Atheism [Archive] - I-Mockery Forum

VinceZeb

Apr 17th, 2003, 08:11 PM

So, Retro, what "freedoms" does having no belief system give you, since there are no restraints with atheism.

You had me avoiding to respond to your idiotic post until you posted your latest message. Now this just proves you need to go back to doing something that you have a brain about, which for you would be not brushing your teeth.

Now, little boy, sit down, get your thumb out of your ass, and get ready to learn something about humans.

Now, having a "beleif" system, as you so put it means you have no freedom. Where is this so, sir/ma'am? Also, what about these certain restraints. I'm interested in hearing about how I have no freedom and certain restraints, since I am Roman Catholic.

I have freedom as a human being. We all have free will. Now, you say that having a belief system makes you lose freedom. Well, believing there is no higher power is a belief system. You are already restricted in your thinking because you never bring in the fact to the situation that there may be a God, whereas people of faith look at situations from that point of view every day. So your logic is flawed.

I am being real nice. I do hope you would explain your reasoning behind why there is no God. I do love these topics so much. Please enlighten me, no pun intended.

Les Waste

Apr 17th, 2003, 10:28 PM

I'm basically agnostic. And I think everyone is agnostic, whether they admit it or not. No one knows if there's a God or not, so everyone just is basically guessing. And everyone is guessing because there is no way to tell.

Which is why I think no one can be just Agnostic. You have to have a guess. Saying you're just agnostic is like saying "I have lungs." It should be implied. And my guess is there is no God. I tend to lean towards atheism because of my astronomy classes. That was some depressing shit.

cba1067950

Apr 17th, 2003, 11:44 PM

A waste of space, though that has little bearing on my thelogical beliefs.

..."cry cry cry"... yea yea whatever

i guess my arguement wasnt too convincing. but damn your response has showed me the light. :suicide

Anonymous

Apr 17th, 2003, 11:58 PM

Some of us drink, some of us do the drugs, some of us slut it up, some of us eat candy and burger king all day, and some of us believe in god. Whatever wakes you up in the morning and gets you through the day.

It's all ok I say I say. :(dr suess

Mockery

Apr 18th, 2003, 12:09 AM

some of us eat candy and burger king all day

Holy shit! You mean I have a category? :o

(waits for Re to tell me "yes rog, but unfortunately it's the 'slut' one.")

Anonymous

Apr 18th, 2003, 12:37 AM

:lol you wish! you dumb whore

Protoclown

Apr 18th, 2003, 01:55 AM

Although, I'll give it to the writers of the bible, they did create the greatest fiction novel of all time. http://www.eclipse.co.uk/thoughts/index.htm

I take it you don't read much, then. Because I usually don't consider insanely long books that are BORING AS HELL, with huge gaping holes in the plot, inconsistencies and contradictions out the wazoo, multiple authors, and a painfully bland writing style to be worthwhile picks in my Book of the Month Club, let alone in the running for "the greatest fiction novel of all time".

Apr 18th, 2003, 05:50 AM

Retro Kat's post is SHOCKING and made me SEE THINGS IN A WHOLE NEW PERSPECTIVE.

:eek

The Unseens girrrl

Apr 19th, 2003, 12:34 PM

First of all...how believable is it that there is an omniscient omnipotent INFALLIBLE being watching/judging all of us? and you know...sum people believe that we were just created for the amusement of the gods....i learned that in mythology class :)

The Unseens girrrl

Apr 19th, 2003, 12:35 PM

kellychaos

Apr 19th, 2003, 12:57 PM

So, Retro, what "freedoms" does having no belief system give you, since there are no restraints with atheism.

The existentialist...thinks it very distressing that God does not exist, because all possibility of finding values in a heaven of ideas disappears along with Him; there can no longer be a priori of God, since there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to think it. Nowhere is it written that the Good exists, that we must be honest, that we must not lie; because the fact is that we are on a plane where there are only men. Dostoyevsky said, If God didn't exist, everything would be possible. That is the very starting point of existentialism. Indeed, everything is permissible if God does not exist, and as a result man is forlorn, because neither within him nor without does he find anything to cling to.

Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.

Should I betray the proletariat to serve truth or betray truth in the name of the proletariat?

Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.

Everything has been figured out except how to live.

- Jean Paul Sartre

Learn anything? Probalbly not ... what a waste ... of "cut & paste" :rolleyes :/

pjalne

Apr 19th, 2003, 01:25 PM

Having a beleif system gives no freedom and gives you certain restraints. Although, I'll give it to the writers of the bible, they did create the greatest fiction novel of all time. http://www.eclipse.co.uk/thoughts/index.htm

While I still think Vince is an ass for automatically attacking everyone he disagrees with by telling them they're idiots in sentences that don't make any sense read forwards nor backwards, I have to say I agree to some of the non-hostile parts of his post.

