If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Jesus was compelled to ascribe his experiences to God's word. Problem here. The Christian Jesus claimed that he was the son of God. He was the Word. Jesus was the Law.
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. Furthermore, I don't see why you're attacking my beliefs only, and not that of the atheists on the board, who distinctly disagree with you.
Well, you seem to be the one making most of the arguments in defense of atheism, so for all intents and purposes, on this board, you are the High Priest of Atheism <IMG SRC="smile.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
But you still haven't answered my question -why isn't death more preferable to life from the atheistic viewpoint? I'm merely following atheism to its logical conclusion! What is so difficult to understand here??? If there is no life beyond death, only non existence, why isn't death preferable to life?
Perhaps I should rephrase this to read "in the non-existence that occurs for eternity after the moment of death."
You keep saying you are true to your honor. Where does your concept of honor come from? Does it come from the fact that you believe you are a self-sufficient god, the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong in your own mind? Or somewhere else? Your honor must not be offended. But why not? Your life is meaningless; all life is meaningless. What does it matter if you have shame instead of honor?
You know as well as I do what happened to Nietzsche in his last years. But I spoke of no crime. He was logically consistent in his atheism - something that most atheists are not (not accusing anyone in particular here) - and the logical conclusions of atheism led him to nihilism.
And this (now I'm being speculative) is what drove him to insanity.
Fair enough. But if a man investigates Christianity, finds that it is the way, the truth, and the life, doesn't his religion (not his minister, but his very own belief) compel him to tell others?
This is the height of arrogance, I'm sorry to say. So you are strong because you believe yourself to be god. Are viridis and I weak because we have religious beliefs?
Can you overcome death? Do tell me when you're strong enough to do so.
Yes. Just as the atheist must take certain propositions on faith - namely, that there is no God. He cannot prove it scientifically; he supposes it to be true.
Atheism IS a religion as much as any other.
So while I may have the "crutch" of Christianity, you have the "crutch" of atheism. You will not accept anything which might lead to the conclusion that something exists beyond what the 5 senses can detect.
And if there is no answer, you have to logically take the nihilist viewpoint. Life is meaningless; life has suffering - joy, but suffering too. And in the end, its worthless, and all your efforts in any endeavour will amount to nothing. Death is preferable to life.
Your comment shows a lack of understanding of the nature of God - at least the nature of God according to Christianity.
But you will die. And to what end will you have lived?
You know what? I don't. But I suspect you know little about Christianity.
So what am I supposed to meditate on?
What exploring should I do in my self-exploration? Conversely, I hold the belief that you could read the teachings of Christ through once - and by the grace of God, you may understand them.
harmful to one's self or to others
This contradicts your defintion of morality Toadborg.
Yours doesn't address the possibility of causing harm to oneself. Actually...what is your definition of harm?
And what are the definitions of suffering and remorse according to the Buddha? In Christianity, evil or sin can be defined as that which is contrary to the nature of God. Also as rebelling against the will of God. So if I insult another person, I have harmed them. I have acted contrary to what I know about the nature of God, as revealed in the Bible, and as imprinted on my soul - everyone's soul for that matter. We call it the conscience, and it informs us when we are committing acts that are immoral.
I'd most certainly agree. But your definition of sexual immorality is too vague. I suppose it possible that a mother and son could love each other in a sexual way which included compassion and love. But I still believe that incest is wrong.
(note that the some of the Law wasn't handed down until Deuteronomy - as such, Adam's sons did not sin against God when they slept with their sisters, however rightfully disturbing we might find that practice today)
I would argue that the Christian girl who sleeps with her boyfriend is in violation of the moral code which she claims to believe.
