Free have their own reasons to be so unforgiving.Perceptive, and I agree. I used to be an idiot drug addict at one point as well who had a terminal sense of uniqueness and inflated self-importance. (Not implying you are an idiot free)
Don't You find it funny thatIvethousands of people seen exactly same Visual pattern as pizza has on his sig. Its not a totally subjective Experience either,we know its home.it's just the effect dmt has on everyone who is using it.
"religious" conclusions included.
those are also an effect of the drug.
i think those "experiences" can be pretty useful in establishing a healthy social character.
but if you come across like a shaman guru sitting in front of a computer, i think just this is the case:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xi9bHnjet0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xi9bHnjet0)
I think all those butchering Free have their own reasons to be so unforgiving.
So why would it be revealing that all of you DMT users see that same pattern? Drugs have the power to affect specific parts of your brain, and the organ is so specific that it has parts governing little things like giving coherence to shapes, or giving a particular pattern to all shapes to all people. Even then, did you guys talk aboutt he shape after thetravel? with other users?
I'll eat my words if you can find a situation, per example, in which 3 random people with no knowledge of the drug took it independently and then were asked to draw what they saw. I wouldn't even be surprised if it's similar, I don't know why you give so much importance to that when things like mentalism and telechinesis can be "emulated" to look real.
Did you know that DMT is the same chemical that gets released naturaly into the brain when you sleep and also when you die and can be found in nerly every living thing. When enough is released into your brain it doesnt just produce visuals it creates all new senses and connects you with everything in existances, here on earth and out into all existance. In small doses it can just feel like you are getting minor visuals and are just tripping out.Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense. No one buys this crazy shit pizza. I felt a lot of crazy shit both times i've done DMT, but i've never touched anyones aura with my moonbeam fingertips.
Did you also know that 2 or more people can take DMT at the exact same time in even differant rooms and connect with each other in this pure state. Then after accuratly prove they were there together as one.
Those that have been in this pure state on existance know what they have experienced with 0% doubt. And are only laughed at by people who have not yet experienced this.
Having someone tell you their opinion on your experience and tell you that you`re wrong is extremely ignorant.
Those who know , know they know.
People once thought the world was flat until proved otherwise.
I know I have experienced the divine, I am 100% sure. Although I cant prove it to you, I know what I know, an experience cannot be put into words.
You might tell me you once f@#!ed Britney Spears in the bum hole. I would doubt this, BUT it you might be telling the truth but have no way of proving it.
DONT BE IGNORANT!
I saw jesus help an old lady cross the road the other day
Lol. No.Because saying that tells me nothing about what you know, which can only lead me to conclude you know nothing. This is why I explain why I believe things. Absolute certainty "because I know that I know" means nothing.
Your brain works through complex electrical and chemical processes, I think it's safe to say that you all know that. We all have a tremendous amount of information to deal with all day, quite staggering the brain can keep up. Luckily, sleep comes to help us cope with all that. It kind jumbles up all our new information and mixes it with past experiences. Gives us time to process things.
When you're in that dream, but you don't realise it yet, you KNOW it's true, even if it's unlikely. At some point, you realise you're in a dream and it sinks in that it's not real.
So now you're giving yourself the same chemicals while you're awake and what does it do? Gives you the same feelings while you're awake! No way to realise you're dreaming, cause you know you're awake. No wonder you conclude it must therefore be real.
And since it's so clearly not an every day thing you experience, it must therefore be something of a higher power. I get that.
You can take from it whatever you want. But I know that if I experienced something like that, my brain was tricked into believing/experiencing that. I know that because I've seen it in others whose brain chemicals were unbalanced. Did you know schizophrenics have very common delusions? Their hallucinations and such have a lot in common, because they lived in the same society in early life, even if they never actually met. You can call it connecting, but the truth is their brain isn't processing the available information correctly. The fact that they receive very similar information is the reason similar results are given.
Go watch this video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU
Very fascinating video of someone talking about their experience, she mentions some very similar things to what you say. Main differences, she's a neurobiologist, so she understands why she's feeling it and she experiences it at a time when her brain was basically shutting down.