Christianity does offer free will. While there are some loopholes and unclear action-reaction structures out there (Judas betrays Jesus because Jesus accuses him of being a backstabber because Jesus knows that Judas will betray him because he accuses him...), free will is very central to the faith.

In atheism, hovewer, one must look at the world from a purely scientific point of view, and every atom and every man's actions and directions must be observed as the only potential and logical physical/chemical outcome of any situation in question. One must acknowledge the universe as a closed space in which every movement and reaction is predecided, and if one could observe chaos from a distance, one could see the pattern and predict every single action from the beginning of time to the end.

This is of course debatable, but MY definition of atheism rules out free will.

CaptainBubba

Apr 19th, 2003, 03:03 PM

Define the following terms:

God
Free will

Protoclown, the Bible is the greatest novel of all of human history, period. This is not an opinion. It is the best selling peice of written word in all recored history, and therefore from an objective point of view, the "greatest".

Indeed, everything is permissible if God does not exist. Statements like this are a red flag of people who think about something so much and get so lost in their own maze of thought that their final conclusions never make a drop of sense.

Vibecrewangel

Apr 19th, 2003, 03:39 PM

I still say we are God's middle child left run amock.

VinceZeb

Apr 19th, 2003, 05:46 PM

kelly, I have heard the whole existentialist story before. My favorite teacher at my school used to be one. Pretty much summed it up with the fact that once they set their goal and achieve it, they off themselves, since nothing has meaning. Hemmingway and a few others were famous existentialists.

The Retro Kat

Apr 19th, 2003, 06:32 PM

The belief sytem I refer to, little boy, is that religion says that "you have to do this" or "you can't do that" in order to get in heaven. The freedom you get is you can do anything to the extent of your morals.

Helm

Apr 19th, 2003, 07:05 PM

Christianity does offer free will.

Hm. This is an issue that could be discussed at length.

Take the garden of eden bit. Eat anything, but not from that tree, for it is the tree of knowledge. Now, this is where free will comes in. Man had the chance to remain ignorant and blissful, or to eat the fruit of knowledge and go against God's will, right?

However, since man would be God's creation, he can be said to have designed man exactly as he wished, so if he instilled within him the drive for knowledge and ambition, that would be part of his design. Nothing is beyond a God, not even knowledge of the future. So the eating of the forbidden fruit as being choice would be a non-argument, since man's instinctual and logical drive has been predetermined by the same God that forbade him to use it. It's like saying that you have a choice to breathe or not breathe.

Following this line of thinking, a lot of JudeoChristian folklore legend could be reinspected to some pretty interesting results, but I'm no Gnostic, so I don't really care to go that far. God is a silly notion to begin with, as far as I'm concerned.

Vibecrewangel

Apr 19th, 2003, 07:32 PM

I've often pondered the God created us in his image subject. One of the theories I've come up with is that the meaning behind that is more that God showed us himself in a way we could understand. That is why each culture views God differently.

This coincides with my belief that the word God is just that. A word. (Sorry Italian.....I know you disagree with this) It's a word to describe a concept.

If you take away the names used in may religions to describe the concept, you have very similar stories.

The concept isn't the problem.....naming the concept is.

Protoclown

Apr 20th, 2003, 01:15 AM

Protoclown, the Bible is the greatest novel of all of human history, period. This is not an opinion. It is the best selling peice of written word in all recored history, and therefore from an objective point of view, the "greatest".

Hey, "American Idol" and "Friends" are two of the highest-rated TV shows on right now, but would you consider either one of them to be among the greatest?

Quantity and quality are two entirely different measurements.

VinceZeb

Apr 20th, 2003, 12:02 PM

The Bible has also lasted for 10000+ years, counting the Old and New Testaments.

Helm

Apr 20th, 2003, 12:28 PM

No it hasn't. You're a complete moron. The basis of the Judaistic text which provided the backbone of the old testament date back to no more than the Iron Age (c 1200-600 BC) , or quite a bit more realistically, the Hellenistic periods (third to first century BC). You're a complete and utter idiot. Please go away.

VinceZeb

Apr 20th, 2003, 02:50 PM

Helm, you know, the Old Testament didn't just magically appear one day when it was WRITTEN DOWN, STUPID! It was passed on orally, which means they used their mouth to tell the stories. Ya know, the mouth? The utensil that your mother used to get the money to put the food on your table? They did pass on stories back then by telling them, since many couldnâ€™t write. The first main Jewish writer was Moses. And because something is not written down, doesnâ€™t mean that the event did not happen or the story has not existed. If we told the story of Paul Revere through oral stories and had not written it down for 300 years, and suddenly someone did, does it make it 300+ years old or 3 days old? And you call ME a moron.

The Old Testament stories date back to (according to Jewish history) back to 8000 BC and supposedly as far back as 10000BC, which to creationists would have been the creation of the Earth. Now, 8000 (or 10000) + 2003 would be.... *drumroll*

> Than 10000 YEARS!

