Religion.

[HardwoodLegend]

Stop. Just... stop.

How are people not able to take pause and realize how dumb this sh1t is?

[rufuspaul]

You know, you're right. I'm gonna denounce my entire faith due to your insightful thread.

[ZeN]

Stop. Just... stop.

How are people not able to take pause and realize how dumb this sh1t is?
Which one? And by religion are you speaking of those that practice it in a church or anyone that hold any sort of spiritual belief? What exactly constitutes a Religion in your estimation?


Im wondering what the f*ck you're talking about..

[HardwoodLegend]

You know, you're right. I'm gonna denounce my entire faith due to your insightful thread.

Seriously.

I mean, sit and think about it. I mean really think.

[The Ownage]

Thanks. I am now an atheist.

[daily]

Stop. Just... stop.

How are people not able to take pause and realize how dumb this sh1t is?

Why are others beliefs so important to you? Is it because you yourself have none so you want to pull up the proverbial ladder to deny it to everyone? I myself am not a strong believer in faith based groups but their existence is of no concern of mine. They are what they are they do what they do.

This thread is childish, probably made by a child who has yet to understand his place in the world in that nobody really gives a flying f*ck what you think

[ripthekik]

Seriously.

I mean, sit and think about it. I mean really think.
You are the one that needs to sit down and think about it. Really think about it. Think about why religion exists, what it does for society, and why people continue to have faith. Think about it.

[TheeBeast]

Stop. Just... stop.

How are people not able to take pause and realize how dumb this sh1t is?

I felt the same way dude, really... When I was 14.....


One thing that bothers me more than anything is the fact that some people who wanna think they got all the answers take the time to sit and care about what other people believe.

You're gonna have morons regardless if there's religion or not...

[Stuckey]

yall need jesus . jpeg

[PullupJay]

Why do you say so? Elaborate.

[rufuspaul]

yall need jesus . jpeg


http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f80/rufuspaul/IMG_0877.jpg

[ace23]

Why are others beliefs so important to you? Is it because you yourself have none so you want to pull up the proverbial ladder to deny it to everyone? I myself am not a strong believer in faith based groups but their existence is of no concern of mine. They are what they are they do what they do.

This thread is childish, probably made by a child who has yet to understand his place in the world in that nobody really gives a flying f*ck what you think
This

[East_Stone_Ya]

http://www.freakyts.com/siteimages/God%20save%20me%20from%20these%20freakin%20morons. jpg

[RoseCity07]

Whenever see an overly zealous black woman talking about religion I can't help but think of oppression. I think about the slaves that were forced to convert to Christianity. What about the slaves that converted to Christianity thinking it would make them free? Then their captures came up with a new excuse as to why they could not be free (they had black skin)?

I can see why some people need religion. I see that it gives people comfort. However, it also makes people think they have rights over other people. Some people use it to justify violence or prejudice. Religion is fundamentally flawed because it divides people into groups. We're the good group, you're the bad one, we speak for god, you don't. You're wrong and you don't deserve help unless you accept our made up god.

It's really sad. Not all religions are like this, but the most popular ones have slowed the progress of humanity. I think it would be better if people could just keep their religions to themselves and not have it affect how they treat other people.

[-p.tiddy-]

:bowdown: HardwoodLegend

GOAT Atheist leader



Now I see the light...err, the lack of a light I mean...the big bang just happened out of no where on its own obviously...I just had to take pause and realize shit...thank you great one

[AK47DR91]

Those centuries old religions are fine. If they have survived this long there should be something good in there.

All people need to do are picking only good things and using common sense.

Though, many smartasses are abusing the former while many morons are not doing the latter.
I think there are still a lot of more good and reasonable religious people in the world than there are religious nutcases. It's just that the media magnetizes the latter group of "religious people" to sell their stories.

As an agnostic non-religious person, I've never had any issues with any religious person in my lifetime.

[JEFFERSON MONEY]

Lol OP worships Zyzz and talks sh!t about religion.

Everything wrong with the generation today.

[RoseCity07]

:bowdown: HardwoodLegend

GOAT Atheist leader



Now I see the light...err, the lack of a light I mean...the big bang just happened out of no where on its own obviously...I just had to take pause and realize shit...thank you great one

I sense sarcasm. I don't see how the big bang theory is any less credible than some being making everything. Even if we prove that the big bang happened that doesn't really solve how that came about. I don't think the big bang theory being proved puts an end to the discussion. It's just a starting place for an even bigger discussion.

I think we'll always run into the question of who created the creator. Or if the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into? Stuff like that. Just because someone believes in the big bang doesn't mean they think that is where all questioning stops.

EDIT: On top of all this I don't understand the attitude that someone is being unreasonable because they keep questioning. A religious man does not like his assumptions being questioned, especially one that has no evidence to back it up. So who's being unreasonable here? They guy that invites questions, or the one that says he knows all the answers and questions are not welcome?

[HardwoodLegend]

Why are others beliefs so important to you? Is it because you yourself have none so you want to pull up the proverbial ladder to deny it to everyone? I myself am not a strong believer in faith based groups but their existence is of no concern of mine. They are what they are they do what they do.

This thread is childish, probably made by a child who has yet to understand his place in the world in that nobody really gives a flying f*ck what you think

I haven't even begun to launch my all-out intellectual assault on the nonsense that is religion. Still in the stages of amassing my intelligence arsenal.

I'm Christopher Hitchens 2.0 in the making.

[HardwoodLegend]

Lol OP worships Zyzz and talks sh!t about religion.

Everything wrong with the generation today.

I don't worship Zyzz.

I do admire his dedication to clean dieting and hard training though. Did he have other flaws? Of course.

[-p.tiddy-]

I was joking Rose...yeah I agree with all that...I am a theist that believes in the big bang/evolution/science in general/etc

the OP was awful though I mean come on...I mean, sit and think about it. I mean really think.

[rufuspaul]

I haven't even begun to launch my all-out intellectual assault on the nonsense that is religion. Still in the stages of amassing my intelligence arsenal.

I'm Christopher Hitchens 2.0 in the making.