But you can see and hear from how she talks about it that it all felt very real at the time.
You can call me or Wally ignorant, but the truth is you have no clue how much I know about this sort of stuff, just like I don't know how much you know. This is why you should say more than justLol. No.Because saying that tells me nothing about what you know, which can only lead me to conclude you know nothing. This is why I explain why I believe things. Absolute certainty "because I know that I know" means nothing.
Really, its simply pointless. Im here spreading the good word on a sacred herb and You guys act Like Ayahuasca is Like some bullshit. The Reality is you have no idea What ur dissing.
If one is interested in,finding answers, Then why not Give it a shot?
there is awareness behind brain function btw, my Soul knows it, my thinking mind cant never
I'm confused, is this topic still about religion and god? =)
Did you know that DMT is the same chemical that gets released naturaly into the brain when you sleep and also when you die and can be found in nerly every living thing. When enough is released into your brain it doesnt just produce visuals it creates all new senses and connects you with everything in existances, here on earth and out into all existance. In small doses it can just feel like you are getting minor visuals and are just tripping out.
Did you also know that 2 or more people can take DMT at the exact same time in even differant rooms and connect with each other in this pure state. Then after accuratly prove they were there together as one.
Those that have been in this pure state on existance know what they have experienced with 0% doubt. And are only laughed at by people who have not yet experienced this.
Having someone tell you their opinion on your experience and tell you that you`re wrong is extremely ignorant.
Those who know , know they know.
People once thought the world was flat until proved otherwise.
I know I have experienced the divine, I am 100% sure. Although I cant prove it to you, I know what I know, an experience cannot be put into words.
You might tell me you once f@#!ed Britney Spears in the bum hole. I would doubt this, BUT it you might be telling the truth but have no way of proving it.
DONT BE IGNORANT!
yesterday i smoked roughly 400mg of dmt over the course of 4 hours.
i kept redosing ~100mg doses every 60 minutes, or as soon as i physically could.
the first couple doses were weird.
sometimes dmt doesnt go to my head but takes over my body.
this happened the first two times.
no trip, but when i finally opened my eyes, everything had water flowing over it.
it was bizarre.
more like an acid trip where everything is the same, but modified.
not typical dmt visuals where everything is brand new.
the third dose took me to a place inhabited by "star wars" figures.
in "attack of the clones", obi wan goes to the planet where the clone army has been made.
(also the planet where jenga and boba fett live)
the creatures that made the clone army are super tall, white, skinny, alien beings.
i saw them.
they were peaceful though.
peering down at me with loving, slightly curious eyes.
the fourth dose, i changed my method of smoking to a crack pipe in the top of a little tweeker bong.
i took two hits and was gone.
i zoomed through the veil.
down the tunnel.
i came to the end of the tunnel.
i had been here before, so was not worried.
(near death experiences have been happening more often than not lately.)
then i broke through the end of the tunnel.
there was my guardian.
he was standing there with a puzzled expression on his face, his arms outstretched.
he said "why are you here!!!???" "how the f@#! did you get here!!??"
then, that was it.
he said,
"game over.
you took too much.
thats it.
youre done.
no more.
game over."
i was dead.
i was deader than dead.
that was it.
i didnt expect to come back at all.
i dont remember much of the trip after that.
all i could do was be dead.
then, somehow i made it back.
when i became conscious, i made a mental check of my vitals and was having a huge problem breathing.
i was gasping for air, with the phlegm associated with smoking .5g of dmt blocking my airways.
do you think its possible for dmt to cause cardiac or respiratory arrest?
also i wonder if the explanation in "the matrix" of the relationship between mind and body is correct?
if someone dies in the matrix, the brain thinks its dead and then kills the body in the real world.
i swear that yesterday, the dmt told my brain that i was dead.
subsequently, my body began to shut down.
i need to start videotaping my trips.
ive smoked dmt 500+ times , but only like 5 times with any one else present.
i see no use for a sitter when on dmt.
what could they really do for you..?
plus, human presence f@#!kks with me hardcore.
lately my dmt trips have been psychological battles.
theyre really trials, not trips.
its crazy.
anyways.
respiratory/cardiac arrest possible via dmt..?
or possibly via anxiety..?
have any of you had death experiences?
