[POLL]Your religion? - Page 10

On August 13 2012 08:05 taco wrote: Show nested quote + On August 13 2012 07:25 brambolius wrote:   On August 13 2012 06:14 taco wrote: Not really potatoe with that non-sugarplum comment, not at all eating yellyfish to non-cyclopeds and rubba-dub-dubs to catfur. Merely replacing nouns in an attempt to show taco how ridiculous his sentence sounds. Wow, that was non-comparable You're ridiculing an act, the act of people who don't do something (in your case: have a theism) defending their choice not to do something that others (in your case: have a theism). The act is the same; be it non-pedophiles or non-smokers. Yet you ridicule the act in this case and only this case? Why is the act worthy of ridicule when atheists choose not to be theists but not when people that don't molest children choose not to?

I'll indulge you just this once,

molesting children is deplorable.
Believing in something, not always so.

Looking down upon someone who rapes children, becouse you yourself don't rape children is not the same as looking down on someone for having different beliefs then you.

To compare atheists/theists to non-pedophiles/pedophiles is Retarded, so don't expect anything less then retarded back.

See? it was comparable, waddayaknow.

On August 13 2012 07:41 Zorglub wrote: If your brain is controlling all your actions and thoughts, who is controlling the environment and everything your brain reacts and responds to? Or is the nature/environment not controlled?

Brain controls what you see or hear but who controls brain?--Imagine yourself on lsd before you answer-.Your thoughts-actions have to do a lot with society.Do u believe that people actually control their actions or thoughts?If you grow up in a strict religious society with like 1.000.000 rules won't you behave according to them?

If nature/the environment is not controlled then your thoughts and actions are not controlled either, because they exist only because of input and interaction with the environment. The environment will enevitably influence your thoughts and actions.

-You are talking about natural environment?How nature has to do anything with somebody's thoughts?

A brain without anything to respond to or any external input or output would hardly serve any purpose at all. In the bigger picture it is the environment controlling man and his thoughts, it is not the other way around.

Does a bee has any purpose in life?If yes what is it?How about if i go and kill this bee with a newspaper?In the bigger picture the way we behave and think, is 'controlled' by the society we grew up

On August 13 2012 08:28 Zorglub wrote: Show nested quote + On August 13 2012 08:19 Liquid`Drone wrote:   On August 13 2012 07:41 Zorglub wrote:   On August 13 2012 06:31 xafies wrote:   On August 13 2012 04:48 Zorglub wrote:   On August 13 2012 04:40 xafies wrote:   On August 12 2012 19:09 Zorglub wrote: Ok and how would an eletric impulse from a neuron ever get translated into something we recognize? I think that requires some kind of mind. We dont see or feel electric impulses, we see pictures and feel emotions right? LOL what?Plz read this : about perception Please argue your points yourself and include your references if asked. I have read a ton of these and I would like to discuss specific points, to refine what I believe or find out where I am wrong, I am not looking for a supposed authority to tell me what I should believe. Logic and arguments are the only thing that works on me, authority or supposed authority I dont really respect much if it does not come with the former values. I would like to know YOUR arguments, not some other guys. Ok my arguments are with science .This article explains in a simple manner how f.e the visual system works.If you read it you 'll understand that brain works like a complicated computer .There is no room for saying mind is required to see or feel.This is strictly brain's work/ without energy it will be unable to function.And will be dead....... forever. P.S Unless you define the mind as the brain Ok so you are objecting against the concept of "mind" if I understand you right? If your brain is controlling all your actions and thoughts, who is controlling the environment and everything your brain reacts and responds to? Or is the nature/environment not controlled? If nature/the environment is not controlled then your thoughts and actions are not controlled either, because they exist only because of input and interaction with the environment. The environment will enevitably influence your thoughts and actions. A brain without anything to respond to or any external input or output would hardly serve any purpose at all. In the bigger picture it is the environment controlling man and his thoughts, it is not the other way around. sounds like you're objecting to the philosophical ramifications of accepting no god/meaning, not so much that you've found a reason why there has to be a god/meaning. Most people feel that way about free will, too. I am arguing what I believe to be true, for the sole reason of ruling out mistakes, to refine what I believe is the truth even further. I would also accept no god/meaning if I thought that was the most probable explanation, and I will go back to it again if new knowledge or evidence makes it more likely than the theory I hold as most likely right now. Speaking of free will, maybe you could explain to me how it would be possible to have a "free will"? I simply can not see how it would be possible, no matter if you take a scientific or religious approach. Maybe you could explain to me how it is supposed to work?

