TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Sex & Love
Pages (4): « 1 2 3 [4]

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter With regards to Judeo-Christian-Islamic theology, I am a strong atheist. But I am an agnostic in that I cannot rule out the possibility that something exists which someone, somewhere, might call (a) "God."

Gotcha.

quote:

If Christian theology is to be believed, I disagree that we have free will. What freedom is there to will when you can be punished for your choices? Does "free speech" exist when you are free to speak your mind but must face the consequences of being executed if the government doesn't like what you say? No, it doesn't, and neither does free will exist when you are free to act as you will but must face the consequences of condemnation if God doesn't like what you do. If God existed then we would be little more than slaves subject to his will. The mundane "free will" we would have left would be comparable to the freedom a prison inmate has to decide when to use the toilet. I'm glad I don't live a universe like that. I live in a universe where I am genuinely free to make the decisions that really matter in life. I am geniunely free to decide what I think is right and wrong on whatever basis I see fit. I can live my life by any philosophy I choose without the fear that some pseudo-benevolent God will punish me for refusing to conform with his narrow vision of a life worth living. To me, that is the very essence of a free life: a life where you aren't merely a sheep blindly following a supposedly righteous idol.

I see your point of view. I disagree, however. You say "If God existed then we would be little more than slaves are subject to his will." - No. It is proof at this very moment against that, according to what I believe in. God exists, right now, and you choose to not believe in God. Are you a sheep? No. Am I? No. I have the free will to choose whether to believe or not believe in God. I understand this is circular logic - I am just explaining how I see it, from the other side of the fence.

quote:

But how righteous could this idol which demands your blind faith really be? It has provided you with no objective standard by which to determine that blind faith in it - as opposed to blind faith in any other amont innumerable and possibly infinite alternatives - is the correct decision. Then, if you choose to place your faith elsewhere, you are to be punished, even though you weren't given any reliable reason to believe in any one of the options over another. In essence, under such a God your life is a mere cast of the dice. You have no way to know what to have faith in, and if you don't pick exactly the right thing you lose. Such policies aren't righteous, they are sadistic. How can one believe in such a universe or such a God?

I've always liked an Aristotle quote for this type of question: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -- As you read that, you say - Hey! That's me! -- But is it? I think if you truely look at religion with an open mind (it's hard, I know) - you will feel something - you will have an "experience" - that can only be described as supernatural. I used to be on the opposite side of the table, and some of me still is (I disagree with a lot of things originized religion stand for and do) - but my point is - if you've honestly let go of self pride and self-appointed chairs of intellectual superiority and given religion and God a chance - you will know.

As for not believing in one or the other... I study Eastern religions (mainly Daoism, venturing into Buddhism next) - and I consider myself a Christian. I think God promotes an open thinking and understanding of things, it's man who has construed societies "believe in this religion or DIE!" type of attitude.

quote:

You've missed the point entirely. I don't have anything against pleasure or desire, but they are small matters compared to what we would lose if we were merely God's toys. In a universe under God, what you want for yourself is always secondary to what God wants for you. What you think you ought to do is secondary to what God wants you to do. You do not own yourself, you are merely a piece of God's property: a slave, a puppet, a mere object. It would be better to be a stone if you ask me: at least the stone is an object incapable of realizing that it is merely an object. To be human in a universe under God: I can think of little worse!

You are right. In the universe I live in, what God wants for you does come first. However, at least in my logic, what God wants for me is what I want for me as well. You say I am a slave, a puppet - I disagree and consider myself a servant. I serve but I also enjoy the world that God has put me on. God didn't make slaves and puppets, he made free-willed humans that can CHOOSE to embrace him or not embrace him.

You say... to be a human in a universe under God: I can think of little worse!

Well, I say... to be a human in your universe, one where everything we do is for no greater good, for no divine purpose - only to live and die - souls and personalities and dreams and love all washed away by the mortal coil, never to be remembered or seen again - I can think of no worse way to live.

quote:

I don't murder and don't steal for a variety of reasons, the least of which are fear of punishment and conscience. Conscience is little more than a little basic anthropology: I have assimilated from those around me a basic conception of what is considered "right" and "wrong." Were I less intelligent, I might think those acts were inherently right or wrong. But as I am aware that I am only inclined to view them as such due to the prevalance of that opinion, and because I know that such arguments from popular opinion is fallacious reasoning I place little value on those instincts. Similarly, while I am not eager to face punishment for crimes, I would not allow that alone to deter me as it is also fallacious reasoning (argumentum ad baculum).

Interesting self-appointed intelligence factor here. Pride is a funny thing, isn't it?