If everyone were to follow the Christian morals regarding sex - one partner for life - STDs wouldn't be around. I think this goes without saying. That said, this will never happen.
good question. Meditation is kinda like prayer. It is restraining the mind to a single state or thought. The buddha believed most suffering came from within. All those distractions in your head. Your job, your fantasies, your needs. Just try to be mindful of this process on the way to work tommorow. see where all your mind wanders. This is percieved as a weakness from a Buddhist point of view and a cause of grief and emotion. What does a Buddhist meditate on? nothing. by meditating on nothing you detach yourself from your body and transcend(outer body experience). You can use a mantra or your on breath to assist you. This allows you to control your mind and think in the here and now(mindfulness). you can attribute mindfulness in your day to day activities by controling emotions like anger and longing like sex. That's the just of it. Prayer helps with the same thing its just a different avenue. Meditation can also be uses by concentrating on love and happiness to others.
Meditation can be considered Eastern Psychology. Where as an Western pschologist would ask refective statements and get you to talk about your problems so as to help them surface therefore allowing you to face them, meditation allows you to look within yourself to confront your problems problems and release your insecurities. Scientology is a similar process from what I've read of it. I gotta go
religion n. 1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. > a particular system of faith and worship. 2. a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.
atheism n. the theory or belief that God does not exist.
I think it's a hell of a squeeze to get atheism to fit sense 1 of the above definition of religion -- mostly because of the necessary condition of worship. You can call the assertion that no god exists an axiom (as I do) or an article of faith (as you do) but that makes no odds -- there is no worship involved in atheism.
Incidentally, to get all technical, atheism is specifically the denial of a god who is
(i) omnipotent,
(ii) omniscient,
(iii) eternal,
(iv) perfectly good,
(v) conscious.
You think such an entity exists. If it weren't for condition (v) I might agree -- and cite The Universe as my example. In the meantime
The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history.
-- R.A.H.
In any case, my position would best be described as atheist-agnostic (or perhaps agnostic-atheist, whichever ordering you prefer). That is, I do not take the existence of god as an axiom, and hold all "knowledge" to be in some measure hypothetical -- that is, various degrees of certainty about various things, but never total yes/no certainty. I arrive at this position through both epistemology and quantum theory.
Another pair of words I might use to describe myself would be "rational anarchist." That string can be entered into any good search engine and will get you a few hits.
And by the way,
The second most preposterous notion is that copulation is inherently sinful.
-- R.A.H.
As for the whole death vs. life thing -- it depends! Sometimes death may be preferable to continued life, or may be the price one has to pay. Surely, even given our obvious differences, we can agree that there are times when death may be good?
Perhaps a little off on a tangent: has it occured to you that if there were no survival instinct we wouldn't be here debating what would happen if it didn't exist? Why do we not lay down and die? Because we have a friggin' huge genetic and memetic inheritance that says otherwise! Any other ineritance would have self-destructed long ago. The morals (in all their manifold variety) that we are left with are precisely the ones that have been survivable up until now. And will probably (but not by any means certainly) continue to be so.
Indeed -- it's interesting to see the parallels between some Eastern practices and psychologists such as Jung -- always a favourite example of mine.
No, no. It's pretty easy to determine whether I like red or green or both. The kind of questions Goedel's Theorem applies to are generally ones of self-consistency or self-completeness.
That is, given some system of reasoning, is it possible, using only that system of reasoning, to prove that said system is consistent (i.e. free of contradictions)? The answer is in the negative.
A related result is the Turing Halting Problem, which roughly states that there are algorithms that one cannot tell whether they will ever stop -- without running them and seeing what happens. As I understand it, Turing used Goedel's Theorem in his proof.
<IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> You have no idea how wrong you are on that one! <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> I laugh at your presumption. <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Tell me, if some concept is a useful analytical tool, does that make it right or true? Or simply a useful concept, to be treated without prejudice unless evidence dictates otherwise?
Then you're closer to an atheist than anything else.
This isn't true? But where do you get the idea that you have to meditate from? Buddha himself.
You seem equally intolerant of my beliefs. Your above statement shows that you will not tolerate them.
And you were a Christian for 18 years? You must have had a very skewed concept of its teachings.
I never specifically said that STDs were God's punishment. I said that they were the logical result of disobeying God.