I don't buy the concept of free will myself. But the logical consequence of that, is also accepting that there is no accountability, no good nor evil, and for most people, that's not easily acceptable.

On August 13 2012 12:38 Liquid`Drone wrote: Show nested quote + On August 13 2012 08:28 Zorglub wrote:   On August 13 2012 08:19 Liquid`Drone wrote:   On August 13 2012 07:41 Zorglub wrote:   On August 13 2012 06:31 xafies wrote:   On August 13 2012 04:48 Zorglub wrote:   On August 13 2012 04:40 xafies wrote:   On August 12 2012 19:09 Zorglub wrote: Ok and how would an eletric impulse from a neuron ever get translated into something we recognize? I think that requires some kind of mind. We dont see or feel electric impulses, we see pictures and feel emotions right? LOL what?Plz read this : about perception Please argue your points yourself and include your references if asked. I have read a ton of these and I would like to discuss specific points, to refine what I believe or find out where I am wrong, I am not looking for a supposed authority to tell me what I should believe. Logic and arguments are the only thing that works on me, authority or supposed authority I dont really respect much if it does not come with the former values. I would like to know YOUR arguments, not some other guys. Ok my arguments are with science .This article explains in a simple manner how f.e the visual system works.If you read it you 'll understand that brain works like a complicated computer .There is no room for saying mind is required to see or feel.This is strictly brain's work/ without energy it will be unable to function.And will be dead....... forever. P.S Unless you define the mind as the brain Ok so you are objecting against the concept of "mind" if I understand you right? If your brain is controlling all your actions and thoughts, who is controlling the environment and everything your brain reacts and responds to? Or is the nature/environment not controlled? If nature/the environment is not controlled then your thoughts and actions are not controlled either, because they exist only because of input and interaction with the environment. The environment will enevitably influence your thoughts and actions. A brain without anything to respond to or any external input or output would hardly serve any purpose at all. In the bigger picture it is the environment controlling man and his thoughts, it is not the other way around. sounds like you're objecting to the philosophical ramifications of accepting no god/meaning, not so much that you've found a reason why there has to be a god/meaning. Most people feel that way about free will, too. I am arguing what I believe to be true, for the sole reason of ruling out mistakes, to refine what I believe is the truth even further. I would also accept no god/meaning if I thought that was the most probable explanation, and I will go back to it again if new knowledge or evidence makes it more likely than the theory I hold as most likely right now. Speaking of free will, maybe you could explain to me how it would be possible to have a "free will"? I simply can not see how it would be possible, no matter if you take a scientific or religious approach. Maybe you could explain to me how it is supposed to work? I don't buy the concept of free will myself. But the logical consequence of that, is also accepting that there is no accountability, no good nor evil, and for most people, that's not easily acceptable.

Yes I agree, I have been struggeling with those myself and came to the same conclusion, but sometimes I still find it hard to convince myself about this, even though it is the only logical explanation that makes sense to me. It is just so counter intuitive from everything we are brought up to believe, so I guess it takes time to get used to. As a concept it is fairly simple to "prove".

Can I ask if you are religious or did you come to this realization from another point of view?

IMO, i don't see how you can be religious and come up to that conclusion. The concept of good and evil is big part of religions and religious teachings; western at least, since eastern religions seem to prone more of a "relative" approach to morals and such.