You are God. I now pray to you 5 times a day. :bowdown:

[HardwoodLegend]

I was joking Rose...yeah I agree with all that...I am a theist that believes in the big bang/evolution/science in general/etc

the OP was awful though I mean come on...I mean, sit and think about it. I mean really think.

A theist of what sort, may I ask...

What is your "holy" book?

[HardwoodLegend]

You are God. I now pray to you 5 times a day. :bowdown:

I sympathize with your cloying need to bow down before some form of messianic leadership, but that is not what I seek.

Please rise to your feet and stand before me equally.

[Rasheed1]

Whenever see an overly zealous black woman talking about religion I can't help but think of oppression. I think about the slaves that were forced to convert to Christianity. What about the slaves that converted to Christianity thinking it would make them free? Then their captures came up with a new excuse as to why they could not be free (they had black skin)?

I can see why some people need religion. I see that it gives people comfort. However, it also makes people think they have rights over other people. Some people use it to justify violence or prejudice. Religion is fundamentally flawed because it divides people into groups. We're the good group, you're the bad one, we speak for god, you don't. You're wrong and you don't deserve help unless you accept our made up god.



+1

Religion also has great power to justify almost any action...

"Because God has commanded" is a very good reason to a religious person.

I go into black churches and see white jesus on the stained glass windows and in the pictures and I just :biggums:


:facepalm

[RoseCity07]

A theist of what sort, may I ask...

What is your "holy" book?

For a second I thought he meant deist. It is possible to believe in god and not follow any scriptures. I wonder if he means he believes in god in an Einsteinian way.

[rufuspaul]

I sympathize with your cloying need to bow down before some form of messianic leadership, but that is not what I seek.

Please rise to your feet and stand before me equally.


How can I stand before such a towering goliath of intellectual prowess and even begin to consider myself an equal?

[-p.tiddy-]

I believe in a higher power that doesn't exist in any books...it isn't rare, I'm just a spiritual person

http://near-death.com/experiences/research06.html

^^^ read some of that...that is me for the most part

[JEFFERSON MONEY]

+1

Religion also has great power to justify almost any action...

"Because God has commanded" is a very good reason to a religious person.

I go into black churches and see white jesus on the stained glass windows and in the pictures and I just :biggums:


:facepalm

:oldlol:

Didn't expect this response.

Thread was worth it.

[AK47DR91]

I was joking Rose...yeah I agree with all that...I am a theist that believes in the big bang/evolution/science in general/etc

the OP was awful though I mean come on...I mean, sit and think about it. I mean really think.
More people should be like this. Beliefs doesn't have to be black and white, "I'm right, you're wrong," kinda thing. What's works for some, might not for others.

The world would be so boring if everybody's the same.

[rufuspaul]

More people should be like this. Beliefs doesn't have to be black and white, "I'm right, you're wrong," kinda thing. What's works for some, might not for others.

The world would be so boring if everybody's the same.


Exactly. Religious leaders need to emphasize cooperation and understanding among the various world religions. Exploring the values/goals you have in common is much more helpful than focusing on the differences. I mean just look at me and J$. I have great respect for my Muslim brotha. :D

[Heavincent]

Agnosticism is the way to go.

[Patrick Chewing]

I believe in a higher power that doesn't exist in any books...it isn't rare, I'm just a spiritual person

http://near-death.com/experiences/research06.html

^^^ read some of that...that is me for the most part

+1

These past few months I've been really down in the dumps due to losing my job and just being stressed in general as a result of other things. While I was unemployed there was nothing for my mind to do but wander, and one of my biggest fears in life is the thought of death and dying and trying to satisfy man's curiosity of what happens next. The mere thought of not existing any longer and being in control of my actions, thoughts, etc, is haunting.

I began to read a lot about Religion and how many different civilizations, even the earliest ones always mention some form of deity and some form of afterlife. There is no escaping that fact. You will find God or Gods since the dawn of civilization. But that wasn't good enough for me. I needed PROOF. NDE's and the miraculous consistency of NDE accounts are what keep me sane at night. I was brought up Catholic and I could not tell you when the last time I went to church was, but I will tell you that I agree wholeheartedly in the comfort of knowing that if you do good in life and do good unto others and love others unconditionally, that there is a slight certainty that your spiritual self will continue to exist.

[-p.tiddy-]

+1

These past few months I've been really down in the dumps due to losing my job and just being stressed in general as a result of other things. While I was unemployed there was nothing for my mind to do but wander, and one of my biggest fears in life is the thought of death and dying and trying to satisfy man's curiosity of what happens next. The mere thought of not existing any longer and being in control of my actions, thoughts, etc, is haunting.

I began to read a lot about Religion and how many different civilizations, even the earliest ones always mention some form of deity and some form of afterlife. There is no escaping that fact. You will find God or Gods since the dawn of civilization. But that wasn't good enough for me. I needed PROOF. NDE's and the miraculous consistency of NDE accounts are what keep me sane at night. I was brought up Catholic and I could not tell you when the last time I went to church was, but I will tell you that I agree wholeheartedly in the comfort of knowing that if you do good in life and do good unto others and love others unconditionally, that there is a slight certainty that your spiritual self will continue to exist.
the more you read about NDEs, the more fascinating it can become...

are you familiar with Pam Reynolds?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pam_Reynolds_case

she had an NDE without brain waves, she was brain dead...more like her too, which disproves the idea that an NDE can be a "brain trip" or a "dream" of some sort that everyone has...(not that everyone having the same exact trip/dream when they flatline isn't weird enough)

[Patrick Chewing]

the more you read about NDEs, the more fascinating it can become...

are you familiar with Pam Reynolds?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pam_Reynolds_case

she had an NDE without brain waves, she was brain dead...more like her too, which disproves the idea that an NDE can be a "brain trip" or a "dream" of some sort that everyone has...(not that everyone having the same exact trip/dream when they flatline isn't weird enough)


Interesting case, even though the Wiki description mainly repudiates her experience. I will have to say though that the evidence is overwhelming in favor of NDE's being a real thing as is evident in this youtube clip of a presentation by Dr. Long, who wrote a book on his NDE findings. It's under half an hour, but it is amazing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIqKTE6jNmQ

[-p.tiddy-]

will watch...thx


there was a special on the History Channel called "Science of the Soul" that I missed that I need to check out too...

the fact that science has no idea how self awareness or how the human consciousness works is also fascinating...

everyone wants proof of a human spirit?...your consciousness is your spirit...the fact that you are self aware is all the proof you need...

