Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Emu Emu is offline
Level 29 ♂
Emu's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Peoria, IL
Emu is probably a real personEmu is probably a real person
Old Dec 6th, 2006, 08:37 AM       
Depends on how ignorant the particular atheist you're talking to is. Most atheists will hold Buddhism up as some kind of miracle cure-all because it's atheistic but still an omg religion. Even though the Buddhism practiced by most of the world has the components of reincarnation and the soul, which most atheists reject outright, and even more confusingly, the doctrine of karma, which a lot of atheists believe in.

This is why I don't talk to other atheists anymore.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Dec 6th, 2006, 12:53 PM       
karma is pretty much the doctrine of cause and effect and goes back to jainism and hindu (buddha was indian), possibly back to the aryans but I don't know. India has like 8 branches of philosophy or something, all of which are older than any western philosophy and many detail similar things.

Buddhism was originally a heterodoxical religion in that they didn't believe in a god (which was against the hinduish religion of the time) and just "believed in"/analyzed reality and the world.

modern buddhism comes mostly from chinese/tibet buddhism which actually are religous and many worship "Gods", mostly because buddhism kind of melded with other religions around whenever it spread into their culture. That's why you see some buddhists still worshipping Brahma or whatever, despite buddha saying there is no God.

but yes pure buddhism is "Godless" I guess, but still has a religous background with a philosophy that came from religions.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #103  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Dec 6th, 2006, 06:12 PM       
Zen doesn't have any Gods, and it's still a culturally-blended variety of Buddhism. It combines it with Daoist elements, and the Rinzai school historically reflected Japanese militarism.

I like Zazen meditation. It's rather pleasing.
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Sethomas Sethomas is offline
Antagonistic Tyrannosaur
Sethomas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Abstruse Caboose
Sethomas is probably a spambot
Old Dec 6th, 2006, 09:20 PM       
Owen Flanagan is something of a name in the New Atheism movement, and he's a big proponent of Zen philosophy in the sense that it's not religious.
__________________

SETH ME IMPRIMI FECIT
Reply With Quote
  #105  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Dec 7th, 2006, 07:39 PM       
isn't zen buddhism completely ascetic and unconcerned with absolutely anything? do they even have a "Philosophy" outside of disconcern and absolute withdrawl from society?
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #106  
RectalWart RectalWart is offline
Senior Member
RectalWart's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
RectalWart is probably a spambot
Old Dec 7th, 2006, 10:37 PM       
kahljorn you ignorant slut.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeldasbiggestfan
Im a little faggot.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
CaptainBubba CaptainBubba is offline
xXxASPERGERSxXx
CaptainBubba's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
CaptainBubba is probably a spambot
Old Dec 7th, 2006, 11:49 PM       
I don't believe god exists for the same reason I don't believe a fountain of prime rib that gives me orgasms and sings hoe-down songs at me exists. Itd be nice and all, I just really really don't understand why there is evidence that it exists.

And thats just my beef with people who can even define what they're saying exists. Most of ya'll have completely ignored the most important part which is that you don't even know what you're discussing. God and soul are totally undefined as far as I can tell, and their meaning varies greatly from person to person. You can't argue definitively and meaningfully about something that has no meaning.

Then again I think thats basically the point. Its nice to believe in things stronger than logic and meaning because you can count on them. Note, thats not a reason why it does exist, but one why people would be motivated to convince themselves something exists.

I think love and compassion are enough, but vengeful human figures with bizzare rule systems and post-mortem treats/punishments is cool too I guess.

Regardless, those who attempt to be intelectual agnostics about it are wasting time even thinking about it. If you're agnostic then you realize the scope of your ability to know the nature of god. Then no assumption about it is valid, except through a 1 in infinity chance, so you might as well believe in nothing (unless it gives you the no-logic-giggles as mentioned before).

You other dudes are just brainwashed or trying to fit in with other brainwashed people because you are lame. Sorry, tis true. Morals are, or should be, universal for all sentient creatures. Once you have achieved conciousness you should be free to not be manipulated physically in any way undesired by another sentient creature, your possesions shouldnt not be manipulated unless desired, and you have the right to take actions nessecary to make sure these rights aren't violated. This should make sense to everyone who isn't severely mentally ill or on drugs, in which case you are not fully sentient and you should go have fun with your bliss.

