If you are a Thinker, then read and listen
Offline I'm a thinker. I come to this board to not try and convince anyone of anything. I come to this board to point out the fallacies of your thoughts and conviction over something that isn't really that completely revealing and fascinating. Before you continute reading anything I have to say, let it be known that I hold no belief in religious dogma yet I know a lot about religion. One other thing I know alot about it spirituality. And if any of you are reading these boards, and agreeing with what anyone has to say about anything, then please entertain the idea that spirituality is very very very seperate from religion. The Bible, the Koran, the Torah, the fucking Vedas are all written by HUMANS. No human is really that special in this world. Not even Jesus Christ. Not special enough to put in written form THE WORD OF GOD. GOD DOESN'T SPEAK ENGLISH. No mortal on this earth will even be able to come near to understanding God. God is just God, and I have learned to accept that, as much of a thinker as I am compared to ALL of you, and ALL of man. So please people, don't let me tell you God is real, let your mind, your experiences, and your Dharmic happiness let you see for yourself what might and might not be true. Then, and only then, do something so rash as saying, God isn't real. Because all of you, though as right as you may think, could be so very wrong. And THAT, my friends, is a VERY REAL idea. A very Rational, Real, idea. So take all things in this world into consideration, and learn to love. Love with your mind, your soul, and your physical body. None of you are striving and doing much of anything to make THIS WORLD a better place. Saying God isn't real is not going to do much in this world. Knowing that people think differently, have different beliefs, yet for the most part, at least contrive, at short bursts of time in their busy lives, that many people, including you WANT a change in this world. I want a change in this world. I look at all of you, and say, man, there are some really intelligent people out there. Yet I just sit here and at the same time say to myself, you guys are all still very ignorant. Not because you have chosen to. But because websites just like this one has told you to be ignorant. And you have been the herd which is the herd of common humanity, and you have listened. Listen. Think. Feel. Love. Always. But do it all very, very rationally. And stop buying books written by some fucktard named Richard Dawkins, who I've never seen in my life, or even heard of, you've never heard of, noone's ever heard of. Fuck that guy. He's a douche bag. You though. You are all very smart people. Don't let your inhibitions and your desires take command over very smart and powerful ideas. Because ideas are everything. Buddha was a walking book of ideas. We are all Buddha's trapped in a Palace free of suffering in a world of great suffering. Step outside the palace garden which is your 200 dollar Ipod and your 10 dollar a month subscription to "God is not real because we say so" and look with your OWN two eyes upon the old dying man. And come to a realization in your own hearts, your own strive, a strive for noone but yourself, for true happiness. True inwardness. True insight, and true feelings. The fact is, Jesus Christ, a very loving human being, was exploited into a system which ruled the world for 2000 years. And now, Christianity is failing in controlling humans and making money, but Materialism has taken over. And materialism, friends, is a tool far greater then Christianity will ever be. Because materialism is the reason you guys buy into this crap. Give me a break, open your eyes, and breath. Breath a big, fresh air of reality. Has nothing to do with God, or Jesus Christ, or Atheism. It's finding God within yourself, your soul, and your desires. Let your desires be Godly, and let the good feelings roll over. Continue on your path, the path of a living hell, of searching for the "truth" which is that God isn't real, and you will fail. Who made you fail? God? or Yourself?
1 in 5 Americans believe we live in a Geocentric solar system. Who do you blame for that? God? I blame god.
- Login to post comments
Ripple,
I really don't know how to assuage your fears except to say that the hope lies in the fact that astronomers ARE looking for the wayward asteroids and science is revealing possibilities for dealing with each of the instances as they are given.
That's the key to a positive future in my opinion. Religion seems to want people to wait idly for the 'end of the world' and science is looking for ways to ensure that we, as a species, will survive.
For me, that seems to be the side to get on in this 'debate'. I can see the reality of possibly living on mars. I can't see us sitting down to the marriage supper of the lamb. lol.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
BTW, in the future, thinkers may want to consider using paragraph breaks. Thanks.
Yellow_Number_5, by proceeding to read this post created by user member Ripple of www.rationalresponders.com, you are testifying that you have homosexual tendencies(there is nothing wrong with that)
then say..the world economy collapsing because oil ran out or something. People on this earth would rather die then be in a Mad Max situation of living.
Yellow...
Do not.
Read.
Anything.
I have to say.
Problemsolvedmyfriend.
Still want to reply to my posts? Then go ahead mud dungler.
Josh... What fears did I claim to have?
I must mearly point out the fact that I really believe many people on this earth would rather a life-ending situation(asteroids and volcanoes, or even God's "judgement day"
This proves the materialistic nature of modern day humanity, which in all regards, disgusts me.