[-p.tiddy-]

I need more...

Brains are cool though.
your consciousness is separate from your brain, and is capable of traveling outside your body...and there are thousands upon thousands of people that have experienced just that...(around 1 in 10 people)

look up "astral projection"

[millwad]

I do feel bad that people waste their life on something as made up as "God" and religion.

[miller-time]

Interesting case, even though the Wiki description mainly repudiates her experience. I will have to say though that the evidence is overwhelming in favor of NDE's being a real thing as is evident in this youtube clip of a presentation by Dr. Long, who wrote a book on his NDE findings. It's under half an hour, but it is amazing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIqKTE6jNmQ

it is interesting but pretty general. i am about half way through now. i want to know more about the case of resuscitation where the guy recognized the serial number on the defibrillator. he just mentions it and doesn't go into any detail. can someone find that case?

[Scoooter]

God is real, we just haven't built him yet.

[Patrick Chewing]

I do feel bad that people waste their life on something as made up as "God" and religion.


Nobody wastes their life on God or Religion. They make a choice like all of us make and choose to guide their life by that choice.

Don't pay attention to fundamentalists or radicals and if you have the time, look into other religious beliefs besides the more popular ones.

[miller-time]

Interesting case, even though the Wiki description mainly repudiates her experience. I will have to say though that the evidence is overwhelming in favor of NDE's being a real thing as is evident in this youtube clip of a presentation by Dr. Long, who wrote a book on his NDE findings. It's under half an hour, but it is amazing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIqKTE6jNmQ

i gave up on this video towards the end. there is little to no science involved. he is basically drawing conclusions based on correlations of anecdotal evidence. i will listen to NDE experts when they start trying to break their own hypotheses. that is science. he is making no attempt to falsify anything, he dismisses skeptic claims as if they are just flies hovering around his head. i hope his book sold well though...

[Patrick Chewing]

i gave up on this video towards the end. there is little to no science involved. he is basically drawing conclusions based on correlations of anecdotal evidence. i will listen to NDE experts when they start trying to break their own hypotheses. that is science. he is making no attempt to falsify anything, he dismisses skeptic claims as if they are just flies hovering around his head. i hope his book sold well though...


But science is not always the answer. I think the problem is we rely too much on the answers that science gives us, and time and time again science is proven incorrect in certain cases. We can't even pinpoint the cause and interpretation of dreams. I think in terms of Faith, Religion, and God, science has a lot of catching up to do.

[b1imtf]

I do feel bad that people waste their life on something as made up as "God" and religion.
:applause:

[daily]

I haven't even begun to launch my all-out intellectual assault on the nonsense that is religion. Still in the stages of amassing my intelligence arsenal.


No sh*t. I never would have known

[daily]

I do feel bad that people waste their life on something as made up as "God" and religion.Who are you to judge what is a waste of time or not when it concerns other people?

What might be a waste of time to you may be a valuable use of time to another person. Just because you don't believe in a god doesn't make it a waste of time to somebody who finds solace in a belief.

They might look at us posting on a message board and think "what a waste of time, those lost hours could have certainly been spent better" and they might be right.... :lol

Like I said earlier, I'm by no means a religious person but it cracks me up how much time non believers spend trying to convert or bring down those that do. It's almost become atheism has become a religion of it's own

[Jailblazers7]

I'm a bigger fan of Buddhist branches of religion like Zen. I like any religious ideas that are more focused on individual spirituality and enlightenment than arguing about the accuracy ancient dogmas. I definitely lean more toward athiesm but I can't deny the need for spiritual fufilment at times.

Either way, I'm fine with people celebrating/practicing religion peacefully and respectfully.

[RoseCity07]

+1

These past few months I've been really down in the dumps due to losing my job and just being stressed in general as a result of other things. While I was unemployed there was nothing for my mind to do but wander, and one of my biggest fears in life is the thought of death and dying and trying to satisfy man's curiosity of what happens next. The mere thought of not existing any longer and being in control of my actions, thoughts, etc, is haunting.

I began to read a lot about Religion and how many different civilizations, even the earliest ones always mention some form of deity and some form of afterlife. There is no escaping that fact. You will find God or Gods since the dawn of civilization. But that wasn't good enough for me. I needed PROOF. NDE's and the miraculous consistency of NDE accounts are what keep me sane at night. I was brought up Catholic and I could not tell you when the last time I went to church was, but I will tell you that I agree wholeheartedly in the comfort of knowing that if you do good in life and do good unto others and love others unconditionally, that there is a slight certainty that your spiritual self will continue to exist.


But you only fear not existing because you have that built into your brain as a survival mechanism. If people weren't afraid of death then we wouldn't take measures to insure our survival. Which means we wouldn't pass on our genes.

Think about it this way, you don't have any anxiety about where you were before this life, so why worry about what happens after this life? Maybe you do exist, but without your senses. The senses of sight, sound, smell, and touch have to do with our body.

If you don't exist, then you have no "self" to experience the nothingness. Anyway, I don't want to scare you, but NDE's can be explained as hallucinations in the mind. I don't think anyone can argue against the possibility of being reborn though. The proof is that you are here now. If you can be here no, then that means that you possibly came from nothing. So why couldn't you come from nothing again?

[miller-time]

But science is not always the answer. I think the problem is we rely too much on the answers that science gives us, and time and time again science is proven incorrect in certain cases. We can't even pinpoint the cause and interpretation of dreams. I think in terms of Faith, Religion, and God, science has a lot of catching up to do.

the entire premise of the video you put up was that it had some scientific merit, but now that i have said that it was scientifically weak you are saying that people rely too much on science. you can't have it both ways, you can't use science to backup your claim and then say science isn't necessary when it doesn't.