Despite saying that and believing that I should point out that I, and most atheists I know end up developing their own "extra" sets of moral restrictions on their own. The reason we might seem to be selfish is because only the base set morals should be forceably applied to people. There are things you can believe in that you don't expect out of others. For example, always telling the truth. Noones going to punish me for telling lies noone will ever discover. I know this. I could lie to my own ultimate advantage. But I don't.

People need to have more faith in people is all I'm saying.

Also you're all stupid.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
DuFresne DuFresne is offline
Resident Lurker
DuFresne's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
DuFresne is probably a spambot
Old Dec 8th, 2006, 12:28 AM       
Way to make post #2222 count, Bubba.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #109  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Dec 8th, 2006, 01:24 AM       
Quote:
"Morals are, or should be, universal for all sentient creatures."
I pretty much agree with this except that I don't think morals are "Universal". I think that they were something that was probably developed over the course of a few thousand years(partly by religion and religous followers). Even in primitive societies which have no crime they would still slaughter other villages for the well-being of their own village. I also don't think they are entirely necessary; however, I do think they are necessary for the type of life most people want to live. Once people accept that they want that life, morals, to me, are pretty much universal. People who don't think they are universal are either philosophers or immoral and looking to excuse themselves from their actions and the consequences of their actions. Or they don't care, which is "Immoral" i guess.
As for the way in which morals were developed I think religion and many other things have played a very important part and to attempt to completely remove religion from the picture is stupid. One could maybe make a case that it's no longer needed in the modern world, but stupid people need religion, it's good for them, without it they could possibly crumble- along with society. That's why it was invented in the first place, besides of course seeking the nature of reality.
Religion is like humanities way of seeing the world before science or something, same with mythology. I don't really think it's as "Unbelievable" as most people make it out to be but maybe I read too much into it. I think religous people exagerate the importance of their religion much too often.

Quote:
"I just really really don't understand why there is evidence that it exists. "
most of the "evidence" for god's existence is more evidence that existence exists but that's just how I see it and I really haven't read that much about it. They also try to qualify and describe the nature of existence, and that nature of existence is usually God. God also plays some other roles like perpetuator and shit like that and the guy who sees trees fall down in forests when nobody sees them fall (:

Quote:
"God and soul are totally undefined as far as I can tell, and their meaning varies greatly from person to person."
Actually souls and Gods are pretty much the same thing everywhere from my experience but maybe it's just my "Personal vendetta" or something tainting my perception of them. I mean for example the soul in Christian traditions is called the "Mustard seed" as exemplified in Dufresne's signature whereas in buddhism it's called, "The jewel in the lotus". In both they are mostly eternal and unbreakable. BUT ISNT IT INTERESTING THAT THEY ARE BOTH TINY PARTS OF A PLANT?
From "Person to Person" maybe but not really tradition to tradition and I feel most people pretty much feel that souls are the "Eternal unbreakable" part of their "Being". Now the differences I start to note are when people start to think of it's applications. Like how people think that after they die they'll goto heaven and hang out with their family and friends and have all their memories and likes or dislikes and play video games everyday. That kind of stuff is probably bullshit.
Also I don't know what to think of reincarnation(or rebirth with buddhists) but for the most part it sounds dumb to me. I mean obviously there's some recycling of matter in the universe but I don't think that accounts for what they are talking about. Maybe just the continuation of human life and it's progression and culminations ;/

Also if any of you would like to discuss buddhism I'd be happy to I've never met anyone who knows anything about it except myself. i think buddhism is probably one of the best religions because it's so simple to understand.

Here's some interesting stories about buddha that are supposed to be true!

Supposedly alexander (the great) met with Buddha and that's why he stopped his crazy attacks (remember he stopped in india) after he learned he had no purpose to his attacks and he was really just responding to having a dyke mother and a one eyed jackass of a father.