So, would you like me to put it in your ass or mouth the next time I fuck you up for being a scholarly idiot?

pjalne

Apr 20th, 2003, 03:17 PM

Yeah, but they weren't THE BIBLE. They were connected stories and part of the same mythos, but they weren't a collection with a name on it. And not all of these made it into the Bible, some of the major continuity problems and the stories that gave a conflicting image of God were excluded. Judeo-Christian stories and myths can be traced thousands of years back (in fact, a lot of them are adapted from even older mythical structures like Gilgamesh), but when you say 'The Bible has also lasted for 10000+ years, counting the Old and New Testaments,' the most logical way to read it is to assume you are talking about the book.

CaptainBubba

Apr 20th, 2003, 03:28 PM

Like I said Proto, Objectively it is the greatest. In my own opinion I'd say "Speaker for the Dead" is the bestest. :)

Though I personally think that everything in Leviticus is indeed quality material.

VinceZeb

Apr 20th, 2003, 04:35 PM

pj, cite your sources. The Torah was a collection of tales, just as the new testament is. You are not saying anything that is not already known. Thus, you are adding nothing to the conversation.

pjalne

Apr 20th, 2003, 04:49 PM

pj, cite your sources.

Staying with my parents for easter, so I don't have my books handy. A quick net search should get you a long way.

The Torah was a collection of tales, just as the new testament is.

Which is relevant how..?

You are not saying anything that is not already known. Thus, you are adding nothing to the conversation.

That would be a valid point if that was what I was trying to do. What I was saying was that you probably should think twice before lashing out at someone for replying to what you actually write instead of doing the impossible and replying to what you were thinking about but were unable to type out. I don't know what your attention disorder is, but it shouldn't be our problem.

VinceZeb

Apr 20th, 2003, 06:30 PM

That would be a valid point if that was what I was trying to do. What I was saying was that you probably should think twice before lashing out at someone for replying to what you actually write instead of doing the impossible and replying to what you were thinking about but were unable to type out. I don't know what your attention disorder is, but it shouldn't be our problem.

Are you just going to babble on or say something smart?

pjalne

Apr 20th, 2003, 06:37 PM

I guess I can assume none of you guys will blame me for just leaving that one alone :lol

Helm

Apr 20th, 2003, 07:22 PM

What, you mean you have something better to do that sit here and argue over the glaringly obvious with some moron that can't even speak his mother tongue?

pjalne

Apr 20th, 2003, 07:57 PM

Found an essay about faulty physics in Speed 2: Cruise Control.

Helm

Apr 20th, 2003, 08:34 PM

Share the fun.

pjalne

Apr 20th, 2003, 08:47 PM

http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/

It turned out to be from a site that specializes in pointing out erroneous physics in movies. In other words: nerds bitch about momentum and acceleration. And say things like 'The movie's computer mumbo-jumbo isn't worthy of a C++.'

We've gone off-track. Please continue the discussion if you're still interested, I'm getting the hell out of this thread before I fuck up things further.

Vibecrewangel

Apr 20th, 2003, 08:55 PM

I see The Core ending up there if it ain't already.

I swear they actually used Bullshitium.

AChimp

Apr 20th, 2003, 09:07 PM

I've talked about this before; Moses ripped off a lot of stuff from other cultures when he wrote the first parts of the Old Testament. There are very distinct parallels between the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Great Flood myth. Since he was present in the Egyptian court for the first chunk of his life, he would have had access to the libraries that contained this literature.

Aside from that, Vince, you claim that the Old Testament was passed down orally for more than 7000 years (Moses = approximately 1000 BC) before it was written down doesn't prove a lot. Please, cite your source that gives concrete proof this occurred and that it was written down EXACTLY the way it had been told.

VinceZeb

Apr 20th, 2003, 09:10 PM

Ok, AChimp, give your proof that Moses ripped off the Epic of Gilgamesh. Wow, they match up in some ways. So do a lot of things. That doesn't mean that one is a rip off of another. And why couldn't it be the other way around? And where is the proof that Moses lived around 1000BC?

You always need proof from me. I would like some from you. Touche.

kellychaos

Apr 21st, 2003, 11:49 AM

The concept isn't the problem.....naming the concept is.

What it boils down to, to me, is this. People invent ways to explain their existence and then make up stories, parables, lessons, maxims to support your claims. Yet most religions, however demonstrated in action or word seem to say the same things because they all emanate from the same place ... mankind. And we go to war over the "name" of the concept. Ridiculous but true. :/

The Retro Kat

Apr 21st, 2003, 06:34 PM

The fact that the stories in the bible were passed down orally does not mean that they are true. The story of George Washington chopping down the cherry tree did not happen. It was a story to help strengthen the image of him, and it has been passed down for quite awhile. Although, it was not written right away.

We could also take the story of Adam and Eve in the same way. Even my junior high religion teacher said it did not happen. (an atheist from a fucking catholic school, what are the odds). It's just made up to show this god fellow's character and to answer the question of original sin.