[Jailblazers7]

Honestly, I'm not all that afraid of death anymore. It used to terrify me but last year I was having some serious heath problems and thought it might be cancer (luckily it wasn't) and before I got an official diagnosis my mind was racing. The experience really forced me to sit down and sort out what I thought my life should be about and how I felt about illness/death if I were forced to go down that path. At some point, I made my piece with the idea of non-existence and I have felt kind of liberated ever since. Accepting that there is not some plan laid out by God behind every situation in life was in a way more liberating than believing in heavan.

[miller-time]

will watch...thx


there was a special on the History Channel called "Science of the Soul" that I missed that I need to check out too...

the fact that science has no idea how self awareness or how the human consciousness works is also fascinating...

everyone wants proof of a human spirit?...your consciousness is your spirit...the fact that you are self aware is all the proof you need...

but i could just say consciousness is a product of having a physical brain. we have always observed consciousness in brains, we have never observed it in anything without one. even the NDE or OBE people still have a physical brain in existence at the time of their event.

[Patrick Chewing]

the entire premise of the video you put up was that it had some scientific merit, but now that i have said that it was scientifically weak you are saying that people rely too much on science. you can't have it both ways, you can't use science to backup your claim and then say science isn't necessary when it doesn't.


I think it has scientific merit in showing that science still can't pinpoint a rational explanation for an NDE. Just as it can't pinpoint an explanation when we are asleep and are not conscious of our surroundings, yet we dream and create new imaginations, thoughts and scenarios. Science has not uncovered all the secrets to the human brain and I doubt it ever will. There will always be a gray area where people like myself leave it to divine creation or something else out of this world of reason.


Some of these cases should be researched again, I agree with you. But to have over 1500 or so cases eerily report the same exact thing over and over should be given plenty of credence. Seeing dead relatives?? Knowing things they otherwise wouldn't have known?? Very interesting testimony

[miller-time]

I think it has scientific merit in showing that science still can't pinpoint a rational explanation for an NDE. Just as it can't pinpoint an explanation when we are asleep and are not conscious of our surroundings, yet we dream and create new imaginations, thoughts and scenarios. Science has not uncovered all the secrets to the human brain and I doubt it ever will. There will always be a gray area where people like myself leave it to divine creation or something else out of this world of reason.

but he didn't even try to give a natural explanation for NDEs, he briefly mentions that there are skeptics out there but he didn't bother bringing up their arguments or even testing them himself. that is my biggest criticism of the supernatural NDE believers, they are happy to promote their ideas and they aren't overly dogmatic but they seem to lack a real interest in the truth. they don't challenge their beliefs, they just pick up the data and stories they like and ignore everything else.


Some of these cases should be researched again, I agree with you. But to have over 1500 or so cases eerily report the same exact thing over and over should be given plenty of credence. Seeing dead relatives?? Knowing things they otherwise wouldn't have known?? Very interesting testimony

i agree it is interesting and i don't doubt the sincerity of their stories but i just think jumping to supernatural explanations is too far. there is a lot more work to be done before i would even consider a supernatural explanation. why? because every time people have done that in the past they have shown to be wrong.

[DonDadda59]

I go into black churches and see white jesus on the stained glass windows and in the pictures and I just :biggums:


:facepalm

Sadly, one of the holdovers from the slavery era in America. It's conditioning that was literally beaten into their ancestors and passed down through generations.

[Edwin]

our whole universe was in a hot dense state, then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started. wait, the earth began to cool. the autotrophs began to drool. neanderthals developed tools. we built a wall, we built the pyramids. math, science, history, unraveling the mysteries. that all started with a the big bang.

[DonDadda59]

the fact that you are self aware is all the proof you need...

There's evidence that dolphins, certain apes, and other species have self-awareness. It's human narcissism that says our lives are worth more than a cockaroaches and we live forever because we're special. We're animals like all others. Do mice get to go to heaven (or I guess in your case, the 'astral plane' :D )? Are there T-rexes in paradise? What besides ego and fear says we live longer than our expiration dates unlike presumably everything else in 'creation'?

[Patrick Chewing]

but he didn't even try to give a natural explanation for NDEs, he briefly mentions that there are skeptics out there but he didn't bother bringing up their arguments or even testing them himself. that is my biggest criticism of the supernatural NDE believers, they are happy to promote their ideas and they aren't overly dogmatic but they seem to lack a real interest in the truth. they don't challenge their beliefs, they just pick up the data and stories they like and ignore everything else.



I think his mission and his research was just to showcase NDE's and how consistent they are across the board with each other. It's up to us to decipher if this is sufficient evidence or not of life after death. In the end, NDE's can't be explained or unexplained. It's left to our own interpretation. What we have though is a REAL phenomena that is happening to thousands of people across the globe. The truth is, we still don't know what the truth is because our minds are incapable of finding a logical answer for it at this point. And it is hard to fight that urge of seeking a logical explanation. Those of that mindset will never accept an answer such as, "God, Divine, or Unexplainable".

Very complex stuff and there are two positions that one can take. I think you in particular are trying to find reason and cause, while the other position (like mine i suppose) states that there is no reason or cause - it just simply is until otherwise proven.

[Rojogaqu11]

I think that all the technology that now allows us to inform ourselves about the state of the world not only in the present but through history, presents enough evidence of the pain and suffering that humanity has endured. All the world tries to find comfort and answers to that suffering in many places, and most of the world has chosen to believe in supernatural answers.
If it weren't for the realities of morality, life and death, and the search for purpose, then a non-spiritual answer would be more plausible. But even in these days where most of the scientific community promotes a more skeptic approach to these dilemmas, people still believe that humanity also possess a supernatural identity.

People are born and later they die, but most people wish that it wasn't as simple as that. If someone believes that people are born without a purpose, or that there aren't any universal moral truths, then why bother with concepts such as good and evil, justice and injustice, love and hate, etc.? After all, we are just chemistry, physics, and probability existing together.

