Why do/don't you believe in ? ?
Options
Comments
-
alissowack wrote: »@maestro_lungs. In your "standards" argument, you suggest that there are consequences for our actions. You mentioned death and jail. And I'm essentially saying there are people who look at that and say...who cares? Why is that? It's not even about suicide. It's about knowing that we are all going to die someday and for some people death is more appealing than life. Why is that? I could guess why. Maybe death is an excuse to get away from what life has to offer in respect to dealing with the struggles and pains; that death means you no longer have to deal with it anymore. I believe that death is not the "escape" that we make it out to be though, but that's another story.
You say a majority of people care about life, but what is it about life that they should care? What is the benefit of living a life we will never hold on to when we die?
They Look at Jail or Death & Says who Cares, Being Religious or Not. Religion doesn't Stop That, So What is Your Point! I Answered it..That is Human Nature! Some People are Disturbed! Far as Death Being More Appealing Than Life, You Don't Think Religion encourages that Kind of Behavior with Talks of a Afterlife? I Tend to Find People without a Belief in ? live Happier Lives & Rarely think or Talk About Death! The Benefit of Living a Life, We Never Hold on to is The Mark you Leave for Future Generations & Knowing you Helped Build this World. You Look like You're searching for a Meaning or Purpose & That's Cool, But Religion or ? can't Provide that in The Best way Possible Life itself has no purpose, nor should it. Life is a window of time and an opportunity for us to do meaningful things and find a purpose. It is up to ourselves to find our own purpose and meaning in life, such things are not predetermined by someone or something else. As long as there are problems to be solved, hunger to lessen, illness to cure, pain to minimize, or oppression to resist there is meaning in life. As long as there are goals to reach, knowledge to gain, beauty to create and appreciate, places to explore, love or dreams to seek after there is meaning in life. If you want meaning in your life then do something meaningful. -
maestro_lungs wrote: »alissowack wrote: »@maestro_lungs. In your "standards" argument, you suggest that there are consequences for our actions. You mentioned death and jail. And I'm essentially saying there are people who look at that and say...who cares? Why is that? It's not even about suicide. It's about knowing that we are all going to die someday and for some people death is more appealing than life. Why is that? I could guess why. Maybe death is an excuse to get away from what life has to offer in respect to dealing with the struggles and pains; that death means you no longer have to deal with it anymore. I believe that death is not the "escape" that we make it out to be though, but that's another story.
You say a majority of people care about life, but what is it about life that they should care? What is the benefit of living a life we will never hold on to when we die?
They Look at Jail or Death & Says who Cares, Being Religious or Not. Religion doesn't Stop That, So What is Your Point! I Answered it..That is Human Nature! Some People are Disturbed! Far as Death Being More Appealing Than Life, You Don't Think Religion encourages that Kind of Behavior with Talks of a Afterlife? I Tend to Find People without a Belief in ? live Happier Lives & Rarely think or Talk About Death! The Benefit of Living a Life, We Never Hold on to is The Mark you Leave for Future Generations & Knowing you Helped Build this World. You Look like You're searching for a Meaning or Purpose & That's Cool, But Religion or ? can't Provide that in The Best way Possible Life itself has no purpose, nor should it. Life is a window of time and an opportunity for us to do meaningful things and find a purpose. It is up to ourselves to find our own purpose and meaning in life, such things are not predetermined by someone or something else. As long as there are problems to be solved, hunger to lessen, illness to cure, pain to minimize, or oppression to resist there is meaning in life. As long as there are goals to reach, knowledge to gain, beauty to create and appreciate, places to explore, love or dreams to seek after there is meaning in life. If you want meaning in your life then do something meaningful.
Well, if this is indeed human nature, then why care about their motives? Why put up this argument about what "? " has done to this world when it is actually what we are "naturally" doing to ourselves? Maybe having disturbed minds is natural. Maybe having people killed or be martyred in the name of ? is natural. Maybe we make rules and break them because...well, we just naturally do so. I'm very much aware of death being used as an excuse in religion...I just thought maybe you get that "it doesn't matter" by now. And there you go with making truth claims; ? can't provide...it has no purpose, nor should it...things are not predetermined by someone or something else. You want to make this point, but you don't want to deal with what it entails; that you have absolute truth.