If you live your life on the what society deems "right" and "wrong" - isn't it a bit hypocritical coming from someone who has deemed themselves smarter than over 95% of the world? I mean hell, with of these religious nuts making up laws and such... why can't you, the self-appointed intellectual superior of every religious person out there, make better laws? Why not ask *yourself* - who is smarter than the rest - what *you* think is right and wrong? Perhaps you and other humanist/atheist persons could form your own utopian community, far away from the primitive religious nutjobs that are running the world today?

/rant off

quote:

Instead, the foremost reason why I avoid crimes such as murder or theft is that I simply do not want to partake in them. To me, they represent a failure in one's own ability to be self-sufficient and self-empowered. If I must steal to obtain those things that I want, it means that I am probably unable to obtain them through my own efforts and must exploit others in order to do so. And if I kill someone for no reason but mere spite, it means I was so much weaker than them mentally or psychologically that they influenced me to such a degree as to resort to such an act. My ego simply will not allow me to pursue either course.

Interesting way at looking at life... I'll leave at that.

quote:

I respect beliefs which are well-founded, and I respect opinions regardless of their origin. I have no quarrel with the moral opinions of believers - though I may have a problem with the actions they take as a result of those opinions. However I feel an obligation as a member of the human species to endeavor to assist other humans in living more fulfilling lives: a goal to which, in my view, blind faith is an obstacle. I perceive the belief in itself to be harmful, like a disease no only in that it harms the individual who has it but also able to spread from one person to another - particularly people in a weakened mental state such as the seriously ill or young children. That is, precisely, why I do not respect it.

In this we're in partial agreement. I also have problems with the actions taken as a result of our beliefs.

In your pursuit of making others lives "more fulfilling" - you're really fighting a losing battle. If you're right - and religion is untrue - it is of no importance. It is simply a way people live their lives and are happy with. It's if it is true - then it is of major importance. Don't take that away from people.

On this topic - do you believe your outlook on life (what I consider a "humanistic" view") - is healthy for society? If our own moral and ethical principles are based on nothing more than what the society "norm" is? What is our greater purpose? What moral and ethical baseline do we use?

It saddens me to see more and more people taking this philosophical outlook on life... but I'm curious to hear what you have to say.

quote:

It is true that many people do not want to be assisted in this manner. Most alcoholics and others suffering from addiction do not see their condition as a problem and do not want to be helped either. But faith seems to me very much like an addiction: a serious and adverse condition which, if you can, you ought to assist someone in overcoming.

A neo-Darwinian crusader. You're a piece of work, Arbiter. Respectfully, of course.

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Julia I was just talking to my manager about sex before marriage. She is Christian, very religious. She was telling me how it's not right to have sex b4 marriage, and all that other religion crap. It made me feel a little guily... but damn... we are human! If sex makes a person feel better, I don't see why we "shouldn't" do it (as long as we are safe and not hurting anyone in the process)!!!!

You identified the reason why most people follow religious principles, guilt.

This is the main tool used by religious organisations in keeping followers. Human beings are sexual creatures, we enjoy having sex, scientists can confirm this on a chemical level and psychologists can confirm this on an emotional level.

Being inventing an imaginary place called hell religions do well in making people live in fear by doing what feels natural. It is natural that when you develop feelings for someone, and are attracted to them, and you get those butterflies in your stomach when you think of them, the natural progression is to share more intimate occasions together. But if people did what they felt was natural and right, then relgions would have no power over people.

Where these stupid rules always show as being stupid is when you realise that most religious people if they don't have sex, and if they have the opportunity, and fall in love, will do some form of intimacy with the other person. And I don't see the difference, if there was a god watching, between petting and sex, apart from one being more satisfying. Even most people in powerful positions in these churches that people hold so dear often do the exact opposite thing they preach against.

You will find that the only people that stick to these stupid laws are those that have no-one to snuggle up with at night, those that don't have passion in their lives, and those that have little real life experience.

Don't let someone that has probably had quite a shit life, try and tell you how to run yours.

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil I see your point of view. I disagree, however. You say "If God existed then we would be little more than slaves are subject to his will." - No. It is proof at this very moment against that, according to what I believe in. God exists, right now, and you choose to not believe in God. Are you a sheep? No. Am I? No. I have the free will to choose whether to believe or not believe in God. I understand this is circular logic - I am just explaining how I see it, from the other side of the fence.