That's why the question of "why religion?" is a question about ethics, and how plausible it's to have morality without some sort of religious belief at its core.

Here's a quote on the subject by Leo Tolstoy:

"The attempts to found a morality apart from religion are like the attempts of children who, wishing to transplant a flower that pleases them, pluck it from the roots that seem to them unpleasing and superfluous and stick it rootless into the ground. Without religion, there can be no real, sincere morality, just as without roots there can be no real flower."

Hope it helps.

[DonDadda59]

Hope it helps.

It does not sir. To which particular religion was Mr. Tolstoy referring?

[Rojogaqu11]

It does not sir. To which particular religion was Mr. Tolstoy referring?

I'm not sure that he had a particular religion in mind. It can apply to any spirituality because the point he tries to make is that man can try to define a personal worldview while ignoring spiritual reality, but then there comes the problem of ethical relativism.
This is like the child in his example because someone who ignores that a plant has a life source is like a man who tries to shape a life for himself while dismissing the need for a defined set of values, and instead places hope in the limitations of his own ever-changing experience, what he considers desirable, etc.. In other words, the flower is good but without soil it cannot continue to live, likewise morality without a source of absolute truth is like a man trying to be "good" without adhering to a particular standard of universal morality that can define what "good" is.

As Dostoyevsky would say: "If God doesn't exist, everything is permissible."

I hope this answers your question. Cheers. :cheers:

[miller-time]

As Dostoyevsky would say: "If God doesn't exist, everything is permissible."

everything is permissible regardless of whether god exists or not - it just depends on whether you are willing to accept the consequences of your actions. in both cases behaving in a negative way has ramifications. if you go around killing people and god doesn't exist you're still gonna have a bad time. even if you get away with it you will always be looking over your shoulder, but if you are caught you will lose your freedom and maybe even (depending on where you live) your life. but worse than that you will destroy personal relationships and be ostracized by your community. that is why things like murder are bad even though there is no supernatural authority. we are born into a social species and as a result of that the most comforting and enjoyable experience is achieved by behaving appropriately with the species. going against the species won't get you very far.

[Rojogaqu11]

everything is permissible regardless of whether god exists or not - it just depends on whether you are willing to accept the consequences of your actions. in both cases behaving in a negative way has ramifications. if you go around killing people and god doesn't exist you're still gonna have a bad time. even if you get away with it you will always be looking over your shoulder, but if you are caught you will lose your freedom and maybe even (depending on where you live) your life. but worse than that you will destroy personal relationships and be ostracized by your community. that is why things like murder are bad even though there is no supernatural authority. we are born into a social species and as a result of that the most comforting and enjoyable experience is achieved by behaving appropriately with the species. going against the species won't get you very far.

But who are we to say what is "negative"?
I don't mean to take your opinion out of context, so I hope I don't seem that way, but I think that the belief in a supernatural authority answers directly the question about what is negative or positive.
It doesn't merely concern itself with the utilitarian aspects of the definition but it also takes account of what is right and what is wrong.

Another point aside is that if I obtain personal gain through 'negative' acts, I'm still enjoying a 'good' time as a fact, but the 'negative' consequences may or may not follow the 'negative' acts unless there's a clear and well-defined retribution for my actions.
By observing history we come to know that people have committed very negative acts while enjoying a life full of health, comfort, power, fame, etc. and maybe they died of old age, or they were killed, but those negatives have happened to both 'good' and 'bad' people. So it's not a rule that negative consequences follow negative acts, at least in the context of a naturalistic worldview. Without a real reward or retribution for the actions of humanity, there's no real obligation for 'good' or altruism because whatever our actions... we live, we die, and that's that.
Maybe these evil persons allowed many others to live through unspeakable sufferings, or maybe they killed infants, effectively denying them the chance to either enjoy or suffer through life. So the question comes down to the nature of the human species which has never never as whole rejected the allures of power.

This is why your last sentence in a sense is so very true: 'Going against your species won't get you very far'. It's true, we are social, but to what extent? Can our influence transcend the innate human condition? So the answer is not that we go against our species or act negative because we are irrational, but even while being rational beings, we succumb to negative acts because our nature is in that way.

In a world where oppression, murder, rape, theft, an every other negative act that humans commit toward their own species many times goes unpunished, and those who suffer through others' actions many times die without finding justice, there's a valid reason why many find a sensible hope in the belief of a supernatural authority that brings that final justice and order.

[-p.tiddy-]

There's evidence that dolphins, certain apes, and other species have self-awareness. It's human narcissism that says our lives are worth more than a cockaroaches and we live forever because we're special. We're animals like all others. Do mice get to go to heaven (or I guess in your case, the 'astral plane' :D )? Are there T-rexes in paradise? What besides ego and fear says we live longer than our expiration dates unlike presumably everything else in 'creation'?
I agree, I myself believe every single living creature has a spirit/soul...from plants to even single celled organisms...this is the belief that many NDEers share

the level or how advanced your spirit is can differ though...just like how advanced the life is here on Earth...it's the same thing



edit...reincarnation is also big with NDEers...so yes, mice/**** roach/t-rex/etc all have spirits...but they are not nearly as advanced, BUT reincarnation will advance them...an eternity is a very long time you know, so your spirit Don could have lived out the lives of 1,000,000 mice to get to the point that you are at currently.

[-p.tiddy-]

but i could just say consciousness is a product of having a physical brain. we have always observed consciousness in brains, we have never observed it in anything without one. even the NDE or OBE people still have a physical brain in existence at the time of their event.
and that would just be a guess on your part...


if you created a computer program that functioned just like the human brain does, it would still be lifeless...it would have no consciousness

[Is He Ill]

There's evidence that dolphins, certain apes, and other species have self-awareness. It's human narcissism that says our lives are worth more than a cockaroaches and we live forever because we're special. We're animals like all others. Do mice get to go to heaven (or I guess in your case, the 'astral plane' :D )? Are there T-rexes in paradise? What besides ego and fear says we live longer than our expiration dates unlike presumably everything else in 'creation'?