Back to death...what is the purpose of finding meaning if it "dies" along with the person? Why seek cures, minimize pain, resist oppression when in the end we die? -
alissowack wrote: »maestro_lungs wrote: »alissowack wrote: »@maestro_lungs. In your "standards" argument, you suggest that there are consequences for our actions. You mentioned death and jail. And I'm essentially saying there are people who look at that and say...who cares? Why is that? It's not even about suicide. It's about knowing that we are all going to die someday and for some people death is more appealing than life. Why is that? I could guess why. Maybe death is an excuse to get away from what life has to offer in respect to dealing with the struggles and pains; that death means you no longer have to deal with it anymore. I believe that death is not the "escape" that we make it out to be though, but that's another story.
You say a majority of people care about life, but what is it about life that they should care? What is the benefit of living a life we will never hold on to when we die?
They Look at Jail or Death & Says who Cares, Being Religious or Not. Religion doesn't Stop That, So What is Your Point! I Answered it..That is Human Nature! Some People are Disturbed! Far as Death Being More Appealing Than Life, You Don't Think Religion encourages that Kind of Behavior with Talks of a Afterlife? I Tend to Find People without a Belief in ? live Happier Lives & Rarely think or Talk About Death! The Benefit of Living a Life, We Never Hold on to is The Mark you Leave for Future Generations & Knowing you Helped Build this World. You Look like You're searching for a Meaning or Purpose & That's Cool, But Religion or ? can't Provide that in The Best way Possible Life itself has no purpose, nor should it. Life is a window of time and an opportunity for us to do meaningful things and find a purpose. It is up to ourselves to find our own purpose and meaning in life, such things are not predetermined by someone or something else. As long as there are problems to be solved, hunger to lessen, illness to cure, pain to minimize, or oppression to resist there is meaning in life. As long as there are goals to reach, knowledge to gain, beauty to create and appreciate, places to explore, love or dreams to seek after there is meaning in life. If you want meaning in your life then do something meaningful.
Well, if this is indeed human nature, then why care about their motives? Why put up this argument about what "? " has done to this world when it is actually what we are "naturally" doing to ourselves? Maybe having disturbed minds is natural. Maybe having people killed or be martyred in the name of ? is natural. Maybe we make rules and break them because...well, we just naturally do so. I'm very much aware of death being used as an excuse in religion...I just thought maybe you get that "it doesn't matter" by now. And there you go with making truth claims; ? can't provide...it has no purpose, nor should it...things are not predetermined by someone or something else. You want to make this point, but you don't want to deal with what it entails; that you have absolute truth.
Back to death...what is the purpose of finding meaning if it "dies" along with the person? Why seek cures, minimize pain, resist oppression when in the end we die?
It's Not What ? has Done to the world, Cause There is No ? ! It's Man Belief in ? & It's Religions are what we Argue about! Being Disturbed or deformed is Very Much Natural, Just as You see it in Nature, But Killing Yourself for a ? is Not. That is The Work of Man Made Things. We Seek to Find Cures & all That, Because that is Natural to Want to Understand the World Around us. It's no Absolute Truth, It's Just Common Sense & Reasoning that Even if you Believe in a ? , You'd Have to Feel This is What he Gave it to you for, To Reason & Make Rational Decisions, That's Why we Seek to Minimize Pain, So Our Sick Don't Suffer & Resist Oppression, Cause We've Seen The Results of it & Our Natural Instinct of Compassion takes over. -
@maestro_lungs. That was what I was implying when I put ? in quotations...that it is what religion has done. What do you mean that the killing of oneself for ? is not "natural"? You are essentially saying that one person's suicide is more natural than another. What makes someone dying for ? better than someone dying for any other reason? Suicide is suicide. And given that man is a part of natural, how could we not do something natural? How can we go against Nature? Nature allows for everything to happen no matter what it is...even believing in ? . So why rob somebody of something that is only natural to do...even if it results in violence?