Glad am not alone getting to that conclusion. When i apply that to discussions like crime, poverty, addictions and other things that we traditionally apply a "he's drug addict, so it's his fault"/"he's been poor all his life, it's his fault" etc. i get strong resistance. for drug example, i put more weight on the fact that person's environment and genetic dispositions are much more a factor then that person one day deciding that he will do drugs, or that he put himself in that situation using "free will".
i don't know exactly if that is what drone is talking about, but that's what i get out of it.

On August 13 2012 15:32 uiCk wrote: IMO, i don't see how you can be religious and come up to that conclusion. The concept of good and evil is big part of religions and religious teachings; western at least, since eastern religions seem to prone more of a "relative" approach to morals and such. Glad am not alone getting to that conclusion. When i apply that to discussions like crime, poverty, addictions and other things that we traditionally apply a "he's drug addict, so it's his fault"/"he's been poor all his life, it's his fault" etc. i get strong resistance. for drug example, i put more weight on the fact that person's environment and genetic dispositions are much more a factor then that person one day deciding that he will do drugs, or that he put himself in that situation using "free will". i don't know exactly if that is what drone is talking about, but that's what i get out of it.

All of the eastern religions and philosophies basically share this concept, taoism, confucianism, ying/yang, buddhism, hinduism etc. Without evil there can be no good, they are mutually dependent and can not exist on their own, so they are necessary components of reality. Besides what is "good" and "evil"? To whom are they good and evil? Good and evil compared to what? How could you ever find out if something was good or evil, if you don't know all the future consequences of an action exactly?

Paradoxically you could even claim that good causes evil and evil causes good, because we use the level of one of them to judge the level of the other.

On August 13 2012 09:17 brambolius wrote: I'll indulge you just this once, molesting children is deplorable. Believing in something, not always so.

No, you have not understood my point correctly:

Why is it wrong for atheists to defend their position? That is what you said was wrong. There is nothing wrong with being an atheist.
Are you following me?
Now follow this:
Why is it wrong for non-pedophiles to defend their position? There is yet again nothing wrong with being a non-pedophile.
Yet you say it is wrong for non-theists to defend their position.

See? This is why it is comparable.

Then to my point: What is the purpose of your comment, if not to say that people who defend their positions, when their positions are not deplorable, are not class act people?

On August 13 2012 15:58 Zorglub wrote: Show nested quote + On August 13 2012 15:32 uiCk wrote: IMO, i don't see how you can be religious and come up to that conclusion. The concept of good and evil is big part of religions and religious teachings; western at least, since eastern religions seem to prone more of a "relative" approach to morals and such. Glad am not alone getting to that conclusion. When i apply that to discussions like crime, poverty, addictions and other things that we traditionally apply a "he's drug addict, so it's his fault"/"he's been poor all his life, it's his fault" etc. i get strong resistance. for drug example, i put more weight on the fact that person's environment and genetic dispositions are much more a factor then that person one day deciding that he will do drugs, or that he put himself in that situation using "free will". i don't know exactly if that is what drone is talking about, but that's what i get out of it. All of the eastern religions and philosophies basically share this concept, taoism, confucianism, ying/yang, buddhism, hinduism etc. Without evil there can be no good, they are mutually dependent and can not exist on their own, so they are necessary components of reality. Besides what is "good" and "evil"? To whom are they good and evil? Good and evil compared to what? How could you ever find out if something was good or evil, if you don't know all the future consequences of an action exactly? Paradoxically you could even claim that good causes evil and evil causes good, because we use the level of one of them to judge the level of the other.

i don't believe in the concept of "evil" nor in the concept of "good". That presuppose there is something evil that dictates our actions, and something good that also dictates part of our actions. That leads to belief in soul, some higher power , other entities that are in control of our body and mind etc.

Personally, an action is done and then it is judge as bad or evil, while the initial action is neither. We cause good and we cause bad. You can kill someone, in a "good" cause and cause "good" to the rest of the population (lets say a rapist), but at the same time cause "bad" to the people close to the rapist or anyone close to him that cared about him.