The_Rorschach

Apr 21st, 2003, 06:57 PM

"It was a story to help strengthen the image of him, and it has been passed down for quite awhile. Although, it was not written right away."

My head hurts. Badly. The story you are citing, by Mason Locke Weems written in 1806, was NOT a propaganda piece used to "strengthen the image of (Washington)." He wrote of the 'legend' of Washington, much as he did with Franklin. It was not to be taken anymore seriously than the exploits of Paul Bunyion. It was a little fact mixed with alot of hype, and he commented as much his himself.

This is like trying to say anyone actually believed the world was flat, as depicted by Washington Irving - You know, the same fucker that wrote Sketch Book (1820), which included his stories of The Legend of Sleepy Hollow (The Headless Horseman) and Rip Van Winkle?

Give people some credit. Not everyone is that incredulous.

waterwitch

Apr 21st, 2003, 06:57 PM

okay, okay...we get the idea that NO ONE can agree on this religion bullshit...how about you just leave it at that? you're not going to able to convince people against their will...just won't happen...

and i point out to all you lovely "christians" that ONE THIRD of the entire human race believe in any sort of christianity...does that mean that the other 2/3's are wrong?

oh, and find some other holidays to celebrate instead of stealing pagan ones...(edit - not stealing...borrowing and using would be a better description...)

Vibecrewangel

Apr 21st, 2003, 07:23 PM

Waterwitch -
What do you practice?

I am curious because most people who have looked beyond the new age trend and read more than Scott Cunningham know that the stolen holidays thing is greatly exagerated.

Even Joseph Bearwalker Wilson, one of the founders of the neopagan movement, is unhappy with things.

"...I'm actually very disappointed. I had hoped that by developing a widespread Pagan movement I would discover people who would be interested in the deeper philosophies and practices with which I am familiar. Instead we have a large mass of people who think that all they need is to read a couple of newage books and they really don't have to work for anything. I'm sad. We have a 'gimmie' culture and the Pagan movement seems to have adopted the worst aspects of it, stealing or appropriating from anywhere they can and claiming 'rights' to it."

Just a curious bystander. :)

waterwitch

Apr 21st, 2003, 07:30 PM

you didn't "steal" any holidays at all...i just find it amusing to know that all the holidays match up...slightly weird, dont you think? it'd just be nice if both paganism and christianity had different religions that don't coincide (although it does make it easier for me living in a christian household)...

i practice lots of things...i don't know if you'd call it Wiccan, i don't even know if it's all Paganism...i believe in lots of different things...and i've read one scott cunningham book, and he seems to be writing for beginners...try reading Vivianne Crowley...both her and her husband seem to be unexhaustable on the subject of Wicca and Paganism...

i'm not one of those "gimme gimme" type people...if you dont' work for something, then it's not worth receiving at the end...i read everything that comes into my grasp...i don't just read " a few" newage books...and most of my practices are based in older traditions not just the tradtitions that have surfaced recently...

Vibecrewangel

Apr 21st, 2003, 07:38 PM

Glad to hear it.

You can never tell when someone throws the holiday rant around.
Sometimes it is sarcasm. Sometimes it is naivism. Sometimes it is stupidism.

Crowley is interesting. So was LeVey. Too bad his church got all f'd up by stupidsim.

From what you said in your last post you DO NOT practice Wicca. Wicca is not a build your own religion contrary to popular belief. It is a rather strict, not-so-old tradition that has been morphed into some strange fluffy I-don't-want-to-hurt-anyone-but-I-want-to-be-creepy-but-peacefull thing. Real Wicca ain't about that.
And Wicca don't mean witch or wise one.

Babble babble babble
And away I go

waterwitch

Apr 21st, 2003, 07:46 PM

no..wicce means wiseone...and it refers to the male sex too...so i don't see how Wicca became so feminist...

i'm just a mix of everything...i think "paganism" is just a nice quick title that sums me up quite nicely...LeVey was really interesting...his beliefs were definately something one would think upon...i mean "stupidity is the first sin"? i'm all for that...

as you said, though, shame it got fucked up...too many little whiny goth kids claiming to be 'satanists'...it backfired...

and no..it was stupidity...i just find it funny...but it makes life alot easier for those of us pagans who do have to celebrate holidays with our families...much less hassle of the two holidays over-lap...though we should have some of our own, right?

VinceZeb

Apr 21st, 2003, 08:41 PM

When the Christians became the king nuts religion of the day, they took over pagan holidas to make the transition easier to Christanity. Jesus would have been born without pagan holidays. He rose without them. It was just the way the Christian leaders went with crushing paganism.

waterwitch

Apr 21st, 2003, 08:45 PM

...somehow, i don't think the "crushing paganism" thing worked though...