-
alissowack wrote: »@maestro_lungs. That was what I was implying when I put ? in quotations...that it is what religion has done. What do you mean that the killing of oneself for ? is not "natural"? You are essentially saying that one person's suicide is more natural than another. What makes someone dying for ? better than someone dying for any other reason? Suicide is suicide. And given that man is a part of natural, how could we not do something natural? How can we go against Nature? Nature allows for everything to happen no matter what it is...even believing in ? . So why rob somebody of something that is only natural to do...even if it results in violence?
It's Not Natural to ? Yourself Period. Whether it be For a ? or Just Cause you want to. How did you get to asking me if Someone Dying for ? is More Natural or Better? I Never said That & Not sure how you got to Asking me That. It's Wrong Either way. I'm Saying Belief Has & Can Put People on The Level with The Mentally Disturbed & Made Them Sacrifice They Lives for ? or Gods. Nature Doesn't Allow for Belief in Gods. Nature can be Explained & Shown How it works. Your ? Can't & Supposedly works in Mysterious Ways -
@maestro_lungs. Well, in your "? does not exist" rant, you say that someone killing themselves for a ? is not (natural). There was nothing indication that you thought that there was anything wrong with suicide period...until your last post.
Unfortunately, nature has not stopped people from believing in ? . Why is that? Is Nature like what people say of ? ...not there when things go wrong? What can nature do to "de-convert" the minds of the religious? Why should nature care? -
Do you find it okay to ? non-believers? ? ? People who use gods name in vein? Homosexuals?
Why was it okay for ? to do? -
@VIBE. Maybe if I didn't believe that all of mankind is deserving of ? 's Judgememt and Wrath, I would feel a certain way about that question. Funny thing though...there was a certain post made by somebody in an attempt to question Christianity that affirms this. I just don't remember if it was on this thread.
-
alissowack wrote: »@maestro_lungs. Well, in your "? does not exist" rant, you say that someone killing themselves for a ? is not (natural). There was nothing indication that you thought that there was anything wrong with suicide period...until your last post.
Unfortunately, nature has not stopped people from believing in ? . Why is that? Is Nature like what people say of ? ...not there when things go wrong? What can nature do to "de-convert" the minds of the religious? Why should nature care?
Nature has Stopped some People from Believing in ? . Among Biologist the Belief in ? is like at 7%. You Do Know, So People Really Believe that Ignorance is Bliss & Prefer not to Know How Things Work & Rather have Things Told to Them. Religious People Especially. How Many People You Know Who to Church Regularly, But Never Read the Bible from Front to Back. The Only Things They Read is what the Preacher Recites or Instructs them to Read! Why Should Nature Care?<< You Do Know Mother Nature is not a Real Mother or Person with Feelings to care? -
HyenaKilla wrote: »Well, I've seen with my own two eyes ghosts on multiple occasions. I also think my prior post went under your comprehension radar. Just because something is intangible, does not mean it is non-existent. Word to the "Higgs-Boson and other sub-particles
Well since YOU Seen Ghost with your own 2 Eyes, They Must be True Huh?...lol -
@maestro_lungs. On the one hand, you say that Nature has stopped some people from believing in ? . Yet, in the same post you question whether I think Nature is "mom". Why would you think nature cares to stop or start anything? Why speak up on what nature, according to you, will eventually do to mankind anyway? If Nature does what it does, then you don't have to need to "force" it or defend it.
-
alissowack wrote: »@maestro_lungs. On the one hand, you say that Nature has stopped some people from believing in ? . Yet, in the same post you question whether I think Nature is "mom". Why would you think nature cares to stop or start anything? Why speak up on what nature, according to you, will eventually do to mankind anyway? If Nature does what it does, then you don't have to need to "force" it or defend it.
Try to Stay in Context. When I Say Nature Has Stopped some Believing in ? . I Mean The Study of it. As We Learn More, We Discard The Myths that Religion has Giving us on ? in Regards to Nature! Never said Nothing about Nature Caring to stop or Start Something or What it'll do to Mankind. It's not a Being with Emotions. I Was asking You if You Thought it was! -
HyenaKilla wrote: »? don't talk down or question my prerogative, I simply just stated why I choose to believe in ? .