Again, it's like water. If you jump in the water intending to breathe underneath it, don't be surprised when you drown.
Then you can't possibly have ruled out the existence of the Christian God. Or any God. You accept all religions, and yet in the next breath you say I'm wrong. Something is wrong with your argument here.
Not directly. But his arguments imply that your religion is bunk and that your life is ultimately meaningless, just like mine or his.
Why don't you start challenging Mackenzie
on the various concepts of Buddhism and see how he replies? Try to convert him, in other words.
[ 24-05-2002: Message edited by: j0nn0 ]
Not really. The atheist believes he is self sufficient and that man is the highest being. He worships man himself.
But you do worship. You worship mankind. Not in any type of sanctuary perhaps. But for you, man is god. You've admitted as much already. You see yourself as god.
See, the fact that you believe this shows that you really know nothing about Christianity. Why don't you read some theology?
And where have I said this?
Ultimately, death isn't good. Death is decay. Death is the corruption of the original order.
Your atheistic position, if adopted by the rest of the culture, would bring us a culture of death. Abortion has been around for a while. Euthanasia is coming. Applied eugenics will be next. After that...God only knows.
Your atheism cannot possibly value life as good in and of itself. It removes the possibility that an inherent right to life exists. Life is meaningless; it would be better to be non-existent. I don't see why it's so hard for you to be logically consistent about this.
It's been around for some time now. And it's getting worse by the day. Because people thought like you - man knows what is right - man is God.
Has it occurred to you that if not for the grace of God, you wouldn't be here debating this? Of course not. That would destroy all your preconceptions.
As creatures of reason, aren't we supposed to rise above our basest instincts? And reasoning through the atheist position
has to led you to believe that life is meaningless - you've said it yourself. Therefore, death is always preferable to life - even a life mostly filled with joy. Because underneath it all, you are aware that your existence is temporary and that all your greatest accomplishments will mean nothing.
Since death in atheistic terms is nothing more than the absence of self-awareness, it is infinitely preferable to awareness of life and the temporality of one's existence.
Anyways, I'm tired of this. I feel like we're talking at cross purposes. Your presupposition that God doesn't exist (though its funny that now you call yourself a possible agnostic) and my presupposition that He does make us see everything - everything - in an entirely different light.
There have been a variety of defences that scholars throughout the ages have placed forward against the attacks of skeptics such as yourself. I don't know if you read this when I posted it originally
http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/why_I_believe_cvt.html
It's by Cornelius Van Til. Its the argument from presupposition.
I'm done with this conversation now. Don't fool yourself - you made me excercise my faculties to quite an extent. But it's left me more sure that I'm right in the first place. Your atheism would bring us nihilism and love of death, and the destruction of humanity - if God would ever allow such a thing to happen. Without God, everything becomes permissible. You set the limits; no one else.
Good luck with your search for ultimate purpose. Or whatever it is you end up deciding is right.
[ 24-05-2002: Message edited by: j0nn0 ]
No, as stated mere centimetres above the point at which you wrote this, the atheist simply does not ascribe to the the hypothesis that an entity (a god) with attributes (i)-(v) exists. I do not hold my self to be self-sufficient: I have too great an awareness of economics to be fooled into that position. Or perhaps you mean "morally self-sufficient" in some sense? Nor is there any need for worship or veneration. Some atheists are outright nihilists; some are committed humanists.
If I "worship" mankind I do so in a very loose sense -- and use the word only because I doubt you would understand any more accurate substitute. I think mankind has huge potential, and would dearly like to see it realized. Tell me, do you know of Ulysses, by Alfred Lord Tennyson?
Man is only "god" to me (and I am only "god") to me because you seem to have no suitable concept to deal with the actual relationship. If by "god" you mean "author of moral code," well, I suppose I have to concede that. Do not, however, think that I hold it to be "my own" -- of course I recognize that it is a product of my genetic predispositions and experiences so far in life. But that is a far more unwieldy term than "mine." <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Or even the Bible? Sorry, done that twice. Seems pretty clear to me that your god fits the description of a petty child quite nicely:
for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
-- Exodus, ch.20
Now, you would have thought that god would be big enough, old enough, and secure enough in his own position as supreme being not to be too fussed by the activities of a few unbelievers, but -- no, it does rather appear that he wants all our adorations.
