Printable View
I wasn't asking you whether there was a Heaven with angels and pearly gates. Rather, I was asking whether you believe that there is a possible alternate reality that we cannot fully comprehend, or whether the only world that is real and true is the rock we are slowly spinning on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Swami
giffman:
I don't believe in an alternate reality. Too fantastical, and what is the purpose of such?
I think we're either completely gone after this life, or we keep coming back here for a re-do. But to me, the concept of an afterlife is one that speaks to the ego of man: We're so damn cool, this can't be all there is!
Not to mention the concept of an afterlife is used to try and get people either to behave, or strap a bomb to your belly and run into a shopping mall so those 72 virgins can welcome you into heaven.
I'm a Buddhist, so I think everything can be fully understood. :) But I'm willing to accept the possibility of existences that I currently know nothing about. Without any evidence, though, it would be impossible for me to talk about them in an intelligent way.Quote:
Originally Posted by giffman
Are you aware of the apparent consensus of quantum physicists about the existence of parallel universes?
i suspected giffman was going there.
m-theory, s-theory, string-theory. 27 dimensions. infinite parrallel universes, etc.
i think it is worth noting that a ton of the bible more accurately explained alot of complex ideas than anything that followed the writings for thousands of years. something to think about.
I'm not even a casual follower of quantum physics, so it's a little outside my area of knowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by giffman
Buddha talked about different planes of existence, though. He was perfectly willing to admit that there were planes where the rules are much different, even if he wasn't willing to admit to the existence of an all-powerful God. I'm certainly familiar with the concept.
Are you sure Buddha didn't mean different planes of existence within THIS life? Different stages of elightenment?
There are lots of different opinions on the topic. The idea that you die and spend eternity somewhere else, never to return, is totally alien to Buddhism. To a Buddhist, all life is impermanent and subject to suffering, whether you're a person, a god, or an insect...and if you never completely understand it, you're going to be on a treadmill, doing the same things over and over again.
I feel like I'm giving a lecture on Buddhism. Not that I mind, I just don't want to derail the thread.
Perhaps each parallel universe is a different treadmill. Science claims there may be slightly different versions of you in each of them:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon...alleluni.shtml
The way I see it, all possible pasts and all possible futures are threads that reach out in different directions and meet at the eye of a needle, which is Now.Quote:
Originally Posted by giffman
Not sure what this has to do with Christianity, but it's a fun topic.
http://www.moviewavs.com/php/sounds/...&file=beam.mp3Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Swami
this is all alot of my basis for believing in a higher power. i believe our understading of existence is pretty much hopelessly isnuficcient, and that true understading is far beyond our capabilities. i think we've come along far enough to realize that just because its outside our realm of sensing, or having even a theoretical understanding of, doesnt mean its not there.Quote:
Originally Posted by giffman
basically, the existence is infinite in size, age, complexety, etc. thats some pretty heavy stuff when you think about that. to me, the logical explanation can only be a higher power. or more specifically, a 3-O god.
If it's 3-0 for God, here comes the Grand Slam in the 9th to beat him: Who put him there?
You are going DesCartes on us, and I won't let it get by. Just because you can imagine a god, and nothing bigger, does NOT mean he's there.
Strike One for Textbook Regurgitation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Swami
It may or may not have anything to do with Christianity. I think it has something to do with spirituality, though.
textbook regurgitation? maybe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip Goshboots
but why would something have to put the 3-O god there? if god exists outside of our own existence, then he also exists outside our dimensions. the 4th dimension being time. therefore your chrological question regarding "who put him there" might be irrelevent.
make sense? no. but even the smartest people in the world really dont get the latest models of our physical universe (which are also beyond our comprehension). and thats to say nothing of how pathetic our understanding will be compared to 20 years from now.