Whoa Whoa Fella, Lotta Heat Coming From that Side of The Screen...lol! If You Don't Want Your Beliefs Challenged, Maybe you Should keep Them to Yourself! You Put Your Reason on Why You Believe & I Challenged it as Invalid. You Basically Said You Believe cause of Your Personal Feeling or Experience. I Don't See that as a Reason to Believe. If I Was White & I Hated Blacks cause of a Personal Feeling or Experience, Would That Make it Right? -
Eveyone has the right to feel how they want it doesnt prevent it from being stupid though.
-
HyenaKilla wrote: »? , there U go with your black & white logic.... how is my personal feelings & experiences invalid to my beliefs if that'z what influenced & formulated my perspective. I responded solely to the thread title & u responded to me, lke U looking to attack someone else's beliefs because of your own insecurities. I don't give a damn what you "don't see as a reason to believe" in ? . The answers to this topic are completely subjective & it's MY outlook on life. Your last sentence has no place in any reasonable argument, 'cause everyone has the right to feel what they want if there is a root to that sentiment.
It's Not Evidence. If You Let Your Personal Experience & Personal Feelings Guide all Your Judgments where would You be? For starters: Lots of people have personal experiences of ? . And those experiences are wildly different. Even completely contradictory. Some people experience a loving ? who only wants us to be happy and take care of one another -- others experience a vengeful ? who rigidly judges every petty detail of our lives. Some people experience a nebulous World-Soul ? , a fluid spirit animating all life -- others experience a personal ? , with a distinct personality and strong opinions and feelings. (Opinions etc. which, again, vary wildly from believer to believer.) Etc. The feelings people have in their hearts about ? are almost as varied as the people having them. And these feelings change significantly throughout history. If all these people were perceiving the same ? ... why would that be true? I Gotta a Right to Feel How I Want or Believe what I Want, But Not in Public Forum & Not Expect to be Challenged. If I Said I Believe in Smurfs, You'd Want Some Kind of Evidence Other Than a Personal Experience or Feeling from Me or You'd Dismiss me as Crazy! What Make's This Different? I Ain't Attack you by Mentioning How I Thought Your Reasons for Believing was Basically a Personal Feelings. I Don't even Know You. I Attacked Your Belief as Absurd & Not Enough of a Reason or Evidence to say you Believe. I Think I Covered Why The Heart & Mind are not to be Completely Trusted. That is Why Science has The Scientific Method to Minimize those Mistakes. -
HyenaKilla wrote: »Get a grip of yourself homeboy, I never expressed my reasons as evidence in any of my posts. What is the title of the post? There is no evidence to disprove that ? does not exist neither.
The problem with u & people with your thinking is that you think that overt evidence is the end-all-& be-all of truth. I'm not a christian, a muslim, and most definitely not an atheist, but I CHOOSE believe in ? .
U think everything has to be static and quantifiable for it to be consistent with truth and evidence. I can use science to prove that you are lacking in understanding just like those same scientists are, & along with the rest of human beings the world.
At the sub atomic particle level, it is possible for any given particle to be in two places within space at the same time. ? is just weird & flat out "absurd" at that plane, & all conventional laws of physics are utterly useless & inapplicable. So what can you tell me?
If my belief is "absurd", so be it it. All truths are parallel.
This is True, There is No Evidence to Disprove or Prove the Existence of Anything. You Just Go with the Best Case Scenario as You do with anything in life. The fact that we can't have 100% certainty doesn't mean that we can't assess which ideas are more or less likely. We can't know for 100% certain that the earth orbits the sun -- it could all be some horrible Satanic deception, or space aliens playing a practical joke -- but we can be pretty darned sure that it's very likely indeed. Reasonable plausibility, supported by carefully gathered and rigorously tested positive evidence, is the objective. And there is no reason to apply the "Reasonable plausibility supported by evidence" standard to the belief in ? . It Has Nothing to do with Being Absolute as You're trying to Make what I'm saying out to be! -
I Understand The Limits of Science, But It's The Best We Have for Determining What is Real & What is Not in The Real World. I Totally Agree The Human Mind is Light Years Beyond Science, But It Has MAJOR Flaws in Determining what's Real. Science Still has Yrs Before it Fully Understands the Brain. Neuro Science is Still Young, But I Refuse to say What we Don't Understand yet must be the work of ? with the Brain or Anything in Life. We Don't do That with anything in Life. What is Not Revealed will be in Due Time.