Incidentally, I love the way that particular commandment gives the Crusaders their mandate to hack, burn and slaughter, the Inquisition their mandate to torture and persecute...
Not everything I say is in direct response to something you have said. Occasionally I may just write something because the mood takes me, because it seems somehow relevant to the argument. Let's face it, your attitudes to sexual relations aren't that far off "they are inherently sinful." In any case, it's the second part of the quote, completing the "Most Preposterous Notion" one, and I was feeling completist.
Sorry, is that your opinion, or your parody of what you think mine to be?
Besides, I have already explained: sometimes death is good, at other times bad.
Also, stop obsessing about "order" -- there phrase I used was "complex order" (or "ordered complexity"), and both terms are important, not just the one beginning with "O".
In order: yes; yes; ultimately, yes; your judgement, not mine.
And are you really such a fool as to think there is some universal unalienable right to life? Only on the statute books, and they are not moral authorities.
When will you get it into your head that absence of The Great Overreaching Plan and Moral Code does not mean that beings stumble through their lives completely devoid of purpose?
Yes -- two seconds before I wrote that line, knowing you would write just that in response!
I don't see how you make the leap from "life is ultimately meaningless" to "death is always preferable to life." You think my position has holes? I think what I have just pointed out is a pretty big non sequitur, too.
Good.
Well, if ever I have a policy conversation with the Almighty, trust that one of my recommendations will be "Leave humanity the heck alone!" You know, the same way a bird flies the nest; the same way an initially dependent baby grows into an adult ready to face the world on its own two feet?
<IMG SRC="smile.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Thank you -- taken on its own that line qualifies as a brilliant and clear affirmation of a positive atheistic philosophy of life. It could have come from Ayn Rand. In fact, why don't I close by quoting her?
"Ask youself whether the dream of heaven and greatness should be waiting for us in our graves -- or whether it should be ours here and now and on this earth."
-- Ayn Rand
No, I don't have to do with these headings, why should everyone be categorised?
Yes that belief system would be 'wrong' from my own humble perspective but if the person believing it had been told all their life that it was right then how could I critiscise them?
I would say that the act did not harm the rest of society so where is the need to ban it? I would be offended that you would want to ban something that brought happiness to people for your own purposes....
What then is your non-scientific proof for why Christianity is right and Hinduism wrong?
J0nn0, I have read your tirade and have a few things to say to you.
1. God doesn't exist. It's about time you realised that you've been brainwashed into believing there is some supreme being with magical powers who created the world and us. There isn't.
2. Even if god existed, there is about as much chance it is a three-headed elephant with 8 arms sticking out as a white-bearded chap who sent his son to earth to walk around in flip-flops. As a matter of fact, a group of indigenous rainforest indians who worship a big rock should deserve as much credit as the christians. Why shouldn't they? Both religions are based in superstitions, fairy tales and word-of-mouth/science fiction writing. So stop fucking lecturing everyone about christianity being the right religion. It isn't any more credible than ancient Egypt's worshipping of the Sun.
3. You are entitled to think homosexuality is wrong, I guess, but if you must have that attitude keep it to yourself. The great majority of homosexuals are not religious and therefore couldn't give a fuck about your superstition, so stop telling people it's wrong. And even for christian gays, why should they think they're committing a sin? The Bible is nothing but a compilation of nonsense written by an assorted group of dreamers, manipulators, no-lifers and morons. All passages referring to homosexuality were probably added by chaps who had been abused as kids. Surely god would have bigger things to worry about than tell people what to do with their free time. The catholic priests certainly think so.