This is all I think of when I hear people blabbing about an afterlife.

[HardwoodLegend]

http://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.4024904.1348240959!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/display_600/image.jpg

After further review the ruling is that there is no God, explained by OP’s logical and sharp argumentation. Therefore, religious sheeps will get negged and forced to stop and just think.

:lol

I change my mind. I'm no longer going to pursue the filling of Christopher Hitchens' shoes.

1. I'm probably not smart enough.
2. No matter how strong or logical of an argument you make, you're not going to overcome the "mysteriousness of God" cop-out. Hitchens did about as good of a job as you can do while he was here, and I'm not sure how much of an impact he really made.

I want so badly to free people, but maybe most of them don't need freeing at all.

[miller-time]

But who are we to say what is "negative"?
I don't mean to take your opinion out of context, so I hope I don't seem that way, but I think that the belief in a supernatural authority answers directly the question about what is negative or positive.
It doesn't merely concern itself with the utilitarian aspects of the definition but it also takes account of what is right and what is wrong.

to me right and wrong are merely correct and incorrect species dependent behaviors - it is solely utilitarian. there is no true or objective right and wrong because everything is contextual and there are an infinite number of contexts that events can happen in. i have to admit philosophy is hardly my strong suit so i probably have a fair superficial opinion of this issue.


Another point aside is that if I obtain personal gain through 'negative' acts, I'm still enjoying a 'good' time as a fact, but the 'negative' consequences may or may not follow the 'negative' acts unless there's a clear and well-defined retribution for my actions.
By observing history we come to know that people have committed very negative acts while enjoying a life full of health, comfort, power, fame, etc. and maybe they died of old age, or they were killed, but those negatives have happened to both 'good' and 'bad' people. So it's not a rule that negative consequences follow negative acts, at least in the context of a naturalistic worldview. Without a real reward or retribution for the actions of humanity, there's no real obligation for 'good' or altruism because whatever our actions... we live, we die, and that's that.
Maybe these evil persons allowed many others to live through unspeakable sufferings, or maybe they killed infants, effectively denying them the chance to either enjoy or suffer through life. So the question comes down to the nature of the human species which has never never as whole rejected the allures of power.

true, but at the population level i'm sure (although i don't have the statistics to back me up) the majority of those people who act negatively will have pretty bad lives. there will always be outliers, but generally negative behaviour leads to negative consequences - both in regards to the individual and the society as a whole. even if the individual is having a ball the people around him/her aren't.


This is why your last sentence in a sense is so very true: 'Going against your species won't get you very far'. It's true, we are social, but to what extent? Can our influence transcend the innate human condition? So the answer is not that we go against our species or act negative because we are irrational, but even while being rational beings, we succumb to negative acts because our nature is in that way.

i'll respond to this point later because i think it is interesting and deserves more time.


In a world where oppression, murder, rape, theft, an every other negative act that humans commit toward their own species many times goes unpunished, and those who suffer through others' actions many times die without finding justice, there's a valid reason why many find a sensible hope in the belief of a supernatural authority that brings that final justice and order.

i understand the desire for belief but availability of punishment doesn't have a bearing on whether right and wrong exist. can't they exist even if there is no one doing the judging?

[Rojogaqu11]

to me right and wrong are merely correct and incorrect species dependent behaviors - it is solely utilitarian. there is no true or objective right and wrong because everything is contextual and there are an infinite number of contexts that events can happen in. i have to admit philosophy is hardly my strong suit so i probably have a fair superficial opinion of this issue.

Yeah. I understand that context is important and that's why I find it interesting that we would use humanity as the measuring standard for all consequences, because in a worldview that denies spiritual reality it all comes down to us as the dominant species determining what's good and wrong. In other words, from that standpoint, we have no use of another authority other than ourselves. We are god because we are dominant. I want to touch on your other comment so I can connect it with what I'm trying to say.



true, but at the population level i'm sure (although i don't have the statistics to back me up) the majority of those people who act negatively will have pretty bad lives. there will always be outliers, but generally negative behaviour leads to negative consequences - both in regards to the individual and the society as a whole. even if the individual is having a ball the people around him/her aren't.

In a naturalistic worldview we reap the benefits of the universe for our survival and enjoyment because we can and we must. If there is no higher authority than us, we determine what is positive because of how it affects us, but at the same time we believe that humanity is just a species that has come to the top of the food chain by chance. There's no creator, no collective purpose in humanity other than to remain at the top. If this were true, what gives us the 'right' to rule over other life forms for our self-determinant advantage? Is it just our power that gives us the moral authority? If there were other more advanced species than humans in the universe, would they have the right to rule over us if they chose to? What obligation would they have to further our current interests if these conflicted with theirs? (Do we even have autonomy? right of freedom?)The same happens in a worldview where even fellow humans fight over control, and if their context allows it, they climb to the top.

So (I hope I didn't miss the point) connecting your comments, if right and wrong are solely utilitarian, within the context of species dependent morality, we find a harsh reality where concepts like love, forgiveness, the intrinsic value of human life, etc. become contradictory and have no place in it.
And we are talking about general ideas because if we had to think about specific problems of the world and humanity, how could we use a solely utilitarian morality to approach issues like overpopulation, world hunger, Speciesism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism), conflicts between nations or political powers, etc.?

I hope my viewpoint seems clear. I understand that this is not enough to convince anyone but I wanted to at least provide some thought into why I consider faith-based beliefs reasonable for many people. Not that I agree with every religion, (that would be absurd) and I can only speak as someone who's trying to be more Christian than in the past.

[Jackass18]

Whenever see an overly zealous black woman talking about religion I can't help but think of oppression. I think about the slaves that were forced to convert to Christianity. What about the slaves that converted to Christianity thinking it would make them free? Then their captures came up with a new excuse as to why they could not be free (they had black skin)?

I can see why some people need religion. I see that it gives people comfort. However, it also makes people think they have rights over other people. Some people use it to justify violence or prejudice. Religion is fundamentally flawed because it divides people into groups. We're the good group, you're the bad one, we speak for god, you don't. You're wrong and you don't deserve help unless you accept our made up god.