(not near death, or even watching your body die and be reborn in front of you. ive experienced those. this was death. he was telling me "game f@#!ing over man. no more."Pleased
Actually starting to wonder if Free's account got hacked...
Dont worry free, when they die they will realise what we were talking about.
Im writing,from mobile phone, This is horrible :DSeems like you were in the middle of a trip in your last few posts.
Just to clear, its been years since i Was working With aya
That DMT experience this poor individual posts makes me think why people do such things to themselves. What is so cruel to willingly torture yourself? I mean he even states that he did this 500+ times?
Im writing,from mobile phone, This is horrible :DSeems like you were in the middle of a trip in your last few posts.
Just to clear, its been years since i Was working With aya
This free does not seem like the other free.
Having a life crisis? Hacked? Whats up?
Still not as bad as a Chelsea post though. ;D
That DMT experience this poor individual posts makes me think why people do such things to themselves. What is so cruel to willingly torture yourself? I mean he even states that he did this 500+ times?
you become more tolerant, as with basically anything you put in your body (vaccines principle) and you need more and more in hopes to achieve that original high you experienced in the earlier times of toying with the hallucinogenics.
Nice one Ropa, the amount of knowledge ur sharing is astonishing as always.
For example, Salvinorin A, the strongest naturally occuring "psychedelic", also known as Salvia has a reverse tolerance.
http://psychonautwiki.org/wiki/Salvinorin_A
Anecdotal reports suggest that Salvinorin A has a "reverse tolerance", meaning that less of the drug is needed with each consecutive trip to cause an effect. Tolerance will eventually build up over time however, although this may be years. There is no real addictive potential.Looks like you are both right.
Judging by youtube, most people wont be trying Salvia after 1st time so no fears about building a tolerance hahaI've done it twice, when I was 18, and both times I was as scared as i've ever been in my life. It's a terrifying drug. Once, my friends face morphed into a grotesque picasso. Another time, the earth opened up and swallowed me whole. Wasn't fun. I guess there are some drugs I miss in some way, salvia is not one of them.
Nice one Ropa, the amount of knowledge ur sharing is astonishing as always.
For example, Salvinorin A, the strongest naturally occuring "psychedelic", also known as Salvia has a reverse tolerance.
http://psychonautwiki.org/wiki/Salvinorin_AQuote from: http://psychonautwiki.org/Anecdotal reports suggest that Salvinorin A has a "reverse tolerance", meaning that less of the drug is needed with each consecutive trip to cause an effect. Tolerance will eventually build up over time however, although this may be years. There is no real addictive potential.Looks like you are both right.
Nietzsche buried god few centuries ago, face it xD
This thread is about reaching a new level of being
Interesting topic here. Let me put my 5 cents here, starting from long times ago. I`ll write my opinion about core of the topic: "The Big Religion/God Debate".
Things people couldnt explain - were explained by "God" definition.
Let me tell you what i mean.. earlier, regular for us things were unknown and mysterious, like Rain - gods crying, lightning - gods angry, wind, snow, hurricane, sun, fire etc.. people didnt know how things work, so they decided that something unusual is driving there - a God. During times, we started to understand about life, about our planet and other planets/starts surrounding us. We started to understand how things happening, what they cause. Definitions of God were disappearing one by one. But one, global meaning of God, creator of everything - is still "alive" in people minds. For how long? I think it`s matter of time.
That`s what im thinking about gods.
Relision is ablsolutely another thing. Its kind of rules of life, based on something amazing, based on "Number One" in the world - God. Since we still believe in that, it a good way to accord that rules. I dont think its bad. Its good, actually. Mostly. There are good principles of life, in every single religion. But since we have a lot of different religions - thats the bad thing. People hurt, killing each other because of that. Someone can loose a family, others simply changes inside, becomes agressive or.. "closed" in themselves. A lot of psychology there. Its a power of hope, of believement.