4. So long as he/she is a good person, a homosexual atheist would have about a 100 million times better chance of going to heaven than a church-going, right wing, rich, asylum-seeker hater, tax dodging so-called christian. If god existed he'd be perfect in every way, presumably. A perfect being would by definition be altruist and not seek idolization. Therefore god wouldn't give a shit whether people go to church to worship him. I think he’d rather have a good person who lives their life in peace and is good to others than a church going god-botherer who is rich, doesn't share their welfare with the poor, hates immigrants and despises everyone who is different to them.
5. Er, that’s it.
And seeing as you're pretty much the only one here defending Christianity, I guess that makes you the Pope.
(Can't believe I missed that one first time round.)
(And, drum-roll, after 5 months of Heinlein, my sig line gets a new face. Or an old one. Or an old one with new make-up. Or something. <IMG SRC="smile.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> )
What I would like to say is that this debate has been as good as any intellectual academic debate, and should be showcased to all who use these boards as an example of what can be?
A debate, on a controversial issue, with reference, quoting, and little personalisation.
Well done, everyone, for a good debate!
To answer; however you choose to live your life is your call. The decisions, the limits, and the morality are yours to set and choose. If God is what you wish to follow, then you are welcome to do so, but I think that the most important faith of all is that of respect for yourself, and for your fellow humans. However you find that, through God, or through experience, then it is a life well lived, and you have your own heaven.
But of course there's irony... Don't you know that irony is the most common element in the universe?
I realize that the spirit in which I have quoted j0nn0's remark is not the spirit in which he made it -- but that is precisely the point. What he sees as such a terrible thing I see as precisely the opposite -- as I remarked at the time.
Here, here... but be careful! You'll probably call down the wrath of j0nn0 with talk like that! <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
In fact, I'd like to offer you a "well-done" -- because what you wrote was pretty much what I've been trying to get at for the last n pages, and you've gone and condensed it almost losslessly. :: claps ::
I've already disclosed to you a code of ethics that makes sense to me and I don't know how that displays me as thinking I'm above all others or that I believe nothing exist past death and therefore life is meaningless. I live life with meaning everyday. I feel death is natural and we should strive to understand that and accept it, but I don't believe its nessessarily the end.
meditation has existed before the Buddha, but he helped cultivate it. But your missing the point. Meditation itself is self exploration. So what if someone instructs you on how to do it properly. Would you have the education you do today without guidance or teachers? Does that mean your a second hander that acts as a complete parasite that directly feeds off others ideas for their own gain as Ayn Rand would put it? Maybe if you are a conforming Christian looking for an easy out God provides or man has made up. No, not if you use it as a tool or foundation to formulate your own original ideas. Its ok to use the ideas of others as long as you don't depend on them. I like to do drugs to open my perceptions, but recognize dependency and addiction as a ruin to that very purpose of the use of them. I know I rambling so please excuse me. I think its cause I did to many drugs last night.
I'm intolerant of your intolerance. I've only labeled you as intolerant and unwilling to accept different possibilities. I haven't stated your belief system is wrong(a little far fetched and lacking proof maybe). You on the other hand have labeled me as mostly Athiest and dependent on the teachings of another.
your so defensive. I didn't say you are wrong. I meant out of all the people who believe strictly in one system of beliefs including the atheists out there, and rule out all other possibilities, some body has to be wrong. You certainly have a knack for sticking words in people's mouths jonno.
Anytime ones ideas conflict with anothers and they are unwilling to budge I guess they are implying that mine are wrong to some degree. But Mackenzie is not so direct and in my face about it so why should I attack him even though I'm not really attacking you either. Besides my religious beliefs not so systematically defined or absolute so I accept the possibility that no God exist and he's not telling me that's bogus. He's also complemented on Buddhism as a psychology or means of self exploration even though one doesn't have to label themselves to do this.
Why should I try to convert anyone? Convert to what? I'm just trying to get the mind working so we can consider ideas and promote self exploration instead of viewing everything so one sided when no proof exist.
Mac also deals with the Buddhist philosophy on an almost daily basis, and finds it to be one of the most appealing religions on the planet. <IMG SRC="smile.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">