Protoclown

Apr 21st, 2003, 09:31 PM

Wicca is about the second biggest bullshit religion I can think of, right after scientology.

waterwitch

Apr 21st, 2003, 09:36 PM

surprisingly enough, i agree with you....although, i'd now have to put satanism up there to compete aswell...and catholicism is defiantely one of my top "stupid" religions...

actually...when i think about it, ALL religion are under the "stupid category....

Protoclown

Apr 21st, 2003, 09:38 PM

The vast majority of organized religions make people act like fucking idiots. I've always felt that everyone should make their own self-discoveries about religion, seems to be less hostility that way for one thing.

waterwitch

Apr 21st, 2003, 09:42 PM

makes sense...all religions stem from the same place, most of the human population think that there is "something greater" out there....so if you basically make it up and believe what you want they'll be less arguments...

agree on the main points, argue on the fine ones..would make life alot easier...

Vibecrewangel

Apr 21st, 2003, 09:55 PM

Proto -
Wicca is about the same age as Scientology as well.

Real Wicca is actually a true, albiet young, religion. Gardner based it on many of the old European traditions. It is not an old tradition in and of itself.

Real Wicca is structured and has a set of guidlines/rules that must be adhered to. Just like all other religions. (Traditions don't have structure or a firm set of rules)

What most people call Wicca is actually nothing more than neo-paganism. People picking and choosing what they want from both older and newer traditions and religions. Those who practice real Wicca abhor that the name is attached to things that have nothing to do with it. Even that whole solitary practicioner thing is a great big load of poop.

Too many new age publishers (again I am forced to bash Llewellyn as they are the worst offender) tried to make things pretty and shiny and fluffy to make a buck of people who want to rebel but don't want to go to hell. Unforunately much of what the older traditions are really about has been glossed over and most of the neo-pagans don't bother to get past what they learned at the local new age bookstore or crystal shop.

Water -
Wicce did indeed mean male witch, and had an evil connotation. Wicca isn't even based on that.....go figure.

waterwitch

Apr 21st, 2003, 09:58 PM

vibe, trust me, i've been trying to figure it out...i don't even know where they got the term "wicca" from, if it wasn't from wicce...considering that wicce meant male, and wicca seems to be a female dominated religion, it doesn't seem to make much sense...

but then again, i haven't read everything there is to read on the the subject, so how would i know...?

Vibecrewangel

Apr 21st, 2003, 10:06 PM

I never bothered to look that far. I know enough about it to know what it is and isn't and a few of the broader concepts. It just never appealed to me. But then again, most religions don't appeal to me. Traditions and philosophys are more my cup of tea.

waterwitch

Apr 21st, 2003, 10:10 PM

i don't even think i have a religion..more a collection of ideas and beliefs that sort of make up my own religion..."aphraelism" or something, i don't know...

Vibecrewangel

Apr 21st, 2003, 10:21 PM

ditto

waterwitch

Apr 21st, 2003, 10:23 PM

see...? that sucks...you can get away with one word posts and when i write one sentence in s tread, someone gets fucked off....there's something strange going on...

Protoclown

Apr 21st, 2003, 10:30 PM

You keep that kind of shit up and I will start deleting your useless posts :lol

waterwitch

Apr 21st, 2003, 10:32 PM

i don't know whether to be insulted or to feel special...

meh...i'll go with feeling special...delete away...i really don't care!

Protoclown

Apr 21st, 2003, 10:34 PM

Oh! Now what am I do to? She doesn't even give a shit! Damn, that's fucking hardcore!! I mean, you just can't even fight someone like that? What are you gonna do?? THEY DON'T CARE!!!

SHIT :(

waterwitch

Apr 21st, 2003, 10:44 PM

...i give a shit, but i see no point in complaining about it...you're not going to care are you? you've made your judgment on me, so i have to live with it...big deal...you're not the first person who's hated me, and you won't be the last...life's like that...

Protoclown

Apr 21st, 2003, 10:52 PM

YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT I HATE YOU!! >:

I AM ALREADY MAKING A SPECIAL DART BOARD WITH YOUR NAME ON IT!!!

(I ACTUALLY WANTED TO DO ONE WITH YOUR FACE INSTEAD BUT I REALIZED THAT I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU LOOK LIKE SO IF YOU COULD POSTS A PICTURE THAT WOULD SHOW YOUR FACE, PREFERABLY IN A GOOD LIGHTING, AND IF THE PICTURE SHOWS OFF YOUR 'CHUBBY CHEEKS' THAT WOULD BE BEST, IF YOU CATCH MY DRIFT, THAT WOULD BE SUPER COOL, THANKS :) )

Skulhedface

Apr 21st, 2003, 11:37 PM

I'm gonna interrupt for a second, even though I do like Proto going off on people...

I find myself without a religion (I think the correct word is agnostic, but I'm unsure of the terminology) simply because if millions of people who follow just one denomination can't agree on it, how can I rely on them to be right? How can I assume that they know the real God? How can I not be sure that maybe there's a chance that the BUDDHISTS have it right, and so the Christians and Mormons and all are going to Hell (or the Buddhist equivalent) for putting their beliefs in the wrong place?