-
I have seen a lot of arguments for the existence of ? . And they all boil down to one or more of the following:
The argument from authority. (Example: "? exists because the Bible says ? exists.")
The argument from personal experience. (Example: "? exists because I feel in my heart that ? exists.")
The argument that religion shouldn't have to logically defend its claims. (Example: "? is an entity that cannot be proven by reason or evidence.")
Or the redefining of ? into an abstract principle -- so abstract that it can't be argued against, but also so abstract that it scarcely deserves the name ? . (Example: "? is love.")
And all these arguments are incredibly weak.
Sacred books and authorities can be mistaken. I have yet to see a sacred book that doesn't have any mistakes. (The Bible, for just one example, is shot full of them.) And the feelings in people's hearts can definitely be mistaken. They are mistaken, demonstrably so, much of the time. Instinct and intuition play an important part of human understanding and experience... but they should never be treated as the final word on a subject.
-
HyenaKilla wrote: »Well my argument would be from my personal conscious/subconscious experiences, supplemented with the experiences and sentiments expressed to me by my loved ones.
It's not a left-brain process of reasoning.
Hell, even Einstein and other geniuses of ancient & modern believe in a higher power personified as ? .
I Understand That. I'm Just saying, You Wouldn't Let me use that as Evidence if I Was Trying to Prove The Smurfs are Real, Why Would you Let it be Evidence in this Situation? Far as Einstein & Other Intelligent People in History. This is True that There are Scientist who Believe in ? , But That Number is Low like 40% & When you get to Life Sciences Like Biology. The Number who Believe is Less than 10% & Einstein Spoke on Many Occasions of Him Not Believing in a Personal ? & Was Agnostic at Best! -
I Wanna Clear this up...How is Talking or Questioning Any One's Belief or Religion Seen as Some Kind of Attack on the Person?
-
maestro_lungs wrote: »alissowack wrote: »@maestro_lungs. On the one hand, you say that Nature has stopped some people from believing in ? . Yet, in the same post you question whether I think Nature is "mom". Why would you think nature cares to stop or start anything? Why speak up on what nature, according to you, will eventually do to mankind anyway? If Nature does what it does, then you don't have to need to "force" it or defend it.
Try to Stay in Context. When I Say Nature Has Stopped some Believing in ? . I Mean The Study of it. As We Learn More, We Discard The Myths that Religion has Giving us on ? in Regards to Nature! Never said Nothing about Nature Caring to stop or Start Something or What it'll do to Mankind. It's not a Being with Emotions. I Was asking You if You Thought it was!
According to you, belief is unreasonable so how can you study it? I assumed that when you said nature "stopped" something, that you meant literally so that's where I took it. So, in due time, we will naturally stop believing you say. Well, I doubt it. This issue of ? 's Existence will never go away...like a lot of things in this world.
I'm referring back to a point I was trying to make. You are still making this religion stuff about the "miracles"...or the myths. So what books make extravagant claims of power and might...and so what if they somehow turned out to be true. If they don't deal with the questions we have about life, then they serve no purpose. ? 's Existence would be meaningless if there isn't a reason to think that maybe this flashy stuffy was meant for something. -
? is positive energy. Some people need to see it that's why there is ? . Religion is felonious.
-
alissowack wrote: »maestro_lungs wrote: »alissowack wrote: »@maestro_lungs. On the one hand, you say that Nature has stopped some people from believing in ? . Yet, in the same post you question whether I think Nature is "mom". Why would you think nature cares to stop or start anything? Why speak up on what nature, according to you, will eventually do to mankind anyway? If Nature does what it does, then you don't have to need to "force" it or defend it.
Try to Stay in Context. When I Say Nature Has Stopped some Believing in ? . I Mean The Study of it. As We Learn More, We Discard The Myths that Religion has Giving us on ? in Regards to Nature! Never said Nothing about Nature Caring to stop or Start Something or What it'll do to Mankind. It's not a Being with Emotions. I Was asking You if You Thought it was!