You seem to have an odd view of freedom. You're right that even if God exists, I do not believe in him. But that does not equate to me being free to not believe in him because if he does exist and I don't believe in him then he will punish me. In any serious political or philosophical discussion I think it's rather misleading to call someone "free" to do something which they will be punished for. Free speech doesn't exist when you are punished for speech that authority doesn't like, free religion doesn't exist where you are punished for belief other than authority deems proper, and free will doesn't exist where you are punished for certain behavior. If God punishes those who don't live life according to his will, then free will simply don't exist and God is, at best, a tyrant.

quote:

I've always liked an Aristotle quote for this type of question: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -- As you read that, you say - Hey! That's me! -- But is it? I think if you truely look at religion with an open mind (it's hard, I know) - you will feel something - you will have an "experience" - that can only be described as supernatural. I used to be on the opposite side of the table, and some of me still is (I disagree with a lot of things originized religion stand for and do) - but my point is - if you've honestly let go of self pride and self-appointed chairs of intellectual superiority and given religion and God a chance - you will know.

I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but what you're experiencing is a highly natural emotional response and has been experienced by billions of people with reference to thousands (if not more) different types of beliefs.

There's a big difference between having an open mind and blindly believing in something based on some abstract feeling. It would be pretty difficult in today's society not to entertain the idea that God might exist and guess what: millions of people have entertained the idea and haven't felt anything more profound than a little indigestion, myself included. A world full of people so eager to have faith would be a cult leader or con artist's utopia. A little skepticism is not only healthy, it's pretty much a necessity.

quote:

As for not believing in one or the other... I study Eastern religions (mainly Daoism, venturing into Buddhism next) - and I consider myself a Christian. I think God promotes an open thinking and understanding of things, it's man who has construed societies "believe in this religion or DIE!" type of attitude.

Well according to the New Testament the only way to Heaven is through Jesus Christ, and if you don't end up in Heaven you're going to end up in Hell. So if you believe in a God who promotes open thinking, you might want to consider the possibility that you aren't really a Christian after all.

quote:

You are right. In the universe I live in, what God wants for you does come first. However, at least in my logic, what God wants for me is what I want for me as well. You say I am a slave, a puppet - I disagree and consider myself a servant. I serve but I also enjoy the world that God has put me on. God didn't make slaves and puppets, he made free-willed humans that can CHOOSE to embrace him or not embrace him.

I wouldn't disagree that you're a servant. But, again, you aren't genuinely free as to whether or not to be a servant. Therefore you are, by definition, a slave.

quote:

You say... to be a human in a universe under God: I can think of little worse! Well, I say... to be a human in your universe, one where everything we do is for no greater good, for no divine purpose - only to live and die - souls and personalities and dreams and love all washed away by the mortal coil, never to be remembered or seen again - I can think of no worse way to live.

Such cynicism, I can see why Nietzsche thought of Christian faith as the ultimate act of self-hate. You are not a great enough good for your own life? You must have a low opinion of yourself. I for one would rather be an end in myself than a means to an end: but you disagree? You must be someone else's tool because you can't accept the responsibility of creating your own purpose.

Yes, your life will come to an end, memories will fade. You cannot exist forever: if you did your existence would be meaningless - that's simple supply and demand. It is precisely because existence is so ephemeral that it is so valuable.

Self-loathing and insecurity, only those who possess these traits could find God's universe attractive. An ideology symptomatic of a greater inability to appreciate oneself: just as I said, it is a malaise to be purged. Only then, can you genuinely be free and live for yourself.

quote:

Interesting self-appointed intelligence factor here. Pride is a funny thing, isn't it?

I tried to believe I wasn't smarter than all those other people. But they kept proving me wrong. Yet, you religious folk seem to have a talent for self-deprecation: perhaps you could teach me? Then perhaps I could be humble without being disingenuous.

quote:

If you live your life on the what society deems "right" and "wrong" - isn't it a bit hypocritical coming from someone who has deemed themselves smarter than over 95% of the world? I mean hell, with of these religious nuts making up laws and such... why can't you, the self-appointed intellectual superior of every religious person out there, make better laws? Why not ask *yourself* - who is smarter than the rest - what *you* think is right and wrong? Perhaps you and other humanist/atheist persons could form your own utopian community, far away from the primitive religious nutjobs that are running the world today?

I never said I live my life based on what society deems "right" or "wrong." In point of fact, I do not. Even if it were, I fail to see how my intelligence would be a relevant consideration in that decision. It'd be a pleasure to clean up that dreadful mess of a legal code you folk have thrown together, but so far I haven't been invited to do so. Perhaps if more "religious nutjobs" would wisen up and join you in clamoring for me to bless you with my wisdom, I could be persuaded to render my services as such. I'll leave the organization of that matter to you.

quote:

In your pursuit of making others lives "more fulfilling" - you're really fighting a losing battle. If you're right - and religion is untrue - it is of no importance. It is simply a way people live their lives and are happy with. It's if it is true - then it is of major importance. Don't take that away from people.