So ultimately, I find that there is no LACK of faith, just a lack of something to put that faith in, exactly. It seems like the Bible spells it out to say "You can believe, but if you get ONE LITTLE DETAIL wrong, you're going STRAIGHT TO HELL. NO PASSING GO, YOU SINNER!"

What I find myself thinking is I'll be moral, and when the time comes, I will put my faith in what I feel is the right answer. No denomination would convince me, no one person could convince me, and I feel that it is the nature of God to let you "know" when you have the right answer. How is some human going to know? Because his book told him so?

I guess it boils down to "It's not what you believe in, it's what you believe" but I still find myself confused, so I'll keep thinking it through until I believe I've found the right answer.

There's my two cents... you may now continue.

Vibecrewangel

Apr 21st, 2003, 11:46 PM

Buddhists don't have a hell.
Buddhism isn't even a religion. It's a philosophy. It's how you can have catholic buddhists.

Buddha was nothing more than a man. He said as much. He wasn't a religious leader, he was a teacher.

One of my favorite of Zen lessons is "if you see the Buddha on the road, kill him."

waterwitch

Apr 21st, 2003, 11:52 PM

...if God is supposed to be all nurturing and all forgiving i don't understand how you'd be going straight to hell for screwing up forgetting one little detail...humans have exagerated the teachings of all religions for once purpose, so THEY have control over the religion, not the deities...

...no matter what religion, there is always some middle medium which you have to go through, supposedly, if you are to attain a place in heaven/nirvana/true enlightenment e.t.c...christianity has priests...the pagans also believe in priests and priestesses, buddhism has monks...human kind has managed to mangle religion so badly that it's now fully created by man, not by god, or by miracles...

what you believe is what you believe...it's up to you, it's your choice...no other human being can tell you, "thats wrong"...there are too many religions and beliefs in the world for only one to be the true and correct answer...i just don't believe we've found the right one yet...

Sethomas

Apr 21st, 2003, 11:58 PM

Sure I can tell people they're wrong. I do it all the time. Fundamental Christianity is easy to disprove... just use carbon dating.

waterwitch

Apr 21st, 2003, 11:59 PM

Sethomas

Apr 22nd, 2003, 12:03 AM

Well, I can very easily disprove the literalism of Genesis. That smites a theology system, doens't it? And I can apply Aristotle's theorem to disprove someone that says there is no god, can't I?

Skulhedface

Apr 22nd, 2003, 12:04 AM

Vibe: That's half the reason I haven't made a religious commitment yet, is because I don't know everything about everything regarding every religion. Sometimes I actually feel the faith itself is more important than what name you put on your faith.

Water: Some also argue that religion was more or less a primitive way of controlling the masses. Do you agree?

It makes sense, but there are also so many things that don't. Which is why religion is still prevalent. No one can, nor do I believe will they ever be able to, understand and know all the answers.

Seth: True in some cases, carbon dating has indeed disproved LITERAL creationism (i.e. Literal Creationism has Genesis taking place at 4400 B.C.) but there is no way known to man at this time to effectively prove it one way or another.

The reason I'm still without faith is because I refuse to take the easy answers. Just because someone THINKS they've figured it out doesn't necessarily make it so. "God created the universe" "No, asshole, the Big Bang did!"

I personally believe it always was, and always will be, and infinity IS a hard concept to grasp, and it's not quite an easy answer, but truly, how does humanity know? Short of being able to travel back to the exact moment, how will we ever know?

waterwitch

Apr 22nd, 2003, 12:06 AM

i do agree, but then again, i also agree that some questions like "why are we here?" and "how did the world come about?" can't be answered by science alone...although, there is also the idea of, if we can't answer them by science, should they be answered at all....

i'm of the opinion that they should...so, if humanity can't answer those type of questions, who or what can?

Vibecrewangel

Apr 22nd, 2003, 12:08 AM

And God said let there be light. And there was. (Please tell me if I have mangled this) And the big bang theory are words that describe the same event.

Sethomas

Apr 22nd, 2003, 12:09 AM

I never said that disproval of moot points can reject the existence of god, I was saying that it defrays a belief system. Thus making someone wrong on his stance of God, unless the question is watered down to "does He exist?" Classical logic suggests that god does exist, but in an indeterminable manner. I'm an avid Catholic, so I have a stance picked out, but that flow of logic is a personal one.

waterwitch

Apr 22nd, 2003, 12:10 AM

...a good and valid point..but what about all the other religions?

waterwitch

Apr 22nd, 2003, 12:12 AM

logic might point to the existence of God but science doesn't..science works on the basis that if it can't be proven, then it can't be...if there isn't any evidence, then it can't be true...so how then, can you explain God to a scientist?

Sethomas

Apr 22nd, 2003, 12:24 AM

Thank you for demonstrating what an idiot you are.