According to you, belief is unreasonable so how can you study it? I assumed that when you said nature "stopped" something, that you meant literally so that's where I took it. So, in due time, we will naturally stop believing you say. Well, I doubt it. This issue of ? 's Existence will never go away...like a lot of things in this world.
I'm referring back to a point I was trying to make. You are still making this religion stuff about the "miracles"...or the myths. So what books make extravagant claims of power and might...and so what if they somehow turned out to be true. If they don't deal with the questions we have about life, then they serve no purpose. ? 's Existence would be meaningless if there isn't a reason to think that maybe this flashy stuffy was meant for something.
You can Study belief, but You Can't Actually Study the deity. ? is Unrational, Not the Fact That People Believe. you can doubt it, But I Beg to Differ. There'll Come a Time When we Won't need ? to Answer Certain questions! Just Like Know, We don't need ? to Explain How it Rains or How Babies are Made.
That's Human Mind. You're Putting Purpose, Patterns & Design where it doesn't have to. The Books don't deal with all the Questions we have about & Sometimes when it does it Gives Harmful or Just Wrong Information -
maestro_lungs wrote: »I Wanna Clear this up...How is Talking or Questioning Any One's Belief or Religion Seen as Some Kind of Attack on the Person?
Because there is this implied sense that you think that people who have beliefs, especially in ? , are somehow inferior to the people who don't. It is as if you are, like you say of the religious, manipulating people to see your point of view. Though experience doesn't make ? 's Existence valid, it sounds as if you want people to abandon their experiences. Maybe believing in ? has helped them live a better life. Maybe belief in ? has made them successful and people shouldn't feel as if they should abandon ? because you say so...like you say that people shouldn't believe in ? because the Bible says so.
-
maestro_lungs wrote: »alissowack wrote: »maestro_lungs wrote: »alissowack wrote: »@maestro_lungs. On the one hand, you say that Nature has stopped some people from believing in ? . Yet, in the same post you question whether I think Nature is "mom". Why would you think nature cares to stop or start anything? Why speak up on what nature, according to you, will eventually do to mankind anyway? If Nature does what it does, then you don't have to need to "force" it or defend it.
Try to Stay in Context. When I Say Nature Has Stopped some Believing in ? . I Mean The Study of it. As We Learn More, We Discard The Myths that Religion has Giving us on ? in Regards to Nature! Never said Nothing about Nature Caring to stop or Start Something or What it'll do to Mankind. It's not a Being with Emotions. I Was asking You if You Thought it was!
According to you, belief is unreasonable so how can you study it? I assumed that when you said nature "stopped" something, that you meant literally so that's where I took it. So, in due time, we will naturally stop believing you say. Well, I doubt it. This issue of ? 's Existence will never go away...like a lot of things in this world.
I'm referring back to a point I was trying to make. You are still making this religion stuff about the "miracles"...or the myths. So what books make extravagant claims of power and might...and so what if they somehow turned out to be true. If they don't deal with the questions we have about life, then they serve no purpose. ? 's Existence would be meaningless if there isn't a reason to think that maybe this flashy stuffy was meant for something.
You can Study belief, but You Can't Actually Study the deity. ? is Unrational, Not the Fact That People Believe. you can doubt it, But I Beg to Differ. There'll Come a Time When we Won't need ? to Answer Certain questions! Just Like Know, We don't need ? to Explain How it Rains or How Babies are Made.
That's Human Mind. You're Putting Purpose, Patterns & Design where it doesn't have to. The Books don't deal with all the Questions we have about & Sometimes when it does it Gives Harmful or Just Wrong Information
Well, how can you say that ? is irrational when ? has to "exist" first in your view to even be found as such. No, you can't study belief...because belief is not based on science. It is based on relationship. It involves devotion, commitment, trust, union, emotions,....stuff that science won't allow you to do. I can accept that you don't believe ? exists because you don't trust the people who tell you that ? exists. But for you to use science to justify your lack of belief says you don't really want to look any further. You are content at where you are on the existence of ? and you rather have people adopt your views.
Yes, you could probably say the same about the religious, but it doesn't mean that every religious person is looking at the foundations of science and is not appreciative of what it has done to help explain things. And like you say of ? , the religious say that it is not the whole picture.