I hardly think I'm fighting a losing battle: the worldwide population of atheists as a percentage of the total population has grown fairly steadily for quite some time, and I see no reason to believe that this trend will be reversed at any point in the forseeable future. Faith in God will be replaced by faith in self. It's just life - it's just evolution. It is the triumph of health, vitality, and freedom over sickness, self-loathing, and fear.

quote:

On this topic - do you believe your outlook on life (what I consider a "humanistic" view") - is healthy for society? If our own moral and ethical principles are based on nothing more than what the society "norm" is? What is our greater purpose? What moral and ethical baseline do we use? It saddens me to see more and more people taking this philosophical outlook on life... but I'm curious to hear what you have to say.

Firstly, we need to recognize moral principles for what they are: opinions, not facts. I think what's genuinely healthy for society is the realization that each individual ought to be free to create his or her own ethical or moral principles, and ought to be free to carry them out so long as they do not infringe upon the same individual rights of other individuals in the society.

That development of our own morals, our own philosophy, and our own way of life as individuals is what I believe our greater purpose is and ought to be. I think it's more fulfilling to be a creator than a mere creation.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter You seem to have an odd view of freedom. You're right that even if God exists, I do not believe in him. But that does not equate to me being free to not believe in him because if he does exist and I don't believe in him then he will punish me. In any serious political or philosophical discussion I think it's rather misleading to call someone "free" to do something which they will be punished for. Free speech doesn't exist when you are punished for speech that authority doesn't like, free religion doesn't exist where you are punished for belief other than authority deems proper, and free will doesn't exist where you are punished for certain behavior. If God punishes those who don't live life according to his will, then free will simply don't exist and God is, at best, a tyrant.

First of all, props for stating this - it's an extremely hard topic to debate. I can tell you are knowledgable in this area - I am curious if you do this for a living? If so, you probably know the response I use.

God did create creatures of free will. He created Adam and Eve and gave them the free will to choose to listen to him. He told them "Eat not from the tree, for you will surely die." He didn't threaten them - he was merely stating what would happen.

What I am speaking of is the doctrine of sin, and the affects sin have had on the human race because of the Fall of Man. We are sinners, and our sin captivates our mind totally. Man is totally affected in all parts of his mind, emotions and spirit, by the Fall of Adam.

So, it would be accurate to state that man currently does not have "free-will" to choose Him, of course. I believe that is Scripturally accurate as well, but I can check.

Great argument however, wracked my brain on that one. I am aware that my response is purely based on faith; once again, that is the Biblical explanation (I think it is anyway) of why man no longer has "true" free-will.

quote:

I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but what you're experiencing is a highly natural emotional response and has been experienced by billions of people with reference to thousands (if not more) different types of beliefs. There's a big difference between having an open mind and blindly believing in something based on some abstract feeling. It would be pretty difficult in today's society not to entertain the idea that God might exist and guess what: millions of people have entertained the idea and haven't felt anything more profound than a little indigestion, myself included. A world full of people so eager to have faith would be a cult leader or con artist's utopia. A little skepticism is not only healthy, it's pretty much a necessity.

Cool. I will continue to hope that you do someday have an experience that can only be explained as supernatural. Give me a ring if you do. Hell, do it before then, we'll have some tea or something.

quote:

Well according to the New Testament the only way to Heaven is through Jesus Christ, and if you don't end up in Heaven you're going to end up in Hell. So if you believe in a God who promotes open thinking, you might want to consider the possibility that you aren't really a Christian after all.

You can believe in Jesus and still study other religions, like I do. I incorporate Taoist and Buddhist beliefs into my life, but I believe in God, and I use Christianity as a baseline for my religious beliefs, and I read and study the Bible and try to live my life according to it.

quote:

I wouldn't disagree that you're a servant. But, again, you aren't genuinely free as to whether or not to be a servant. Therefore you are, by definition, a slave.

Point taken, above comment should clarify this.

I imagine you as someone I would mistake for a vampire walking down an alleyway in a black trenchcoat. You have a pretty grim outlook on your existance.

I'm out for the night, I'll try and answer the rest tomorrow. Good arguments however, I respect your ability to debate.

Cheers-

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil I'm out for the night, I'll try and answer the rest tomorrow. Good arguments however, I respect your ability to debate.

Likewise.

I'll wait until you're finished and then respond to everything at once.

quote:

Originally posted by torontotrance I'll be frank here, you will go to hell if you don't repent and accept Christ as your saviour. That's what the Bible says, not me but we are given free will, which means we have free choice to decide yes or no. Others will give you arguments why they think this religion is right or is not right. When it all comes down to it, you make your own decision about what you want to believe and we all find out what is right after we die, assuming that the big bang theory did not happen. Got questions pm me, I'm keeping it brief to the anti religion people around

just don't look at it as if you're being forced to give up things and live a boring life. Since becoming a true christian, my life has been enriched greatly, beacause i"m finally trying to pursue my real purpose in life. God wants control, so you can have the best life possible!!!