Also the story of buddha is interesting in the following way: In india when you are born, especially if you're of importance, they would do an astrological chart of your life to decide what is best suited for you and what type of occupation you should fill. Buddhas father was a king you guys probably know. So when the results of the astrological chart came in it said he would either be a great, magnanimous ruler or he would be an ascetic priest devoted solely to understanding reality/bringing peace/love to the lands or some hippy shit like that. His father of course didn't like the second option so he forced buddha (then Siddharta) to stay within the castle his entire life so he would never witness suffering and want to become a priest. Of course anybody who knows the rest of the buddha story is getting where this story is going but anyway: then when buddha was older he escaped the castle or was going through the countryside to visit a relative or something and he saw all kinds of people dead, dying, starving (I think there ight have been a war going on at the time but i can't remember) and he decided he wanted to save the world from suffering :O
Moral of the story: if his father hadn't kept him inside the castle all that time he probably wouldn't have been so shocked and responded so crazily :O
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Sethomas Sethomas is offline
Antagonistic Tyrannosaur
Sethomas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Abstruse Caboose
Sethomas is probably a spambot
Old Jan 8th, 2007, 10:06 AM       
I was just browsing this again, and I feel like there might be something to be said for Bubba's post but it's pretty vacuous. He never says why love and compassion should be a priori notions in an atheist world, he just pulls at them with more credulity in a happily godless world as the theists do with their little collectives. I don't see theists trying to fit in with a group any more, and generally less, than the New Atheists. It's intellectually hip to be atheist right now, and fashion is often the worst kind of conformity. I see too many religious people being religious because they don't think, and too many atheists being atheists because their thoughts are misguided. I'm not saying that everyone on earth can attain personal conviction in a deity or necessarily should.

So, yeah. I posted on YouTube my old original proof of God's existence, and I'll probably talk about New Atheism on there soon enough. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klOQwSMdI70 .
__________________

SETH ME IMPRIMI FECIT
Reply With Quote
  #111  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Jan 8th, 2007, 03:19 PM       
Cosmological arguments are basically that the universe exists. I think that's a bad proof of "God". I think everyone knows the universe exists
the second part of it is usually that the universe began, which, again, really isn't a good proof

God is Non-rational, not irrational or rational-- at least I think so. Hard to observe an actual God, you can just observe the effects, but who's to say the cause is "God"? Why even call it God if it's just a first cause, it's kind of a misnomer. ;/
if god doesn't have any qualities associated with him and he's not even a person/consciousness you might as well invest your time in discovering the first cause rather than trying to "prove" god's existence-- especially if God is basically the first cause.
The entire purpose of God, religously, is that God designed the universe in a certain way and there's rules to follow in order to be successful: why not just say the universe has certain predefined rules just by the nature of existing, especially as it pertains to a living organism which has the capacity to "Choose"?

I think that talking about God is basically saying that the universe has some causeless portion; but why call it GOD of all things, something commonly associated with religous faith, why not just call it "CAUSELESS FIRST CAUSER". Obviously something in the universe must be causeless, otherwise we couldn't exist.
I think the other important part is saying that the universe has some inherent values just by the nature of it's creation; can't those be discovered just by being alive and existing here? Does it require a "God" to "tell us" what they are? No, unless by god telling us they just mean they are contemplating the nature of reality ;/

I also think that if you prove god's existence without proving any qualities associated with him you're not proving much at all except that the universe began and that the universe exists.


Buddhism says that the universe is causeless and has an infinite regression of causes-- infinite "Change". At least, as far as I remember.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Sethomas Sethomas is offline
Antagonistic Tyrannosaur
Sethomas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Abstruse Caboose
Sethomas is probably a spambot
Old Jan 9th, 2007, 11:01 PM       
Basically, all I tried to establish therein was that creation ex nihilo is just as irrational as creation from intent. That's why I specified that the rest takes further exploration, or whatever I said. I forget!
__________________

SETH ME IMPRIMI FECIT
Reply With Quote
  #113  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Jan 10th, 2007, 12:05 AM       
Yea, the universe is kind of irrational in that regard :O creation from nothing or intent from nothing either way is hard to rationalize... i mean, nothing should've ever existed ever but here we are i guess woo.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Sethomas Sethomas is offline
Antagonistic Tyrannosaur
Sethomas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Abstruse Caboose
Sethomas is probably a spambot
Old Jan 12th, 2007, 09:55 PM       
See, that's the question that will always fuck me over during late-night ruminations.