For me - its personal. Its matter of every single person what to believe in. As tastes in food, that can be differs aswell. So topic of "debates" is actually not correct, IMO. Its about opinions. Debation about religion.. about something that you believing by all your heart - never ended nice. Anyway definition of God will live for a very long time. But at some point, it will gone. Why is that? Coz we believe in what we`ve been told. When u see a person that u trust and love, when it says you something that is "right" - u believe in that. No matter how its on real - u trust a person that u love. Im talking about parent and childrens, when humans becomes a persons. When adult human live 50 years with hope for something, with believing of God, there is no way to say to yourself "you know.. its a bullshit". Kinda no way to do that.
But this can be changed only in epoch of global informational world. People are getting closer to that, so i think many things will change in people`s mind in a very nearest future.
That power of trust in words that told by person that u love is so strong, that people ready to kill each other to proof they are right. To proof to others that they are wrong. That power is a very bad instrument in hands of those, who manipulate it. That`s why we have new kind of wars nowadays - informational. But this topic not about it.
think about.
“He, who owns the information, owns the world”. W. Churchill
pyroman, I am afraid this topic is not about religion/god anymore... so I guess ur post is offtopic? xD
[/quote
you're telling me you know what he's talking about?
Another topic is afterlife. Why there's Hell? Why God needs to punish people. You might say then what, everyone should be allowed in a heaven? Yes. Yes even those f@#!ed up ones you're currently thinking. I want to ask, how someone can go bad? 1) Traumatic experience. If you didn't have that experience, maybe you would still remain as a good person. 2) Getting corrupted. Like how they manage to convince a person to be a suicide bomber with shits like greater good, fighting for a cause, rewarded in afterlife etc. 3) You're being f@#!ed up since the beginning. Like due to some biological, psychiatrical conditions, disorders you have. Like a sociopath killing someone without feeling guilty. So, 1 and 2 could be prevented by simply not experiencing those things. There are a lot good people with very good life, but they might go bad if unfortunate things happened to them. For 3, if they didn't have those conditions or disorders, they might be good people. Of course, some still don't go bad even after these, but that's not the point. My point is if those people didn't have one of those 3 things, they could go to heaven. So instead punishing those people with eternal torment, making them understand and truly regret and then proceed them to heaven. God should be full of love and kindness (http://i.imgur.com/gXdZkwg.jpg) not with anger and wrath.
Surprisingly long post on monotheism from an apatheist. ;)Ha. Yeah, I think I am not complete apatheist, like completely indifferent towards God and religion. My personal stance is like I mentioned, but since religion is big part of our world, can't really avoid discussing it. Enjoy discussing about it tho as long as it's a mature conversation. :)
Everyone has a choice, I don't agree with your cavalier take on morality. You or I could blame our decisions on trauma or this or that, but at the end of the day, everyone makes decisions, and everyone is liable for them.Believe me I wish for an punishing afterlife for bad motherf@#!ers too, but I don't find a punishing omni-everything God so possible. Maybe I am wrong, who am I to conclude how an omni-everything entity would act anyway. :D
One of my beliefs is in an afterlife. I don't know what it is or what I will call it, but the selfish and the evil will be punished, that much I am sure of.
Either that or its like this
Interesting read Triad :)Turkey is an enigma. You can't say it's completely European or Asian. You can't say, unfortunately after Erdoğan and people like him, it's secular or islamist. Anyway let me explain it briefly. Ottoman Empire was as Islamist was it could be. Around late 19th centuries, it started to westernize itself slowly. After WW1, Ottoman Empire was pretty much dead. After Independence War of Turkey, which lead by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, Republic of Turkey founded. And boy, modernization skyrocketed. Secularism prevailed. Islamism started to lose power thanks to reforms etc. And want your perception of Turkey f@#!ed even more? Atatürk, the founding father of Turkey probably wasn't even Muslim. A quote from him:
I never knew a person like you existed ???