String Theory can't be "proven" because the particle accelerators necessary would have to be larger than the planet Earth, yet logic in the form of higher mathematics points that direction. Is it not science, then?

Vibecrewangel

Apr 22nd, 2003, 12:32 AM

In most of the religions I have looked into there is a story about the begining of the universe. All the stories have something to do with a lot of light and usually sound.

Same goes for a story about the flood.

There are others, but those are the two most common and obvious.

It just seems to me to be more about how each society percieved particular events.

Vibecrewangel

Apr 22nd, 2003, 12:33 AM

There is also quantum and chaos to take into consideration too.

Vibecrewangel

Apr 22nd, 2003, 12:53 AM

Here is a great story. Switch the Great Spirit to God, the tribe to the human race and the whale to Jesus and viola. This is the kind of thing that confirms my belief that the concept is the same, but language, society and environment alter the perception of the concept.

When the Great Spirit created this land, he made many beautiful and good things. He made the sun and mooon and stars. He made the wide land, white with snow, and the mountains and the ocean. He made fish of all kinds and the many birds. HE made the seals and the walrus and the great bears. Then the Great Spirit made the Inupiaq. He had a special love for the people and showed them how to live, using everything around them.

Then, after making all this, the Great Spirit decided to make one thing more. This would be the best creation of all. The Great Spirit made this being with great care. It was the Bowhead Whale. It was, indeed, the most beautiful and the finest of the things made by the Great Spirit. As it swam, it flowed through the ocean. It sang as it went, and it was in perfect balance with everything around it.

But the Great Spirit saw something else. He saw that the Inupiaq people needed the Bowhead Whale. Without the whale, it would be hard for them to survive. They needed to eat muktuk, the flesh of the whale, to keep warm and healathy during the long, cold nights. They needed its bones to help build their homes. They needed every part of the great whale.

So the Great Spirit gave the Bowhead to the Inupiaq. He gave them a way to hunt it from their boats covered with walrus hide. He made a special time each spring, when the ice of the ocean would break apart to form a road where the whales would swim. In that whale road, the Open Lead, the whales would come to the surface and wait there to be struck by the harpoons of the Inupiaq. They would continue to do so every year as long as the Inupiaq showed respect to the Bowhead, as long as the Inupiaq only took the few whales that they needed in order to survive.

But the Great Spirit decided this also. At that time each year when the Open Lead formed, when the whales came to the surface to be hunted, the Great Spirit made it so that a heavy cloud of thick mist would hang just above the ice, just above the heads of the whales and the Inupiaq. That thick mist would hang there between the sea and the sky. "Though I give you permission to kill my most perfect creation," the Great Spirit said, "I do not wish to watch it."

waterwitch

Apr 22nd, 2003, 01:25 AM

all religions have a creation story...AL religions have some way of explaining things that we can't....that's what they're there for...to answer those questions that we can't answer ourselves...

Sethomas

Apr 22nd, 2003, 01:49 AM

Religion isn't supposed to be a history or science lecture. Any that try to appear as such will fail, and thus can be said to be wrong.

waterwitch

Apr 22nd, 2003, 01:52 AM

you're just trying to prove me wrong here, aren't you?

Sethomas

Apr 22nd, 2003, 02:06 AM

Your ideas are flawed, and I've addressed them as such. For reasons beyond the discussion at hand, I find you painfully two dimensional. Thus arises my mild impatience your futile attempts to levy an argument. Forgive my transparency, then get interesting or fuck off.

James

Apr 22nd, 2003, 03:37 AM

I worship Pan; the goat God!

VinceZeb

Apr 22nd, 2003, 09:40 AM

Carbon dating has proved to be innaccurate in many occasions. Now, would you like to try again?

waterwitch

Apr 22nd, 2003, 10:15 AM

Pan rocks...one of the things he stand for is "sex"..now, any God that can be worshipped through sex doesn't sound too bad to me...

Pub Lover

Apr 22nd, 2003, 10:46 AM

Fundamental Christianity is easy to disprove... just use carbon dating.
When I was young & intelligent I found that the way carbon dating was presented to me was by use of circular logic. :/
I wish I wasn't so aged & could remember the details. :(

Carbon dating has proved to be innaccurate in many occasions. Now, would you like to try again?
It has been used inexactly, but the inaccuracies are not to the degree that would be required for your belief system to be functional.

VinceZeb

Apr 22nd, 2003, 10:49 AM

I'm sorry, but when carbon dating says some Viking artifacts are from the years 2130 and beyond, you know something is up.

waterwitch

Apr 22nd, 2003, 10:51 AM

pub and seth....he has a point...

Vibecrewangel

Apr 22nd, 2003, 11:02 AM

Religion uses circular logic as well. And some claim to be just as factual as science.

kellychaos

Apr 22nd, 2003, 12:46 PM

that's not what i mean...you can't tell them, "you're wrong" if they believe that god exists, can you? because you have no proof...no religion is right yet, no one can accuse someone else of having wrong ideas or beliefs...it'd be blatant hypocrisy if they could...