As for the question of 'free' will. We are free to choose not to believe and follow God, but of course there are consequences. Don't make the mistake of confusing freeedom , with not making any decision at all. A choice has to be made, after all isn't that what freedom is: The ability to make a choice ourselves. Its a fact that life without God has consequences tho, just like choosing between a rotten sandwich and a burger. You may not like burgers, and choose the sandwich, but all the same it does not change the fact that the sandwich is rotten

biggest fucking hijacking ever!

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Such cynicism, I can see why Nietzsche thought of Christian faith as the ultimate act of self-hate. You are not a great enough good for your own life? You must have a low opinion of yourself. I for one would rather be an end in myself than a means to an end: but you disagree? You must be someone else's tool because you can't accept the responsibility of creating your own purpose.

Ahh, old Freddy. How I enjoy reading his work. I can really understand why he would write such things, but it saddened me (even as an atheist at the time) when I read it. What Nietzsche called self-hate, I relate to what Lewis called surrendering self-pride. It's not about not being good enough for your own life - it's about realizing that you are not the center of the universe, even though your ego or self-aware self might think so. It's not a low opinion of yourself - it's about being humble and meek. And about being someone elses tool - I would rather be a divine tool, God's tool, than a tool of a misplaced fantasy brought to us by neo-Darwinian and Marxism-like thinking.

quote:

Yes, your life will come to an end, memories will fade. You cannot exist forever: if you did your existence would be meaningless - that's simple supply and demand. It is precisely because existence is so ephemeral that it is so valuable.

I've always though of this way of looking at life like playing a video game that you can't save your progress in. I mean really - why even do it? It's wasted time, and in the end, nothing has been changed. While you might argue that you've "changed the gaming world a little bit" - what a sad way to look at life. You say that you want to help people shed the burden of "blind-faith" - and this is what you promise them? A meaningless existance? For someone to embrace this life and even defend it...

quote:

Self-loathing and insecurity, only those who possess these traits could find God's universe attractive. An ideology symptomatic of a greater inability to appreciate oneself: just as I said, it is a malaise to be purged. Only then, can you genuinely be free and live for yourself.

I disagree, but it's a mute point arguing opinions.

quote:

I tried to believe I wasn't smarter than all those other people. But they kept proving me wrong. Yet, you religious folk seem to have a talent for self-deprecation: perhaps you could teach me? Then perhaps I could be humble without being disingenuous.

I sympathize with you - there are evil religious men as well as non-religious men. I can see how you would think of being "humble" as a weak character trait - self loathing, etc. In a humanist world - ego and pride are really the only things you have. It's a battle of the best, the most self-appointedly "intellectual" peoples. It's exactly this sort of thinking that led Hitler to believe it was right to exterminate Jews. It was a purely humanist and neo-Darwinian outlook of life for him to think that Jews were a "lesser" human. Do you beleive in that? I mean hell, from an evolutionists point of view - all men are NOT created equal. Are white people smarter than black people?

It's this sort of thinking - the exact opposite of what Christ teaches - that leads to horrible situations like the world has gone through. An entire country - multiple countries - of people - embraced the fact that they were -superior- to another - so much that the other people needed to be exterminated.

I know you can bring up the Crusades or the other thousand massacres done in the name of religion - but really - blind faith didn't cause those, the distortion of the Word of God by men did.

quote:

I never said I live my life based on what society deems "right" or "wrong." In point of fact, I do not. Even if it were, I fail to see how my intelligence would be a relevant consideration in that decision. It'd be a pleasure to clean up that dreadful mess of a legal code you folk have thrown together, but so far I haven't been invited to do so. Perhaps if more "religious nutjobs" would wisen up and join you in clamoring for me to bless you with my wisdom, I could be persuaded to render my services as such. I'll leave the organization of that matter to you.

Touche.

quote:

I hardly think I'm fighting a losing battle: the worldwide population of atheists as a percentage of the total population has grown fairly steadily for quite some time, and I see no reason to believe that this trend will be reversed at any point in the forseeable future. Faith in God will be replaced by faith in self. It's just life - it's just evolution. It is the triumph of health, vitality, and freedom over sickness, self-loathing, and fear.

Completely true. (the growing percentage of atheist stat, that is) - I'm suprised you used this, however. Argumentum ad populum.or [i]argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers).

quote:

Firstly, we need to recognize moral principles for what they are: opinions, not facts. I think what's genuinely healthy for society is the realization that each individual ought to be free to create his or her own ethical or moral principles, and ought to be free to carry them out so long as they do not infringe upon the same individual rights of other individuals in the society.

quote:

That development of our own morals, our own philosophy, and our own way of life as individuals is what I believe our greater purpose is and ought to be. I think it's more fulfilling to be a creator than a mere creation.