I don't think people are "generous" because they are "good by nature". i think everyone is good. everyone is evil. everyone is honest, everyone is generous etc. Just that everyone has different levels of these attributes.

On side note, my view on what is the reason someone is more generous then another, is because that person has more powerful release of dopamines when making some how "good feelings". A person who;s biological body is less apt at detecting others emotions, is less likely to get affected by making someone feel emotionally good. Thus doing less of good things in general, unless he forces himself to do good regardless if his emotional state gets effected at all and dopamines are not being produced.
So you can say a generous person is actually a greedy person. and vice versa. Thus why i think our current concept of good/evil is totally fucked.

On August 13 2012 17:41 uiCk wrote: Show nested quote + On August 13 2012 15:58 Zorglub wrote:   On August 13 2012 15:32 uiCk wrote: IMO, i don't see how you can be religious and come up to that conclusion. The concept of good and evil is big part of religions and religious teachings; western at least, since eastern religions seem to prone more of a "relative" approach to morals and such. Glad am not alone getting to that conclusion. When i apply that to discussions like crime, poverty, addictions and other things that we traditionally apply a "he's drug addict, so it's his fault"/"he's been poor all his life, it's his fault" etc. i get strong resistance. for drug example, i put more weight on the fact that person's environment and genetic dispositions are much more a factor then that person one day deciding that he will do drugs, or that he put himself in that situation using "free will". i don't know exactly if that is what drone is talking about, but that's what i get out of it. All of the eastern religions and philosophies basically share this concept, taoism, confucianism, ying/yang, buddhism, hinduism etc. Without evil there can be no good, they are mutually dependent and can not exist on their own, so they are necessary components of reality. Besides what is "good" and "evil"? To whom are they good and evil? Good and evil compared to what? How could you ever find out if something was good or evil, if you don't know all the future consequences of an action exactly? Paradoxically you could even claim that good causes evil and evil causes good, because we use the level of one of them to judge the level of the other. i don't believe in the concept of "evil" nor in the concept of "good". That presuppose there is something evil that dictates our actions, and something good that also dictates part of our actions. That leads to belief in soul, some higher power , other entities that are in control of our body and mind etc. Personally, an action is done and then it is judge as bad or evil, while the initial action is neither. We cause good and we cause bad. You can kill someone, in a "good" cause and cause "good" to the rest of the population (lets say a rapist), but at the same time cause "bad" to the people close to the rapist or anyone close to him that cared about him. I don't think people are "generous" because they are "good by nature". i think everyone is good. everyone is evil. everyone is honest, everyone is generous etc. Just that everyone has different levels of these attributes. On side note, my view on what is the reason someone is more generous then another, is because that person has more powerful release of dopamines when making some how "good feelings". A person who;s biological body is less apt at detecting others emotions, is less likely to get affected by making someone feel emotionally good. Thus doing less of good things in general, unless he forces himself to do good regardless if his emotional state gets effected at all and dopamines are not being produced. So you can say a generous person is actually a greedy person. and vice versa. Thus why i think our current concept of good/evil is totally fucked.

I agree with most of this, I do believe there is a God though. We simply don't know enough to say anything for certain, even about good and evil (if they exist at all) because we do not truely comprehend every consequence of an action.

I believe that we all have everything in us, we are all good and evil. Like you said in different but necessary proportions. Nothing is only black or white, we all have everything in us, at least latent or potentially. We are all different shades of grey.

People like to give credit to their imaginary friends when something unexplainable happens. In the beginning there were all kinds of questions like how the fuck did just this turn into fire, who the hell cause that tsunami/whirpool/whatever etc.etc. so every tribe had a god for each one of them. Now that science has given an answer to pretty much everything but the question "How the hell did we end up here on this planet as human, what created us, what created the universe, what created the thing that created us etc. ? " So obvioulsy human nature does not change even through thousends of years and obviously god must've made that all ! NO WAY there s another explanation it would just make no sense whatsoever! Also please donate money to your beliefs, otherwise when you die there wont be a priest at your funeral cause you didnt pay for it, you obviously dont truelly support your beliefs when you dont throw out money for them !