Yeah, tell me about the will to survive and keep the species going, and then talk to the ones who jumped out of 40 story buildings during Black Tuesday. They would rather die then face not being able to "live" anymore, because their financial life was ruined.
By all means, I'm completely for science advancing the survival of humanity. But how much of an advancement of survival did we accomplish after the Manhatten Project. If I remember, that was PURE SCIENCE. I completely understand the strategic and tactical logistics of the reasons we poured money into nuclear fission and fussion research(especially with regards to bomb making[if not for the bombs, who knows...I would love to discuss the what-ifs and reasons behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki with history-minded people])
But how can you honestly sit here and talk about a positive future no matter how advanced our science may get, when science will never prevent MAN from killing MAN, and in facts, instigates more efficient death upon earth.
We can sit here and argue for hours on what causes suffering in this world. The fact is, science, religion, whatever, none of it causes suffering, suffering to the point where stock broker Bob can't live because his financial worth is zilch. Human suffering is caused by humans.
How to eliminate suffering? (this list is very broad and general)
--Buddhist(or similiar Dharmic ideals) way of life and thinking
--The advancement of science for a more comfortable living.
--I can do whatever I want(then confess and be forgiven) and still go to heaven, because I believe it to be so.
Buddhism is a whole other matter of topic, and really shouldn't be discussed on this post...it's not really a religion. More importantly its a non-deist faith.
Sure, one thing will end physical suffering(science). But the other(Abrahamic religions) elviates the mental suffering which is unknowledge. Unfortunately, this view of actions is severely skewed. Sadly, this same idea has caught on because it is so easy to believe in, to find solace in. Poor, poor souls...
We could honestly argue for days about past events and how it is driven the earth to be where it is. Essentially, it is not religion, or science, or Gods fault that Mother Earth has been raped and pillaged. The own creatures which were offered the breast of life, decided to grab on for dear life(and death) to proceed to suck it dry. Religion did this in many ways I presume, but certainly, technology(can't have tech without science) has done this very much so. But that is not science's fault, it is the usage of that science being put into corrupt mens hands, to accelerate the pillage of our Mother.
1 in 5 Americans believe we live in a Geocentric solar system. Who do you blame for that? God? I blame god.
Someone, please answer me this: Why do you all keep doing this to each other?
Nobody is accomplishing anything. Seriously. And, arguments on both sides are faulty.
From what I have read the athiest does not believe in a God because of lack of proof. Great! Except that your approximately 4,000 years too late to make it anything new and exciting. At best you're just going to have your 15 minutes in the sun just like everyone else. But hey, as long as you're out there have fun.
I read these posts and all too often people make such bold assumptions. It's all over the place here. Heck, most of the time both sides are saying the exact same thing. And, if that wasn't bad enough you all just keep doing it over and over and over and over. Makes for some wonderful drama I suppose.
Someone believes in a God. You say it's irrational. Well, does a crazy person know their crazy? No, by all accounts they probably feel normal and if that is the case how can they be crazy.
The only reason they are considered crazy because you want a black and white world. If that helps you to sleep better at not, great.
I bring up the crazy part because the biggest cop out argument that is being used is irrationality. That in itself is nothing more than a label and a subjective one at that. I mean holy heck, both sides are rational in their own right. To sit their and make a bold statement such as that implies that you know everything there is to know. Both sides are guilty of human arrogance.
How can you sit there and expect something that is so subjective in nature and make it objective. Talk about irrational. It's the same thing as reading a poem. Everyone is free to choose their own interpretation but no one interpretation is irrational.
Some use science to back up their claims. This is preposterous. Science itself is also flawed. Human beings by nature are flawed. We make errors all the time. How can a flawed being produce the perfect tool? Let alone know what perfection is.
Let's look at perfection. Nobody knows what it means to be perfect. The whole idea is subjective and open to many interprations, yet people will keep trying to spin it to make it objective.
I mean if you want you can take it even further and demonstrate that it is possible that being flawed is purely subjective as well.
You people are dealing in extremes. I mean you want to use rational talk, how do you expect two completely seperate views to come together and see eye to eye? Black wants white to be black and white wants black to be white.
First off.. late me state my problems with this thread in the first place.
"If you're a thinker, read this." Or something to the affect.
"I am a thinker" Is how the post actually starts off.
The whole thing just struck me as rather condescending in the first place-- as even the post before this one strikes me. Seeing as the thread has moved far along it's debate with the original thread... I will only issue with the previous one-- which presents itself self as somewhat independent of everything else.
Because it's fun or because some people believe something might come out of it or because some people like making other people mad... I'm sure there are many more plausible reasons.