I think I'm not the only one in the west who feels that way.
To us, all, if not 99%, of Turkish ppl deny the Armenian genocide and atheism (or some form of agnosticism or doubt) either doesn't exist in the Muslim world or it's hanging at the end of a rope, or in other ways fearing for its life :-[
Are you a great exception or one of many?I am not an exception. In my high school class, which had around 30-32 ppl, there were at least 4 irreligious people beside me. Now about why there's that many irreligious people and to answer your other questions, it depends which part of Turkey you live. I am living in İzmir, and probably it is the most secular and liberal Muslim majority city in the world. Number of girls who don't wear headscarves, hijab etc. is maybe at least 6 times more than those who wear it, and it's because older population. If you look at certain age group like 15-25 maybe it's 20 times instead 6. I am not joking. Reason of this because İzmir considered as Kemalist stronghold. AKP, Erdoğan's party, never got majority of vote here. And when I said it's Muslim majority, probably 60% of it, (85% of it on 15-25 age group) is cultural Muslim. Cultural Muslim is those people who call themselves Muslim, and that's the only thing that connects them with Islam. My family and friends know I am apatheist. LGBT community also welcomed to Izmir. But is that mean all Turkey like that? Absolutely not. East of Turkey, which Kemalist don't get much vote which Erdoğan's AKP and pro-Kurdish HDP gets their vote is pretty conservative. Finding irreligious people there is almost impossible, girls mostly cover themselves, finding a girl wearing miniskirt is completely impossible. If two men holds hands and take a walk, they'll get beaten probably. Well at least they won't be thrown out from roofs like backwards Islamist countries. So East mostly has Sharia type of mindset without a Sharia. So yeah, Turkey is polarized as f@#!.
How does your environment feel about this? Do they know you are an 'apatheist'? Is it common to call into question islamic beliefs? Is there social pressure to conform?
How do you feel about atheism? As in, outright denial of the existence of God?
I was also surprised to read your pedophilia argument, I'm used to see that argument in dumb anti-islam white ppl, I didn't think you would appeal to it. Although you use it in a different manner. Is that something you picked up online or is it something that really is an issue in theological debate?Well it's something that most likely happened. I rarely use that argument, I used it to show hypocrisy of not accepting change of norms for LGBT. Back then, just like in ancient Greek, pedophilia perhaps wasn't known to be an issue. My point was let's assume Muhammad didn't know, what about God? Maybe using this argument mostly became popular because some shitty "liberals" and their little knowledge about Islam. Like claiming Muhammad was a feminist (http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/12638112). Because even if we ignore this still it's a fact that he had multiple wives. This doesn't have anything to do with topic tho, mostly to criticize HuffPo.
...Armenian GenocideWhat genocide? ??? ???
"if there is no God, then, one may ask, who governs human life and, in general, the whole order of things on earth?"(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Donald_Trump_official_portrait.jpg)
"if there is no God, then, one may ask, who governs human life and, in general, the whole order of things on earth?"(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Donald_Trump_official_portrait.jpg)
Kill the EGO
I believe that we are all a kind of energy and that energy never dies, but rather it changes forms and flows in different ways.
I believe that we are all a kind of energy and that energy never dies, but rather it changes forms and flows in different ways.
Congratu-f@#!ing-lations on your "beliefs", dude! :D
E = mc2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy)
That was pretty obvious yeah :)
'Your momma so fat, when she died, she turned into a Red Bull factory' :-[
I do not agree with your saying that the Abrahamic traditions in particular are full of nonsense btw. They make a lot more sense than the vast majority of other religions. But for some reason people take the first literally, while the other religions/mythologies are interpreted in a symbolic way.
I do not believe in the overwhelming role of the church. It's a manmade institution, supported by millions of people in past and present. It grew in an organic manner, through the ages, it's not a set-up of a few power hungry, mischievous men who want to keep people in place by threatening with hell and eternal torment.