Yes i cannot understand how didnt anyone mention this. As far as i know in most "developed" countries when you choose your religion you MUST pay taxes for it, if you fail to do so you are not getting the proper treatment no matter how good you were in your life and blablabla all that bs the religion "supports" . So all of those religious "heads" can go f*** themselves really. And yeah i truelly believe anyone that believes in the religions in their current form is a retarded douchebag ( probably except buddhism and all that eastern stuff ). Believing in god ... thats another topic you dont have to respect the church in order to believe in god ( althought the church would probably exile me for what i just wrote )

Also 10 pages and you are pretty much back to square one on the god/science topic


@ Zorglub
How can you put all of those philosophical questions out there and not know the fundamentals of philosophy ... Everything in our society is as it is because the mainstream accepts it that way. You know the chair is a chair cause the mainstream views it that way. If the mainstream viewed the chair as a table then it would be a table and so on. Analogically this takes part in our emotions/actions and so on. And yeah im def not agreeing with nothing is black or white .. not really its either black or white out of each persons perspective, take 50 different perspectives - now thats another thing, this however does not change a thing to each one of them personally. 50 shades of grey :D .... the grey perspective really just diminishes the guilt(probably not the best word to use in the context) to the given action/person. I dont see how you will get anywhere near the end of the god/science topic discussing our very human nature however...

On August 13 2012 19:58 Spitfiree wrote: People like to give credit to their imaginary friends when something unexplainable happens. In the beginning there were all kinds of questions like how the fuck did just this turn into fire, who the hell cause that tsunami/whirpool/whatever etc.etc. so every tribe had a god for each one of them. Now that science has given an answer to pretty much everything but the question "How the hell did we end up here on this planet as human, what created us, what created the universe, what created the thing that created us etc. ? " So obvioulsy human nature does not change even through thousends of years and obviously god must've made that all ! NO WAY there s another explanation it would just make no sense whatsoever! Also please donate money to your beliefs, otherwise when you die there wont be a priest at your funeral cause you didnt pay for it, you obviously dont truelly support your beliefs when you dont throw out money for them ! Yes i cannot understand how didnt anyone mention this. As far as i know in most "developed" countries when you choose your religion you MUST pay taxes for it, if you fail to do so you are not getting the proper treatment no matter how good you were in your life and blablabla all that bs the religion "supports" . So all of those religious "heads" can go f*** themselves really. And yeah i truelly believe anyone that believes in the religions in their current form is a retarded douchebag ( probably except buddhism and all that eastern stuff ). Believing in god ... thats another topic you dont have to respect the church in order to believe in god ( althought the church would probably exile me for what i just wrote ) Also 10 pages and you are pretty much back to square one on the god/science topic @ Zorglub How can you put all of those philosophical questions out there and not know the fundamentals of philosophy ... Everything in our society is as it is because the mainstream accepts it that way. You know the chair is a chair cause the mainstream views it that way. If the mainstream viewed the chair as a table then it would be a table and so on. Analogically this takes part in our emotions/actions and so on. And yeah im def not agreeing with nothing is black or white .. not really its either black or white out of each persons perspective, take 50 different perspectives - now thats another thing, this however does not change a thing to each one of them personally. 50 shades of grey :D .... the grey perspective really just diminishes the guilt(probably not the best word to use in the context) to the given action/person. I dont see how you will get anywhere near the end of the god/science topic discussing our very human nature however...

Your argument resembles what Schopenhauers "The world as will and representation" said, and I was convinced of this for quite some time, but some personal experiences and the above mentioned "No free will" theory made me revise that view. Well it might still be the percieved experience to the individual, but I believe the whole scenario is orchestered elsewhere. The world can not be "our" will and representation, if we do not in fact have a "free will". Instead the world would be what we thought was our will and representation, but in reality it would be "anothers" will and representation, experienced or percieved as "our own".