Possibly. Or possibly not. I'm not sure this is something that can be verified (I'm speaking of the accomplishments or lack thereof).
As for the faultiness of the arguments on both sides.. I don't see where you have verified or even presented an argument of that-- merely made an assumption.
I don't see it as a logical necessity to infer from the duration of a contention or question, that it is less worthy of discussion or answer.
True.. sometimes-- I'm not sure 'most' would be accurate.. unless you have read all the posts-- in which case you are the one making a "bold assumption" in this case.
I guess it could have been accurate to say: From what I've read, most of the time both sides are saying the exact same thing.
It does make for some drama though.
As for the repitition of some content-- I would venture to say it is irrelevant to the relevance of the discussion.
Kind of like saying, at least I see it this way, that since Edison repeated many of the same variables throughout his process of creating the lightbulb.. that the process of creating a lightbulb was less relevant.
The reality of a person does not rely on the reality of other people.. this is true. I can believe one thing completely as real.. and the rest of the world can thing another.. this does not change what I believe real to be.
But to say that I cannot say that a certain person is incorrect.. or at the very least illogical.. is something I'm not willing to accept.
Unless you are saying that we cannot call a person crazy at all just because they believe themselves to be normal.
Or because they have some sort of illegal effect on another individual..
We do not throw people in jail for believing in God or the tooth fairy.. however if they claimed, and believed, that the tooth fairy or God forced them to rob a bank-- then they would be subject to the same laws as everyone else.
Because yes.. the world needs order outside of individuals who are not mutually exclusive.
We consider them crazy.. because to some degree.. it is necessary to deem something crazy in order for the world, as it stands now, to be orderly.
I guess we don't have to use the word at all.. but the laws, as they are now, would still dictate an action.
I agree.
Not everyone is rational in their own right... unless yes-- you believe rationality to be subjective.
But rationality, how I understand it's definition, is the existence of logical reason.
If the assumptions that one constructs for himself are logical and consistent.. he is rational.
But a statement like this:
1.) I believe midgets float over my head.
2.) Midgets cannot float.
3.) Contradictory statements cannot coexist in a rational world.
4.) The world is rational.
5.) The world doesn't need to be rational.
This is a complicated form of circular reason.. which is considered objectively.. to be illogical. Yet.. some people would contest something similar.. or-- just not answer the question.
If they choose not to answer the question.. that is fine with me-- the fact that some people have blind faith, with no concern for the reasons behind it, and some people believe themselves to have a rational one.. does not change the possibility that their faith might be true.
I was just contending you statement that all people are rational in their own right.
Reasoning is objective-- it is a construct outside of any one individuals mind. The 'reason's included in reasoning are not, necessarily, objective.
As for the poem metaphor.. I would agree to some extent. The words that are written are commonly accepted facts-- the interpretation of those words after being put together, is not necessarily accepted as fact.
How are we defining flawed? or science? or perfect?
True. So why did you use it in such an objective manner in the previous quote?
True. So once again, why did you use it in an objective manner in the previous quote?
I do not mean to contend that flawed, perfection, or any other word refering to an abstract idea, somehow has no objective truth.. only that.. as we are now.. no one can claim to be able to prove said word means said thing.
We can however define the words and work on a conversation from there.
Because.. I think in both cases.. on both sides.. there is a belief in absolute truth.. even though the ability to know what it is (absolutely) may not exist.
Boy, I tell you what. That was an awesome response. As for using perfection/flawed objectively, I tried to illustrate the point that even something objective is more than likely subjective. And, people sometimes take something subjective and make it objective. It was an example of the process in how some make errors.
As for all the posts, those are the ones I read. I don't know maybe I just happened to catch the time when most of the goobers are at a full force. Would be my luck.
--------We do not throw people in jail for believing in God or the tooth fairy.. however if they claimed, and believed, that the tooth fairy or God forced them to rob a bank-- then they would be subject to the same laws as everyone else.----------
LOL! Well, I would suspect that they would be subject to a psych evaluation first.
Believe me if it looked like it was an attack on anyone that was not my intention. I just want to learn. I have already been down the religous road and cared to learn all I care to learn from it.
The path I'm on now incorporates a lot of questions and by most accounts reasoning that I support from an atheist standpoint. I'll admit that I'm attracted to Taoism (not the religion). I love the stuff. And, Taoism seems to be a rare beast. It is a unique philosophy that somehow manages to transcend everything yet retains the human nature.
When of the things I noticed about the OP was that while I understood your intentions and you were correct in some of them, you didn't make fully aware of certain things that are believed to be true from a Taoist point of view and took a few liberties there.
So, what happened was that everyone was talking, and while they were talking they were talking on two different levels. Very much like your midget statement. And it seemed to just be going in circles.