It's really sad. Not all religions are like this, but the most popular ones have slowed the progress of humanity. I think it would be better if people could just keep their religions to themselves and not have it affect how they treat other people.

Odd how some people think that other people's religion doesn't concern them. Maybe in a rather minor sense, but they're being ignorant to the grand scale of things.

[Jackass18]

will watch...thx


there was a special on the History Channel called "Science of the Soul" that I missed that I need to check out too...

the fact that science has no idea how self awareness or how the human consciousness works is also fascinating...

everyone wants proof of a human spirit?...your consciousness is your spirit...the fact that you are self aware is all the proof you need...

So, Skynet develops a spirit in the Terminator series?

[Jackass18]

Yeah. I understand that context is important and that's why I find it interesting that we would use humanity as the measuring standard for all consequences, because in a worldview that denies spiritual reality it all comes down to us as the dominant species determining what's good and wrong. In other words, from that standpoint, we have no use of another authority other than ourselves. We are god because we are dominant. I want to touch on your other comment so I can connect it with what I'm trying to say.

Who or what should we use as the measuring standard? There's no proof of God's authority. You're going by the word of man.


Is it just our power that gives us the moral authority? If there were other more advanced species than humans in the universe, would they have the right to rule over us if they chose to?

He who holds the gold makes the rules. I don't think it would matter if they had the right or not. Do we have the right? I don't think humans are equipped enough to be the final authority on morality, and there's no God decreeing what is right and wrong, so we just hope that the people in charge make the right decisions for the future. Right or wrong, we make the rules because we have the power to do so. One does not need God to have sincere morality, though. Empathy for example. I've read that empathy and morality are hardwired into your brain.


And we are talking about general ideas because if we had to think about specific problems of the world and humanity, how could we use a solely utilitarian morality to approach issues like overpopulation, world hunger, Speciesism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism), conflicts between nations or political powers, etc.?

Do you want the world to become a better place? Do you want the advancement of your species? You don't need God for those things. Quite frankly, I'm not sure we can make things work on such a large scale. Perhaps if we dig deeper into the brain and understand things better, we'll start finding answers, though it could lead to some dangerous stuff like brainwashing.


As Dostoyevsky would say: "If God doesn't exist, everything is permissible."

Free will makes everything permissible.

[Rojogaqu11]

I thought there wasn't anymore interest in this thread, good thing I checked the second page, so.. thanks for joining the conversation.


Who or what should we use as the measuring standard? There's no proof of God's authority. You're going by the word of man.

Proof is a big word to use in this context. We all have the same evidence and we make our deductions from our own assumptions. Some believe in the metaphysical and some don't. People choose to believe many things when the evidence seems valid to them personally, or at least when it warrants to be considered. We all have to deal with the information we receive from other people, so it's up to us to live with the choices we make with that knowledge.
So, if I believe that God has revealed his will to mankind, then that information that I accept as revelation, becomes the foundation of my morality. But someone who, for example, chooses to make his or her own personal experience as the measuring standard for a universal morality reveals the problem of egotism in humanity.


He who holds the gold makes the rules. I don't think it would matter if they had the right or not. Do we have the right? I don't think humans are equipped enough to be the final authority on morality, and there's no God decreeing what is right and wrong, so we just hope that the people in charge make the right decisions for the future. Right or wrong, we make the rules because we have the power to do so. One does not need God to have sincere morality, though. Empathy for example. I've read that empathy and morality are hardwired into your brain.

I think you're very close to sharing my point of view because the only difference we have is that you don't believe there is a God decreeing what is right from wrong and I do believe there is. But if I shared to you what I believe about that God, then it becomes a matter of accepting or rejecting that information. Then, because we agree that humans are not equipped to be the final authority but still (within this example) make the rules because of their unchallenged power, also too other higher beings would have authority over us.
We agree, but I believe that higher being to be the one revealed through the person of Jesus Christ and through scripture, and we could talk more about it to see why I believe so.


Do you want the world to become a better place? Do you want the advancement of your species? You don't need God for those things. Quite frankly, I'm not sure we can make things work on such a large scale. Perhaps if we dig deeper into the brain and understand things better, we'll start finding answers, though it could lead to some dangerous stuff like brainwashing.


I see what you're saying but we would have to define what the world would be as a better place and how the species can be improved. This is a shared interest for most of the world, but we should first examine where we stand now before coming to the conclusion that we don't need God to do it.
It could even be that after, as you said, we understand things better, we will finally come to the conclusion that we do really need God. I don't think that will really happen, but I just say it to give us a picture of where our hope lies without a higher authority.
From this we come back to the issue of morality because even though there's hope for the better understanding of humanity through the advancement of science, we still find ourselves questioning if those answers (as you say) will also lead to the danger of such knowledge being placed in our hands. It brings us to a full circle by revealing those issues about our human nature, good and evil, right and wrong, etc.


Free will makes everything permissible.

Sorry. I should've emphasized the context of that quote.

[nightprowler10]

I don't think the big bang theory being proved puts an end to the discussion. It's just a starting place for an even bigger discussion
This. Words right out of my mouth etc.

[-p.tiddy-]

http://gma.yahoo.com/heaven-real-saw-scientist-says-183522717--abc-news-health.html

Tiddy boi will like this.

Guy seems completely full of shit to me though.
He isn't full of shit though, at least he 100% believes what he is saying is true...

it's called an NDE, he had one...while brain dead too



I have never once read of an NDEer say "what happened to me could have been a dream or a brain trip of some sort"...they are ALWAYS convinced what they experienced was real, and there is no one that can convince them otherwise.

[-p.tiddy-]

:oldlol: You don't think there's a chance he's making it up?

Also it didn't say anywhere he was brain dead. Just his brain was damaged and he was in a coma.
No, there is little chance he is making it up...after you flat line in a hospital and barely make it out alive your first thought isn't "hey I'm going to make up a lie now!"...it's also the same story told by thousands just like him.

it's a lot different than someone saying they saw aliens for example, which any of us could do...for an NDEer to lie, he first has to have actually been dead in a hospital...


and there was this in the article:


Brain scans showed his entire cortex -- the parts of the brain that give us consciousness, thought, memory and understanding -- was not functioning.

it doesn't say he didn't have brain waves, but it does say he couldn't have had a rational thought...