On August 13 2012 16:13 taco wrote: Show nested quote + On August 13 2012 09:17 brambolius wrote: I'll indulge you just this once, molesting children is deplorable. Believing in something, not always so. No, you have not understood my point correctly: Why is it wrong for atheists to defend their position? That is what you said was wrong. There is nothing wrong with being an atheist. Are you following me? Now follow this: Why is it wrong for non-pedophiles to defend their position? There is yet again nothing wrong with being a non-pedophile. Yet you say it is wrong for non-theists to defend their position. See? This is why it is comparable. Then to my point: What is the purpose of your comment, if not to say that people who defend their positions, when their positions are not deplorable, are not class act people?

Are you really this stupid ?

Defending your position isn't the same as bashing someone elses.

Maybe you should re-read my first post before getting your panties all up in a bunch buddy.

On August 14 2012 06:01 brambolius wrote: Are you really this stupid ? Defending your position isn't the same as bashing someone elses. Maybe you should re-read my first post before getting your panties all up in a bunch buddy.

Except that your comment was not gotta love how all the so called atheists stand at the ready to bash anyone who doesn't agree.

Your comment was:

"gotta love how all the so called atheists defend their beliefs like it's a religion
and stand at the ready to bash anyone who doesn't agree.
Class act people."

Your comment is dissing both that they defend their beliefs (like it's a religion) and that they are prepared to bash anyone who doesn't agree.

Now maybe your English isn't good enough to comprehend that you are dissing both, but I know for a fact that Dutch
does not differ from English enough to be different in this aspect.

If you mention two things separated by 'en' and imply they are bad. You are implying that they are bad.

Example, since you seem not to understand a word I say:

"Gotta love it how those women think they have equal rights and stand ready to purchase ab-exercisers.

What morons"

Do you really not see how that comment is implying that there is something wrong with women believing they have equal rights?

If not I give up on conversing with you.

No need, I already have.

On August 14 2012 06:47 brambolius wrote: Show nested quote + On August 14 2012 06:07 taco wrote: Do you really not see how that comment is implying that there is something wrong with women believing they have equal rights? If not I give up on conversing with you. No need, I already have.

Good.

Well it might still be the percieved experience to the individual, but I believe the whole scenario is orchestered elsewhere. The world can not be "our" will and representation, if we do not in fact have a "free will". Instead the world would be what we thought was our will and representation, but in reality it would be "anothers" will and representation, experienced or percieved as "our own".

Thats what i meant, except the brain makes it look like it indeed is ours otherwise we d go nuts ( at least i think so ). Have to read Schopenhauers's book now

I am quite amazed that more people came to this conclusion, it seems like a hard pill to swallow for many.

If you think even further, I believe there is no such thing as time or even life, they are concepts and experiences made by our mind (which in fact would be Gods mind). If you go right to the source, I believe the only thing that really exists is mind (but a mind who knows everything and has experienced everything, and thus is able to replicate/illustrate everything).

This would also explain the "no free will". If you know everything and have experienced everything, you could never experience something "new". So if you wanted to experience something "new" you would have to give up on knowing everything, and thus give up your control/will. You can not have both the "new" experience and the control at the same time, because the one eliminates the other.

Thats quite obvious - its why smart people force themselves to go out of their comfort zone in order to experience new things and then learn to control them etc.Its the only way an individual could progress
Anyways you are going in deeper than Di Caprio, I mean even realizing those things doesnt really change much, could only demotivate you hardcore

On August 14 2012 12:32 Spitfiree wrote: Thats quite obvious - its why smart people force themselves to go out of their comfort zone in order to experience new things and then learn to control them etc.Its the only way an individual could progress Anyways you are going in deeper than Di Caprio, I mean even realizing those things doesnt really change much, could only demotivate you hardcore

How would it really change anything at all? If you don't have a free will it changes nothing, you do what you are supposed to do no matter what. All you can do is hang on for the ride, and enjoy it as much as you can.

If there is or not free will under those concepts, what is the pragmatical impact on your life?