Ok, you say moral principles are opinions and not facts.

So, getting back onto the topic of this thread (much to the delight of the ever-shrinking onlooking crowd) ...

What are the effects of a sexual promiscuous outlook on life? I would have to say, and I think you would agree, that America is definately falling into that category.

What are the social long term effects of a sexually free and unrestricted society?

If morals are only what you say - opinions (which I agree they are, but they are baselined from the Bible and need to be taken literally) - what "baseline" do we use as a society?

In a humanist outlook on life - why should I not fuck every girl I come across if I can?

I wasn't trying to continue this hijacking, I was mainly using that link to show that nobody is smart enough to prove weather there is a creator or not. Our best science and reason simply hasn't reached a real answer and maybe never will. Nobody can say for sure if there is or isn't a god, being an atheist requires just as much "blind faith" as beleiving in any religion does.


One could easily argue that all the skeletons in christian history's closet are results of man's perversions of god's word, but the frequency of these events makes one wonder if maybe god's word was obscure and open to different fucked up interpretations on purpose. maybe it was written and designed to be obscure so that a greater range of people would believe it and that their interpretation was the correct one instead of rejecting the religion alltogether. Things like this start making me think that it was all made up to cellect offering money or gain control over others, sigh at least im not afraid to entertain the possibility of that being the case anymore.

I'm going to keep reading this argument because its all very interesting so far, and at this point I'm still not quite sure what to choose, many sects of chritianity would think that I'm hopeless and am gonna burn anyway because of the things I have already done and cannot change anymore.

I always imagined that the rules of religions were meant for our own good, like maybe the church didn't want all their followers to die out so they decided to control their diets and sex habits in order to keep them healthy, and at the time the stuff was written that was the best info they had on how to remain in good health. I never imagined that God cared so much about these rules that he would banish someone for breaking just one of them, I always thought that he gave them to us because he cared about our well being and wanted his folloing to grow. In the end I don't think the rules of the religion is the important stuff anyway, there was stuff in the new testiment that Paul wrote that suggested the same thing, that the religion was more about the belief in God than it was following with all the traditions and rituals and and obeying commands and whatnot.


My guess on the universe is that we are all part of some devine being's dream, that we were brought into existence when the world was imagined, and us humans are similar to whatever this Dreamer's species is, but there is also a chance that all the world's(and maybe even beyond) creatures represent manifestations of many of the Dreamer's qualities. This Dreamer I imagine has particular likes and dislikes, in the same manner that we have pleasant fantasies and nighmares. As figments of this great dream we desire to be on this Dreamer's mind and as close to the center of it as possible, because that is when we feel the most "alive". I imagine this Dreamer is good at supressing memories that he doesn't like, and keeping hold of the ones that he does like. I also imagine that when the dreamer so desires, he can manifest himself into this dream and interact with us, or communicate with us in many different ways. Like us, perhaps this dreamer's dreams aren't completely under his control(what fun would there be in that?) but he can influence things if he(or she or it) wants to. As a part of the dream one would feel bad if they were a suppressed thought, and perhaps the dreamer has manifested enemies as well, that try to pull us out from the things that liked to be dreampt about.

I wonder if there is an established religion with a similar doctrine, this has always been what I imagined God was like. I enjoy the idea that everything has come to be as a result of something greater imagining it, its certaintly a more pleasant thought than the idea that all we are is a result of spontaneous chemical reactions. I don't think that God wants us all to sit around and argue about petty rules and commands, but instead go out and live our lives to the fullest and be his happy memories.

I sure wish God would address the issues that we are dealing with today, the parallels from 2000 years ago can only be extrapolated so far, and it would be so great to know what was really right straight from the devine horses mouth.

I don't think we have an unabridged writing of what God wants so until something happens that delivers this message in a believable way we are on our own to figure out what is really moral and sinful in this world.

Perhaps when we are dead we will finally know the answers, and hopefully they will be of use to us before we start burning, maybe after we are gone we become dreamers, wouldnt that be fun eh? There is no way to know anything for sure.

blah blah blah...blah blah blah blah

quote:

Originally posted by Zombie0915

I agree with your sentiments for the most part.

I would recommend discussing it in the political forum. We have a few threads you would probably like.

Intelligent conversation is few and far between here

I dont understand politics alot of times, and people always seem to put words in my mouth by classifying me into parties or viewpoints or whatnot because one thing I say will put me on on school of thought, but I won't neccesarily agree with the whole camp of people I have been classified into. I just can't shorthand all my opinions into a small set of political terms that can fight against each other, and since every time I try and say something even a tiny bit political it seems to happen, it makes me avoid political conversations, but I'll give it another try, maybe things have gotten better in there lately.