[-p.tiddy-]

okay, MAYBE his first thought after flatlining in a hospital and almost dying was to lie to everyone just for shits and giggles...lol




but I seriously doubt it



And even if he did experience it, how does he or anyone know when he had the vision? Maybe he had the vision as he was coming out of the coma and was regaining brain activity?

in most NDEs they describe things that happened in the room, what doctors said, etc at certain times or in other rooms in the hospital even, what family memebers where saying and doing in the hospital cafe...not sure if that happened here though

[-p.tiddy-]

from the article:



Alexander isn't fazed at all by the skeptics. He was one, too.

"For me, it's become clear that the best way to look at it is to turn it around and realize that consciousness exists in a much richer form, free and independent of the brain, which has everything to do with the eternity of our souls and the fact that our awareness, our consciousness, our soul, our spirit, does not depend on the existence of the brain in the physical universe. In fact, it's freed up to a much richer knowing when we're outside."


^^^ that is exactly what I was saying earlier in this thread concerning our consciousness

[miller-time]

in most NDEs they describe things that happened in the room, what doctors said, etc at certain times or in other rooms in the hospital even, what family memebers where saying and doing in the hospital cafe...not sure if that happened here though

have you heard of confirmation bias and the idea that if you repeat a lie enough you believe it? now i'm not saying they are lying purposefully, i'm pretty sure they are being sincere in their beliefs but it doesn't mean they are true.

if they accurately describe something then they will keep that piece of information in their story, if they don't they will chalk it up to a misunderstanding or misremembering and then dismiss it. but not only will they keep the parts of their story that are accurate, but they will also expand the significance and accuracy of the story because of feedback. for instance; if a person says "i left my body and heard a conversation my parents were having in another room, they were talking about my daughter." then the parents say "yes, we were talking about how your daughter will have to move in with us while you were in hospital." then the person who had the NDE might say to a 3rd person "i left my body and i heard my parents talking about how my daughter needed to move in with them while i was in hospital." at no point is anyone actively trying to deceive, but through various psychological processes they begin to develop a story that is far more descriptive and "accurate" than it originally was.

the point is that despite their sincerity and active belief, it doesn't make it true. this type of anecdotal evidence isn't evidence of anything beyond the fact that when people have traumatic and go through the early stages of dying they experience some type of extraordinary perception of the world around them - however whether the world is the real world or an imagined world or a combination of both we don't know.

personally i am not saying i believe you are wrong, i just think that the evidence i've been given is not anywhere definitive enough to justify the belief in souls or the afterlife.

[rufuspaul]

This thread is still going on? Haven't we already determined that:

1. All religion is bogus
2. The 14-20 year old ISH posters obviously know much more than the 2000 + years of religious scholars.
3. Your momma.

[Is He Ill]

Your momma

http://oi53.tinypic.com/2yltjjl.jpg

[PullupJay]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/397910_10150509568762775_1022305509_n.jpg

[Jailblazers7]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/397910_10150509568762775_1022305509_n.jpg

So according to this analogy everyone that dies is just God aborting them?

[miller-time]

So according to this analogy everyone that dies is just God aborting them?

it's worse than that because the analogy doesn't apply to anything. 1. the babies can physically test that the mother is there through their senses, and 2. there is continuity of the physical self between pre-birth and after-birth.

if you replaced mother with house and birth with going outside it really highlights how stupid the analogy is. is there life once i leave this room? do you believe in the house? nah i don't believe those things, i'm an atheist. i mean, have you even seen the house?

[bmulls]

Religion is often childish, and then demonization of religion by many atheists is equally as childish. All in all, people both relgious and non religious are stupid.

Agreed. When I was younger I was vehemently anti religion, I just couldn't understand how anybody could look at the evidence and still believe. As I've gotten older I've really stopped worrying about it. I will speak out when people try to force their religion on other people or violate separation of church and state, but other than that I say live and let live.

[-p.tiddy-]

have you heard of confirmation bias and the idea that if you repeat a lie enough you believe it? now i'm not saying they are lying purposefully, i'm pretty sure they are being sincere in their beliefs but it doesn't mean they are true.

if they accurately describe something then they will keep that piece of information in their story, if they don't they will chalk it up to a misunderstanding or misremembering and then dismiss it. but not only will they keep the parts of their story that are accurate, but they will also expand the significance and accuracy of the story because of feedback. for instance; if a person says "i left my body and heard a conversation my parents were having in another room, they were talking about my daughter." then the parents say "yes, we were talking about how your daughter will have to move in with us while you were in hospital." then the person who had the NDE might say to a 3rd person "i left my body and i heard my parents talking about how my daughter needed to move in with them while i was in hospital." at no point is anyone actively trying to deceive, but through various psychological processes they begin to develop a story that is far more descriptive and "accurate" than it originally was.

the point is that despite their sincerity and active belief, it doesn't make it true. this type of anecdotal evidence isn't evidence of anything beyond the fact that when people have traumatic and go through the early stages of dying they experience some type of extraordinary perception of the world around them - however whether the world is the real world or an imagined world or a combination of both we don't know.

personally i am not saying i believe you are wrong, i just think that the evidence i've been given is not anywhere definitive enough to justify the belief in souls or the afterlife.
In many cases they are able to describe the events that happened in GREAT DETAIL to the people...for instance there is a case a woman who was in a coma for weeks, flat lined in and out constantly during her coma and was able to tell her parents what they were wearing every day, where they walked during certain times....not even in the same room either, in the hospital cafeteria where her body wasn't even located...

she said something like "Then grandma said "this" and put her head down on the table while crying while saying "that"..."I was there right next to you guys I saw everything"...etc

family: *jaw drops* "yes that is exactly right"

when it goes into that depth of detail it goes beyond what you are describing....