This thread, in video form:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYM-mL9Jw3c
__________________

SETH ME IMPRIMI FECIT
Reply With Quote
  #115  
xbxDaniel xbxDaniel is offline
ˇOlé!
xbxDaniel's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Kentucky
xbxDaniel is probably a spambot
Old Jan 12th, 2007, 11:04 PM       
Are you stating that it takes just as much faith to believe a diety created the universe as it does to believe it all happened by chance? I just want to make sure I'm not misinterpreting that.

Also, I'm glad you point out that "New Atheists" try to convert people simply by pointing and laughing at them. It's very refreshing compared to the rants about the "ignorance" of religion.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Sethomas Sethomas is offline
Antagonistic Tyrannosaur
Sethomas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Abstruse Caboose
Sethomas is probably a spambot
Old Jan 12th, 2007, 11:13 PM       
Basically, my view is like what Khal said... existence itself is so weird that either way is equally improbable, thus there's no first-base logical direction towards or against belief in a god. Hence, if further investigation leads people in that direction, all the better.
__________________

SETH ME IMPRIMI FECIT
Reply With Quote
  #117  
FartinMowler FartinMowler is offline
Banned
FartinMowler's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: incoherant
FartinMowler sucks
Old Jan 12th, 2007, 11:16 PM       
I like this response to Seths video...I don't know what to believe and really if there is some kind of creator I doubt we are suppose to waist what short time we have on this planet

Quote:
johnclavis (15 hours ago)
Wow. It's so obvious, watching your video, that you've lumped together a bunch of simplistic summaries of various atheistic ideas under the label "New Atheism" because you feel threatened and put upon. No serious atheist academic says "Theists are dumb". I used to think that when I was an angry young man, and I'm sure many young people feel that way emotionally. But I know it's not true (even if it feels like it sometimes.)

P.S. Maybe you *should* be embarrassed to believe ancient fairy tales.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
xbxDaniel xbxDaniel is offline
ˇOlé!
xbxDaniel's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Kentucky
xbxDaniel is probably a spambot
Old Jan 12th, 2007, 11:31 PM       
Quote:
Maybe what you take as a "skip and a cheer" is simply the natural euphoria people feel when they've spent most of their lives being implicitly or directly attacked for their skepticism, then suddenly discover a camaraderie with thousands of like-minded individuals, and a few brave authors and scientists simply speaking their minds.
It's ironic how this John guy is attacking Seth for speaking his mind.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
FartinMowler FartinMowler is offline
Banned
FartinMowler's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: incoherant
FartinMowler sucks
Old Jan 12th, 2007, 11:44 PM       
I was going to pick that one too...I dunno I think people who think too much and consider themselves intellectual like Seth need to live life a little more. I don't respect people that don't take the time to understand that the true poets and authors lived life to explain life not bitch and moan.
Reply With Quote
  #120  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Jan 13th, 2007, 01:04 AM       
yea all you intellectuals need to go drink some beer at a bar or something.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #121  
Sethomas Sethomas is offline
Antagonistic Tyrannosaur
Sethomas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Abstruse Caboose
Sethomas is probably a spambot
Old Jan 13th, 2007, 03:15 AM       
I've talked to very intelligent people that just never ask existential questions. It's like that part of their brain refuses to be explored, and typically their conversations are too saccharine to ever be interesting. The valedictorian of my class was like that and everyone hated her because she represented "the perfect breed" and shit.

Anyways, it amuses me that the only people who search for atheism are already atheists, so they give me one star because they're offended. I guess I lose at online popularity!
__________________

SETH ME IMPRIMI FECIT
Reply With Quote
  #122  
FartinMowler FartinMowler is offline
Banned
FartinMowler's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: incoherant
FartinMowler sucks
Old Jan 13th, 2007, 01:05 PM       
I think you are a very interesting person... I really enjoy trying to figure out what the hell you are saying
Reply With Quote
  #123  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Jan 13th, 2007, 01:14 PM       
what he's saying is that people don't consider what it means to be alive-- the logical possibilities associated with it. How existence came to be, essentially, and what the nature of that existence outlines for us as "Existing".

Speaking of "Existentialism", Jean-Paul Sartre is like the only philosopher I've ever had problems reading ;/ I think it's the language he uses. It seems like his books are well written but it seems like too much explaining at times with words that don't explain much. I think I just need to read more of other philosophers though since I'm guessing he uses alot of their words/concepts..
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:35 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.