Sorry for keeping you waiting.

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil First of all, props for stating this - it's an extremely hard topic to debate. I can tell you are knowledgable in this area - I am curious if you do this for a living? If so, you probably know the response I use. God did create creatures of free will. He created Adam and Eve and gave them the free will to choose to listen to him. He told them "Eat not from the tree, for you will surely die." He didn't threaten them - he was merely stating what would happen. What I am speaking of is the doctrine of sin, and the affects sin have had on the human race because of the Fall of Man. We are sinners, and our sin captivates our mind totally. Man is totally affected in all parts of his mind, emotions and spirit, by the Fall of Adam. So, it would be accurate to state that man currently does not have "free-will" to choose Him, of course. I believe that is Scripturally accurate as well, but I can check. Great argument however, wracked my brain on that one. I am aware that my response is purely based on faith; once again, that is the Biblical explanation (I think it is anyway) of why man no longer has "true" free-will.

While that's a perfectly reasonable explanation of why we, according to Christian theology, no longer have free will, I think you've strayed a bit from the particular angle of this issue which holds direct relevance to our previous discussion. If you'll recall, earlier in this discussion you made the following statement:

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil I disagree because if you had the evidence to prove that God existed, there would be no need for faith. We would not be free-willed human beings - we would be sheep. I believe God created us to be human, not robots that have to choose to believe in Him.

My objection to this claim was that I disagreed that we had free will regarding the issue of whether or not we believe in God according to Christian theology. You seem now to be conceding the fact that Christian dogma is incompatible with the notion of us presently possessing free will on this issue - but rather that free will was granted at some point in the past (in this case, Adam and Eve). So just to clarify, is it now your position that present-day humans are "sheep" or slaves of God?

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil You can believe in Jesus and still study other religions, like I do. I incorporate Taoist and Buddhist beliefs into my life, but I believe in God, and I use Christianity as a baseline for my religious beliefs, and I read and study the Bible and try to live my life according to it.

Once again you're absolutely correct - but I'm afraid I've led you a bit astray from the main point with my last response which was quite vague. We got to this point from the following argument I made a couple of posts ago (boldface for emphasis):

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter But how righteous could this idol which demands your blind faith really be? It has provided you with no objective standard by which to determine that blind faith in it - as opposed to blind faith in any other of innumerable and possibly infinite alternatives - is the correct decision. Then, if you choose to place your faith elsewhere, you are to be punished, even though you weren't given any reliable reason to believe in any one of the options over another. In essence, under such a God your life is a mere cast of the dice. You have no way to know what to have faith in, and if you don't pick exactly the right thing you lose. Such policies aren't righteous, they are sadistic. How can one believe in such a universe or such a God?

The issue I meant to raise wasn't that Christian theology prohibits you from studying other religions. Rather, it was that it prohibits you from placing the same degree of blind faith that you have in your God in another God. However, at the same time, it offers you no reliable objective evidence to suggest that your blind faith should be placed in the Christian God rather than some other God. If this other God was as intolerant of non-belief or other belief as the Christian God, then you would have to make a choice between the two with, at best, a "feeling" to help you distinguish which choice is right. In other words, it would be a guessing game in which, perhaps, you have a "hunch." It seems to me that if a genuinely loving God existed, then he would either:

1. Give you a compelling objective reason to believe in him rather than some other deity, or
2. Not punish you for guessing incorrectly.

According to scripture, you will be punished for belief in a different deity. So unless there is a compelling objective reason to believe in the Christian God as opposed to every possible alternate faith, it seems to me that God cannot both exist and be loving. Am I wrong? Or do you think such evidence exists?

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil I imagine you as someone I would mistake for a vampire walking down an alleyway in a black trenchcoat. You have a pretty grim outlook on your existance.

The only grim outlook on existence that I've seen expounded in this discussion is the Christian outlook: where humans have no free will to believe or disbelieve and are subject to the arbitrary will of an unseen tyrant. The alternative: that we are all on our own and in control of our own destiny, seems rather optimistic by comparison.

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil Ahh, old Freddy. How I enjoy reading his work. I can really understand why he would write such things, but it saddened me (even as an atheist at the time) when I read it. What Nietzsche called self-hate, I relate to what Lewis called surrendering self-pride. It's not about not being good enough for your own life - it's about realizing that you are not the center of the universe, even though your ego or self-aware self might think so. It's not a low opinion of yourself - it's about being humble and meek. And about being someone elses tool - I would rather be a divine tool, God's tool, than a tool of a misplaced fantasy brought to us by neo-Darwinian and Marxism-like thinking.