Hell is a notion that goes way back, far further than the origins of the church. It's not a christian invention. You can say that it snowballed out of control as people became ever more pious (and maybe also wanted to shelter their own salvation from fellow christians who were not leading a very 'christian' life).
The church authorities have actually always repressed extreme religious views and chilliastic/apocalyptic movements. They have been given crap about eradicating 'heresies', but in all honesty, 99% of these sects and movements were complete WHÄCK.
Genetical engineering of the first humans I also don't believe in. If that were true humans would pop up out of absolutely nothing and nowhere. Instead they arrive in evolution REALLY late, and when they do, it's in the form of a multitude of forms that go from complete ape to slightly less ape to barely human, to somewhat smart human, to us.
Also, if we didn't evolve naturally, then why did every other species on earth? Or do you think life as a whole was genetically engineered? If that were so, how do you explain current evolution taking place, and why would it take millions of years to go from no-brain-bacteria's to single-brain-cell bacteria's? Surely that could have gone a LOT faster if it was indeed engineered.
edit: the picture below is my sig, it's not related to this post ;D
The Church was and is cancerous. It didn't grow in an organic matter at all. It grew like a tumor. Like a virus. It is strictly hierarchical and compartmentalized as well.
QuoteThe Church was and is cancerous. It didn't grow in an organic matter at all. It grew like a tumor. Like a virus. It is strictly hierarchical and compartmentalized as well.
wtf... what if I told you that atheism grew like a virus?
USSR wanted to create a "peaceful" country without a religion and murdured 63 000 000 of own people during Lenin and Stalin's reign. What a beautiful irreligious utopia.
In China in years 1949 - 1976 around 38 000 000 people have been killed due to opposing god-less communist vision of a country by Mao Zedong. What a nice irreligious country as well.
More info about atheist rulers trying to get rid of religious people in their countries
North Korea (Kim Il Sung) - 3 000 000
Cambodia (Pol Pot) - 2 400 000 (30% of the country's population)
France (Maximilian Robespierre's "Reign of Terror") - 300 000
Somehow the most brutal regimes didn't have any church, Skunk.
Religions HAVE killed millions of people directly, and still continue to do so. Religions eclipse and outlast regimes.
Religions HAVE killed millions of people directly, and still continue to do so. Religions eclipse and outlast regimes.
You are just being utterly inaccurate over here. Your religious reasons, as you call it, didn't even kill 1% of the people murdered and executed in atheist regimes (148 000 000 people dead between 1917-2007), the majority of which died because they admitted to be religious. Your child-like argument that they died "because they didn't want communim" is just plain naive. In Poland we also had communism for 45 years, imposed by Russia. People didn't care whether we say "No" to communism or whether polish parties openly showed intention of making Poland independent. It were the priests and people who dared to put crosses in public places that were the main target. That's how USSR hired a shooter to assassinate our polish pope in 1981. He survived the assassination by a miracle. Thousands of our priests were executed, as well as religious activists.
Where did religions kill millions? how? Poland is christian for 1100 years. Right now, it's the most religious country in the entire Europe. Throughout XVI and XVII we have had the biggest territory in Europe as well. How come we never had colonies, slaves or we never killed anyone because of our faith? All over the globe people conquered and will conquer other countries. Looking at some countries their alibi was christianity. It's stupid to:
- assume that they wouldn't do that without religion
- world will ever stop doing that, no matter what
Key to happiness isn't being an utter pacifist but defending the interest of your family and your brothers. Fighting for the future of your children, not agreeing on everything you are told to do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_mediation_in_the_Beagle_conflict
In 1978 war between Chile and Argentina has been stopped ON THE DAY BEFORE THE MILITARY ACTIONS BECAUSE of Church's intervention, specifically pope John Paul II's. Millions of people could have been killed, and yet they withdrew due to the fact that these countries were both highly catholic and the role of the pope simply meant a lot in the eyes of the officer. How come you don't even know about such stories? How come you are not even able to give me an example of killing for religion purposes?