It gets a little tiring, these christian arguments about "Well, God is just smarter than us, and we can never figure him out", but then they act like they got it all figured out come Sunday, especially when it's time to tithe. Or, when it comes time to figure out who to vote for, or when it's time to start condemning a whole bunch of stuff they dissaprove of. Or, when it comes time to fire up a good old fashioned Inquisition. Or when it comes time to shout out the word "Islamofascist".
My chrolololological question is NEVER irrelevant. You offer up a 17th century proof that was probably put out there so the author could avoid persecution by religious authorities; an infantile reasoning that shows incredible lack of imagination and creativity, and of course, no concept whatsoever of any "God" (which I find odd since we were supposedly created in his image). It is a complete equivocation, one worthy of the counterargument about the "can he make a rock so big..." thing.
your chronological question would be irrelevent if you were using it as a way to dismiss god (who put him there?) if there was no before or after with god.
you shouldnt be afraid of an idea just because people you dont like may have a (partially) shared view.
I thought there would be a need for a humorous diversion in the thread, so:
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
Zip - Why is it you issue statements which essentially say: Religion is a sham, God doesn't exist, and the only reality is that which can be perceived by the five senses, and we are expected to accept them, but when others issue statements saying they believe in God or that there may be alternate realities which we can't perceive or explain, we are expected to PROVE them?
You can no more prove that religion, spirituality and God are shams than I can prove that they are real. Why can't you just agree to respectfully disagree without imposing this apparent double-standard?
Or am I missing something here?
giffman:
Great question. I am truly surprised that no one counters with arguments such as "well, democracy is not really a proven thingy, yet you accept that"--which is a pretty good argument if you axe me. I'm going to need some time to think about that.
It's a complicated matter here, and I've got about 7 beers down, with more to come.
Keep drinking. The answer to most profound questions usually become clear to me after 12 or 13 beers and a couple of shots of whiskey. The problem is I can never remember the damn answers once I sober up . . . . .
No shit! Man, I can;t believe I forgot the whiskey. I'll dribble a bit of tequila in my beer. By the way, I'm drinking Miller Chill tonight. Good stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by giffman
I foget all the smart shit I conjure up when I'm sloshed too.
That's why I have three kids.
i prefer some cheep wine. 3 buck chuck maybe. w/ all the health benefits associated with red wine, i cant afford not to be drinking it.
Zip, I don't mean my "those answers are easy to look up" responses to imply I'm simply saying "If you only knew." I mean them to say that since I was voicing the Christian side of this discussion, the Christian answers to questions like "why did God do what he did" are VERY easily found on your own. If you don't want/haven't wanted the bother of finding them (and "find" is really an overstatement here) then I am guessing you don't really care about that version of the answers, meaning its pretty pointless for me to list them.
If you are looking for something other than the Christian answer to "why did God do what he did", the logical answer would seem to be "he chose to but did not have to, since he's God and all" while the philosophical answer (one of them) would be "his nature made it neccessary for as God he can only act in one way and that is in accordance with his nature (otherwise he ceases being God)."
What I don't mean to come off as is a guy who thinks he has all the answers because that guy doesn't exist. I am happy to play the Christian role in this discussion however and give that type of reply to the best of my ability.
Swami, as for the limited nature of your voicing of the Christian creed. To your message I would add the following (yours in the orginial italics, mine in bold): Jesus is God. You are a sinner, and Jesus is the Savior, who spares you from hell only because of His Grace. You may pray to Him, and furthermore you may hope that you correctly interpret His answer, if He is so inclined to give one. But you are only weak flesh, and the best you can hope for is to experience disappointment and suffering all your life, and find transformative bliss in the afterlife. God is love and forgives all things. All are equal in his eyes so be not ashamed of your past deeds nor your future failings. Love thy neighbor as thy self and strive to be as loving as you can be. Make the essence of your life the striving to help others be as loving as they can be. You stated, following your description, "Rarely does anyone ever stop to think: how is this actually helping?" I would reply that maybe there are some (and perhaps even a great deal) who do not critically question the merit of the message they follow, but its extremely arrogant and I believe incredibly wrong to believe that almost none do so (that your are alone or almost alone in your meta-analysis). Such a statement displays an incredibly low opinion of the make up of an awful lot of people.