Nietzsche always saddened me too, but for different reasons I suspect. The beautiful thing about a Godless universe is that there is no fixed center of the universe around which all beings must orbit. You are free to choose where place your attention and your devotion: you are free to be egocentric and revolve around yourself, or you can choose to devote yourself to any number of other causes, people, places, or things. In God's universe you have no such choice, there is God and there is only God. You say we should give up our pride in favor of being humble and meek. But I ask you, which is the grimmest outlook on existence: to be confident, strong, proud, self-driven, and vital, or to be humble, meek, guilty, servile, and impotent?

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil I've always though of this way of looking at life like playing a video game that you can't save your progress in. I mean really - why even do it? It's wasted time, and in the end, nothing has been changed. While you might argue that you've "changed the gaming world a little bit" - what a sad way to look at life. You say that you want to help people shed the burden of "blind-faith" - and this is what you promise them? A meaningless existance? For someone to embrace this life and even defend it...

What, to you, is meaningful? There is no such thing as "objective meaning," the meaning inherent to any thing, life included, is decided by the observer. You can choose to find the meaning and the beauty in the little things that make up life: be it your ability to take someone who isn't feeling good about themselves and raise their spirits, or the subtle euphoria of listening to your favorite song. Or, you can choose to scornfully shun your life and spend it with your head in the clouds, vainly believing you are a part of some grand cosmic scheme of a being you can only dream of. One of these choices is symptomatic of a healthy, outgoing, vigorous, and genuinely optimistic mind - and the other is symptomatic of an unhealthy, unrealistic, unappreciative, and ultimately cynical mind.

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil I sympathize with you - there are evil religious men as well as non-religious men. I can see how you would think of being "humble" as a weak character trait - self loathing, etc. In a humanist world - ego and pride are really the only things you have. It's a battle of the best, the most self-appointedly "intellectual" peoples. It's exactly this sort of thinking that led Hitler to believe it was right to exterminate Jews. It was a purely humanist and neo-Darwinian outlook of life for him to think that Jews were a "lesser" human. Do you beleive in that? I mean hell, from an evolutionists point of view - all men are NOT created equal. Are white people smarter than black people? It's this sort of thinking - the exact opposite of what Christ teaches - that leads to horrible situations like the world has gone through. An entire country - multiple countries - of people - embraced the fact that they were -superior- to another - so much that the other people needed to be exterminated. I know you can bring up the Crusades or the other thousand massacres done in the name of religion - but really - blind faith didn't cause those, the distortion of the Word of God by men did.

It's interesting you should raise the issue of Hitler: you do realize he was Christian, right? Moreover, do you realize that the Viennese Christian Social movement was one of his primary inspirations? Ultimately Hitler's actions - much like the actions of most tyrants, were based on blind faith. It was blind faith that led Hitler to believe that the Aryan race was inherently superior. It was his blind faith in his own personal greatness which inspired his many megalomaniacal decisions and plunged Europe into war. No calm, rational analysis of empirical data could have inspired him to slaughter millions of innocent people: it was insanity and its close cousin faith! Likewise, the Crusades required faith: perhaps not faith in scripture but still it required blind faith in the words of the manipulators. And militant Islamic fundamentalism: well, I think that goes without saying. I really think this is the last avenue you ought to be pursuing if you're looking to justify blind faith.

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil Completely true. (the growing percentage of atheist stat, that is) - I'm suprised you used this, however. Argumentum ad populum.or argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers).

Heh, this would be the form of an [i]argumentum ad populum:

1. More and more people are choosing atheism over theism.
2. Therefore, atheism is the superior doctrine.

But this was my argument:

1. My objective is to eliminate blind faith including the conversion of theists to atheism.
2. If my objective is positively reflected by ongoing trends, then it is not a losing battle.
3. If trends suggest a pattern of theism being replaced by atheism, then my objective is not a losing battle. (1,2)
4. Trends suggest a pattern of theism being replaced by atheism.
5. My objective is not a losing battle. (3,4)

See the difference?

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil What are the effects of a sexual promiscuous outlook on life? I would have to say, and I think you would agree, that America is definately falling into that category.

Increased physical and mental health.

quote:

What are the social long term effects of a sexually free and unrestricted society?

There are few noteworthy ones, but a reduction in violent sex offenses is a good example.

quote:

If morals are only what you say - opinions (which I agree they are, but they are baselined from the Bible and need to be taken literally) - what "baseline" do we use as a society?

A commitment to individuality and individual rights. Since opinions are produced by individual minds, it follows that the individual is at the core of matters of opinion - including morality. That is, morality should be "enforced" only in such instances as the actions of one individual infringe upon the individual sovereignty of another individual: e.g. murder, rape, theft, etc.

quote:

In a humanist outlook on life - why should I not fuck every girl I come across if I can?

You probably should. I think it would do you a lot of good.

I just think all previous waffle records have just bene broken!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.