I agree. That's one of the basics of logic. Beliefs are never wrong ... they just "are" ... period. The proof of the existence of God by Immanuel Kant, one of the most brilliant philosophers of metaphysics I have ever read, really amounts to saying that since God is part of the transcendental area of human thought which mankind's brain is not "formatted" to understand. The mind is supposedly governed by these transcendental maxims which form a matrix or framework for our logical thoughts. We, as people, are not meant to consciously understand these. Our understanding is in the empirical rrealm with which science deals. He proves his point by avoiding it really. It's one of the most disapointing parts of a life's work of philosophy which otherwise I truly admire. Another way to look at it would be in the way of a more or less vacuous proof. You can't prove that he absolutely doesn't exist so, until then, I will rely on my faith and say he does. That, to me, is sort of a "sitting on the fence" sort of cop out to me, though. I have more respect for a person of strong faith (whatever religion) than someone who's just hedging their bets due to fear of the alternative.

Sethomas

Apr 22nd, 2003, 02:11 PM

Carbon dating works on the simple assumption that the carbon 14 level in the atmosphere has remained unchanged in the past 50,000 years, and the rest is very basic math. There are ways for the data to be skewed, yes, but a good lab will know how to account for these factors. Because things like the Shroud were exposed to fire, certain things can be understood to fail by this method. That doesn't ruin its concrete logic for all instances.

Vince, I take it you don't believe in evolution. Did you know that we, as Catholics, are allowed to? Did you know that we're allowed to believe that Eden is a fable used just to convey the theology of original sin?

VinceZeb

Apr 22nd, 2003, 09:14 PM

I believe in Micro, not Macro when it comes to evolution.

Sethomas

Apr 22nd, 2003, 10:25 PM

Well, it's not like you can get away with saying "the devil put the dinosaurs on Earth to tempt us to not believe the bible." The Church doesn't endorse that bullshit. Unless you have well thought-out ideas that uphold Creationism, and believe me, I've seen them all, you're just over-extending your faith where it doesn't need to go. You follow a religion that allows for the liberty of scientific reason. Don't be a jackass and throw that away.

Skulhedface

Apr 22nd, 2003, 11:27 PM

all religions have a creation story...AL religions have some way of explaining things that we can't....that's what they're there for...to answer those questions that we can't answer ourselves...

The key word here is "story". I could take some psychedelic drugs right this second and make up (or have a VISION!!) of my own.

My point is, short of God himself unmistakably showing up and saying "YES THIS IS RIGHT!" then how do we know?

Skulhedface

Apr 22nd, 2003, 11:30 PM

I'm sorry, but when carbon dating says some Viking artifacts are from the years 2130 and beyond, you know something is up.

Sorry for the double post, I can't believe I missed this one...

Vince, post a link. I want to know what dumbass carbon dates something to 2130 and actually believes it. Unless you meant BC, but then you didn't really specify, and in context it looks like it could mean AD, because in context you're trying to make carbon dating look ludicrous, and futuristic carbon dates are just that.

Make me learn something.

ziggytrix

Apr 22nd, 2003, 11:33 PM

Protestants are a whole nother story. It is futile to argue with anyone who uses a source which they believe is infallible.

Because God said so = I win, kThxBye :(

Skulhedface

Apr 22nd, 2003, 11:43 PM

That's a bit childish, but well...

"The person is smart, but the people are stupid."

Protoclown

Apr 23rd, 2003, 02:01 AM

I'm sorry, but when carbon dating says some Viking artifacts are from the years 2130 and beyond, you know something is up.

OH, LIKE THERE AREN'T VIKINGS IN THE FUTURE :rolleyes

James

Apr 23rd, 2003, 02:13 AM

THEY WERE LOST :(

Apr 23rd, 2003, 07:07 AM

:lol Protoclown

Bennett

Apr 23rd, 2003, 02:56 PM

He has Vikings and Ice Pirates confused

WorthlessLiar

Apr 24th, 2003, 02:10 AM

I'm sorry I haven't taken the time to read the whole thread since it is 5 pages huge and I should be writing a paper. I noticed people debating the innaccuracies of Carbon dating. While its true that Carbon 14 does have such a short half life that it cannot be used to measure the age of the earth, other radioactive isotopes can. Scietists DO NOT use carbon 14 to measure the age of rocks. They use other isotopes that have longer half lives such as Potasium 40 (that may be the wrong number). Radiometric dating has been conisitent in measuring the age of the earth. Of the thousands of samples taken from rocks nearly all indicate that the earth is roughly 4.6 billion years old.

I find many creationist arguments frustratingly uninformed.

If anyone cares I'd describe myself as a non-spiritual agnostic. I'm inclined to think there is no God and I'm absolutley certain that if he exists he has minimal interaction with this world.