My brother is a big fan of the idea of all possible universes existing concurrently with each other. Just thinking about that is fun. Think of all the movements you make in a day and all the different ways those movements could have been different in even terribly insignificant ways. Resting a hand on your lap instead of the arm of the chair. Then thinking of the stream of existence from that altered movement going off to colide with a different reality or even the one your experienced (since changing the resting place of your arm doesn't seem like it would effects much other than requiring an entirely knew stream of reality for a time). Then thinking of all those different types of reality weaving in and out of each other and a mind riding through them like a surfer on a wave.
Yikes, i walked into the wrong thread. I've had my many discussions with most of the Religion grudge having people here awhile back(not counting the new ones). So I'll step out after I say that being anti religious can be obsessive and extreme in its own right. It also leaves alot of people just as self righteous and religious extremists they strictly use as their justification. seems pretty circular to me.
This thread was a pretty good read. Thanks for sharing your intellect. :)
P.S. Drinking alcohol is one of the worst creations ever.
Zip - I suspect you have a problem with the Christians that look down upon people that don't believe in exactly what they do, and you assume that most, if not all Christians do just that (at least that's what I got from you calling me out in the other thread). You think that Christians are as hard headed as they are misguided.
However, I do believe there are a lot of Christians, Muslims, Athiests, Jews out there who respect whatever opinion you have on religion. Though I believe in certain things, I do not assume everything I believe is the truth. That's why they're beliefs and not facts. I hope I'm correct, and I believe I am, but I don't walk around making sure everyone thinks exactly what I do. I have no problem with your feeling that religion is a sham, that you are angry at people that believe in any religion. The only thing that irritates me from time to time is the fact that you get expressively annoyed that people have other opinions than your own. If you think we're misguided that's fine, but don't get frustrated that we don't see it your way. Doesn't that make you exactly the thing that you hate? I can't stand the "Christians" and "Muslims" that get angry when you state your opinion and don't agree with theirs. THOSE PEOPLE are the real problem, and even the reason wars exist.
You've stated before that wars start because of religion. I agree and disagree. Wars start because of thick-headed people that want everyone to have their same opinion, and religion just happens to be what they hold on to. If there wasn't religion, it would be something else: politics, food, Cavs fans... Religion isn't the problem, religion is the excuse.
Basically, don't get mad for people believing in something you don't, because you're doing exactly what pisses you off in the first place.
WTFDetroit: Where debates happen.
Nicely stated, MoTown.
I just can't be around bigoted people, period. I've walked out on my family members a couple times because I heard things that disgusted me.
Zip's not a bigot though, he's the fucking man. I'm just saying, in general.
I basically called out someone in another forum who started a "If I ruled the world I'd ban religion" thread saying the "end religion, end wars" rhetoric. Pretty much offended him somehow. But I can't see how persecuting religious people as any different extremist religious people persecuting others. Is as if someone believes their removal of religion makes such extreme stances ok. The issue is human culture not religious culture.Quote:
Originally Posted by MoTown
I'm not sure if truer words have been spoken.Quote:
Originally Posted by MoTown
With or without religion, you have good people doing good things and bad people doing bad things. But for good people to do bad things, that requires religion.
The "end religion, end wars" rhetoric is nonsense and I'm a big fan of freedom of religion, if for no other reason than it helps keep the religious people from going to war over it.
All I know is if you try your evangelical shit on me it's not going to be a religious issue, it's going to be a "Sir Douche Baggins is about to kick your ass" issue.
yikes, how do you equate that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Swami
He's equivocating. Swami loves him some equivocation.
I think if good people do bad things, that doesn't really make them good people.
I think we need a cogency ruling on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by MoTown
I'm leaning towards :cogent: