Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nemesis6 on June 30, 2010, 08:02:52 pm
-
We have a lot of threads here where people talk about religious topics, like the one about Bliblical literalism, but one thing I see missing is people actually talking about their own religious beliefs and why they hold them, so I figured I'd start a topic specifically for religious debate. I'll start:
I'm an Atheist. I have been all my life, up until I turned about 15... I got kind of into Christianity and Judaism. I liked the concept of spirituality, and oddly enough, I perceived the yarmulke as an interesting symbol(humility), but the thing is, that was the thing I could really bring myself to like about it. For a long time, I looked for evidence of God and I remember being kind of frustrated because I couldn't find any, but looking back at that now, that was a very good thing -- My critical mind doing its thing. In light of that, I absolutely stonewalled the idea of God or any supernatural being for that matter. So after a lot of soul-searching, I abandoned my search for a suitable religion, and having investigated religions with a skeptic mindset afterwards, I'm really glad I didn't become religious. I see a real danger in religion - Had I already been predisposed to faith in the manner that people in the United States for example are, I would have been ripe for harvest by extremists, and let's face it - People who convert to a religion mostly become extremist in their beliefs, because what's the point in dedicating your life to a totally new ideology if you're just gonna water it down? I think it's a kind of defence mechanism to stave off initial doubt --- I'm dedicating myslf 100% to this, because I found something I really agree or can relate to. I believe it was Ken Ham who talked about how if we could throw out Genesis as allegorical/whatever, then the other stuff could be thrown out as well, and where does it end? That's how he became a literalist/Creationist; either all of it is true, or none of it is. False dichotomy, applied to a largely fictive work in my opinion.
We're the masters of our own destiny, limited(and futile in the grand scheme of things) as it may be, and I see a real danger in the world-view that takes away that responsibility by way of fear and threats of eternal damnation. This kind of thinking is demonstrably dangerous. For example, that U.S senator urging his fellow friends-in-senate not to worry about global warming because the Earth will only end when God sets Armageddon in motion, how the way the Abrahamic religions paint women as slaves. How can we progress when we have stuff like that stuck in our most revered literature? To our incredible luck, most people disregard these passages. In other words, most religious people like Christians have a cafeteria kind-of-thing where they walk down the isle -- Ok, I'll take "turn the other cheek.", no "Dip a live dove in the blood of another one to cure leprosy.", but give me some of that "Love your neighbor as yourself." now what's that over here? "Women are naturally inferior and should be slaves of men." .. Hmmm, am I getting married any time soon? I think I'll hold off on that for now.
All of that is nasty, but held as personal beliefs, it doesn't even come close to the danger posed by powerful people pushing this stuff on the public at large, like the Texas State Board of Education pushing Christian revisionism and pseudo-science on little kids. By the way, isn't lying against the Christian religion? Again, picking and choosing.
So those are my beliefs and opinions on religion in general.
-
I 'believe' that the odds are we live in a simulation, although I suppose it can't be called real belief in the sense of 'religious belief' because it is a position arrived at by analysis of the existing data rather than faith.
-
Steel obviously.
Nothing else in this world can you trust. Not men, not women, not beasts.
You must learn its riddle.
-
Steel obviously.
Nothing else in this world can you trust. Not men, not women, not beasts.
You must learn its riddle.
Starslayer, what is best in life?
-
i believe that death is the only salvation from the evil that is life.
i believe that nuclear weapons are mankind's greatest inventions.
i believe that after we die, our souls fade to nothing and our bodies become worm food (or if cremated, plant food).
i believe that cats are the master race.
i believe that war is necessary for our evolution.
i believe that it is ok to call hooters knockers and sometimes snack trays.
i believe in the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
i believe that people should be on fire.
i believe that insanity is true wisdom.
i believe that people should be my slaves.
-
I believe that R.Kelly would drop like a brick.
-
Steel obviously.
Nothing else in this world can you trust. Not men, not women, not beasts.
You must learn its riddle.
Starslayer, what is best in life?
To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.
-
Steel obviously.
Nothing else in this world can you trust. Not men, not women, not beasts.
You must learn its riddle.
Starslayer, what is best in life?
To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.
YES
-
Pantheism/Atheism sorta thing. There is no caring god, and the closest thing to a god is the universe in which we reside.
This thread will go downhill fast.
-
I believe in life elsewhere in the universe.
I believe humans are fundamentally flawed creatures.
I believe in cyclonic storms.
I believe in bacon and beer.
I believe in Bed Bath & Beyond.
**** YEAH
-
Steel obviously.
Nothing else in this world can you trust. Not men, not women, not beasts.
You must learn its riddle.
I write these words in steel, for anything not set in metal cannot be trusted. :cool:
Pantheism/Atheism sorta thing. There is no caring god, and the closest thing to a god is the universe in which we reside.
This thread will go downhill fast.
Seriously. Modded +1 flamebait.
-
I believe in the Dude.
-
The Dude abides
-
I believe in Harvey Dent.
-
Pantheism/Atheism sorta thing. There is no caring god, and the closest thing to a god is the universe in which we reside.
This thread will go downhill fast.
Seriously. Modded +1 flamebait.
Why?
-
I'm pretty much in the same position as nemesis6, though far more bitter about it because I was indoctrinated like so many brainwashed children during my first ~8-10 years of life at which point I learnt the people around me don't actually know better and basically to think critically for myself.
Didn't make me popular since I was head of the choir at the time.
Still, I don't miss it, not even slightly.
-
I believe god/gods/goddess(es) is an unproven assertion. I also believe that if they exist, it's well within their power to prove themselves, and thus they're sort of pricks for demanding unfounded belief complete with the threat of punishment if we don't.
Now some of them have never really made a pretense of being nice, like the old Greek and Roman Pantheon, so I suppose it's really about par for the course. This does not change the fact they're pricks, and it also does not change the fact that we have far surpassed their own abilities. We no longer need them.
Moving on up to the Abrahamic god, he did make pretense of being a nice sort, but he also got considerably more serious about the believing or suffering bit. He remains equally unimpressive compared to older pantheons, however. What is his greatest act? Creating the universe? Doubtful at best. I reject the "God of the Gaps" hypothesis, for it's not very godlike at all what with being an ever-shrinking concept. The Flood is a pretty neat trick, but also conclusively disproved. Sodom and Gomorrah? Fat Boy and Thin Man make it look decidely lame. Bring down the walls of Jericho? Simple. To make the ground shake and the sun black out? We can do that.
Our gods, if they exist, have made threats against us. Perhaps they are in a posistion to back them up, and perhaps they are not. Regardless, in the face of such morally bankrupt actions as eternal damnation of a race utterly incapable of deserving such a punishment, force should be answered with force. And we have long since had the bigger stick.
-
I believe that any major religion requiring you to accept anything they say at face value without proof.. is very convenient. For them :P
-
I don't believe.
Belief is stupid. I feel no need to believe that the Earth orbits the Sun, that the computer I'm typing on is real or that I'll ban people for trolling on this thread.
The first two require nothing beyond science and Occam's Razor while the last is simply knowing myself :p Belief is when you decide something is true despite having little or no evidence it is true AND/OR ignoring Occam's Razor.
-
Faith is dangerous, as it fuels authoritarianism and thus suffering. So, don't expect me to believe anything on faith.
-
I now proclaim myself the first truly believer of MY God, acknowledging this, "what I believe", is the only and ultimate truth.
May MY God have mercy on your souls sinners, for I will not.
EDIT: well that felt good, I know now why fanaticism is so spread out.
-
Steel obviously.
Nothing else in this world can you trust. Not men, not women, not beasts.
You must learn its riddle.
Starslayer, what is best in life?
To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.
YES
Hot water, good dentistry and soft toilet paper :P
-
I believe in ghosts and afterlife and such because it makes me feel better even though I know logically it's totally ridiculous to believe in something that is so obviously not real. (My life has sucked pretty hard and it's depressing to think this is the only one I'm getting. Reincarnation has the same appeal, but I really can't get behind any "learning lessons about life" bull**** religion turns it into.)
Didn't really believe in god for most of my childhood even though I lived in a religious town for the same reason I never believed in Santa Claus. Too many holes in the story for me to accept it no matter how emphatically my parents told me it was true.
But then I went to some bible camps when I was 13-14 and was heavily brainwashed until I did believed in the Christianist nonsense for a while until I snapped out of it. It was comforting to believe in a big sky daddy, but I got over it just like I got over the no sex until marriage silliness that was shoved down my throat by the religious indoctrination in middle school.
The end.
/serious
-
In truth, I always liked a sort of mixture of Terry Pratchett, that death is just another step, and Sarek of Vulcan who coined the phrase 'Infinite possibility in Infinite Diversity'. It's nice to think that, in a Universe big enough for everything to happen in, that Everything happens in it at some point ;)
To Quote Pratchett: "Belief cannot move mountains, but maybe it can create someone who can....'
-
(blah blah blah) Fat Boy and Thin Man (blah blah blah)
That's Fat Man and Little Boy. :P
I'm an atheist most probably for the reasons NGTM-1R described. It makes no logical sense that a being with the supposed power to reveal itself, wants us to believe in it without an proof.
Although, sometimes I'll just say I believe in greek/roman mythology just to mess with those who ask, whom I know are christian and whatnot. It's funny seeing them trying to say that what I "believe" is "not true" without undermining themselves. ;)
-
I don't believe in a lot of things, but I do believe in duct tape.
-
On the subject of afterlife, I can't say I believe in it, either, as much as I want to become something else. I draw the biggest comfort from idea of Transhumanism --- becoming something more than human, or just remaining human for longer thanks to Science, though I think having humans around longer would create a lot of problems, given the fact that we already have over-population problems, but I digress. The afterlife thing is one of the primary motivational factors of religion, and it's a powerful tool to control people with. Who would dare accuse a priest of pedophilia, knowing they'd risk losing what they believe is their only chance at an afterlife? You can talk about the good Christianity has brought you, but you're still a slave because you know what will happen if you lose faith; you'll go to hell and burn for all eternity. I don't think a God that loves us would do that. It sounds more like, as some people have pointed out, an evil tyrant, but when asking believers about this, I've heard that God doesn't WANT to send me to hell and that Jesus loves sinners, but that it's my own fault because God's judgement is always just. That's the reason the Westboro Baptist People talk about God killing the troops, killing celebrities, etc; they see those acts as God's acts, and the Bible says they have to love ALL God's actions.
Whenever I think about the future, it brings me comfort to think about the enormous progress we've made as a species already. By knowing the past, the future doesn't seem all that scary. I know I won't be a part of much of it, and that's just something I'll have to deal with. We can't really know what's going to happen in the future, but if you look up at the sky on a clear night, you'll get a pretty good idea of where we're headed. A little thing I think about often is that on clear nights, you can actually look up at the sky and see others galaxies, albeit very faintly. It's one thing to see the beautiful pictures from Hubble, VISTA, and the VLT(Very Large Telescope), it's something completely different actually to actually see one with your own eyes.
-
there is nothing supernatural.
-
there is nothing supernatural.
Aw dang, there's a good quote from House but I don't remember how it goes.
It was something about things that are impossible tend not to exist. Or somesuch.
-
I'm a Pastafarian.
(http://www.venganza.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/touched44.jpg)
Only the FSM has all the answers.
-
I believe in a thing called love. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRYNYb30nxU)
-
I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ his only son, our Lord;
who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried;
on the third day he rose again from the dead;
he ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
from where he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.
-
Funny thing is that your answer tells us the same amount as simply saying "I'm a Christian", i.e not a lot. There are so many people with completely opposing viewpoints who could have said the same thing as you did.
-
I believe in a thing called love. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRYNYb30nxU)
:yes:
Apart from that, I believe there are forces beyond our understanding in the universe. And I find it hard to believe any religion would be "right". That being said, I don't judge anyone who follows a religion/has other beliefs, as long as they're not trying to shove their views down my throat. In return, I don't try to force my views on anyone.
Be cool and try to get along. Life will be easier.
-
I feel indifferent to those who believe in a god, however, I personally do not believe in anything supernatural and I feel fine with people worshiping something in a peaceful way.
But if there's one thing I hate, it's when religion interferes with the growth and education of anyone, especially children.
-
Either everything is divine (universe == god, if you want to call it as such), or nothing is.
Basically either universe is conscious of itself, or it isn't. I'm inclined to assume the latter until there's some evidence of the former, but I can't entirely deny the possibility.
Personal deities depicted in most religions I interpret to being either real, very powerful beings living in the universe, or stories (inclined to assume the latter, but even in case of former I wouldn't call them divine or gods).
So, I don't consider any religion to have divine origins as such. Either all is divine (no need for religions as you're part of what forms the universal consciousness) or nothing is (no need for religions period). Ethics doesn't arise from divine sources either. Morality even less.
If you were to need a classification to my view of the world, I would say I'm an agnostic who sees two options, atheism or pantheism as potentially valid, and leaning on atheism due to lack of evidence to support pantheistic view of world. I wouldn't call this a "belief" though, as it is a result of logical consideration of the world around me.
Note that universe being conscious of itself wouldn't really change anything as such. It would simply open the door to questions like does this conscience take active part in "itself"... which is a whole another can of worms.
-
I'm agnostic, because I can't commit to anything. LOL I tend to believe that a rational scientific approach to things give the best results, but the limitations of our own physicality, meaning our short life span and our five senses, put a cap on what we can really know about the universe and the here after. Much like an ameba will never be a great plastic surgeon, man will never understand everything. Generally accepted scientific concepts sound like supernatural events. Like the entire universe being smaller than an electron at the beginning of the big bang. Think of the concentration of energy at that single point, where did it originate from? Also consider, in the past we were all dead, and now we are all here, so if we were dead before and are here now could we live again after our coming death? I have no idea.
-
meaning our short life span and our five senses, put a cap on what we can really know about the universe and the here after.
I feel constrained to point out that every time you read a book, or a forum post, and use a TV remote you are making this statement more stupid.
We have long since transcended being dependent on our senses for the observation of the universe. Similarly, knowledge is not always or even usually lost with the death of the knower. If you mean that humanity, collectively, cannot know everything I see absolutely no reason to believe you. If you mean that one man cannot know everything, you're right.
So far. But we're working on that too.
-
One very serious and very scary concern currently circulating in the scientific community (particularly cosmology) is the notion that some vital information we need to understand the universe may already be behind an event horizon. :(
-
One very serious and very scary concern currently circulating in the scientific community (particularly cosmology) is the notion that some vital information we need to understand the universe may already be behind an event horizon. :(
Rly? How long ago did we pass this event horizon? Millions of years?
-
One very serious and very scary concern currently circulating in the scientific community (particularly cosmology) is the notion that some vital information we need to understand the universe may already be behind an event horizon. :(
Rly? How long ago did we pass this event horizon? Millions of years?
It's a purely speculative notion. The scary thing is simply that the possibility exists.
-
Rly? How long ago did we pass this event horizon? Millions of years?
Not that kind of event horizon. We're not the ones moving here, and neither is any other point of reference in the universe. It's just that other points of reference seem to move further from us because the amount of space between them increases due to some currently unknown reason (speculated to be dark energy, cosmological constant or dragons).
The one Battuta refers to is the distance where the expansion rate of the universe exceeds velocity of light in vacuum (ie. between point P and us, space is generated at a rate large enough to prevent photons from point P to ever get any closer to us). That's the cosmological event horizon and, if current data is accurate and the expansion is accelerating, is only going to come closer and closer to us.
Of course, because of simultaneity problems with photons, our observations have a lot of lag, and we are actually observing photons that started their journey from point P relatively soon after the Big Bang. We will be able to continue observations of these early objects up until certain threshold where their radiation basically red shifts to blend into the cosmic background radiation. If we could keep our instruments fixed on a certain target about to pass "beyond" the event horizon, we would simply observe the wavelength of those photons to approach infinite, until we wouldn't receive any new photons from it at all from it.
-
Religion, belief - What you believe and why
Nature, because it's so much better.
-
Religion, belief - What you believe and why
Nature, because it's so much better.
(http://dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/000000/00000/2000/400/2421/2421.strip.gif)
-
meh at this thread. 99% of everyone here is an atheist, no need to make a thread for that.
Anyway, Im a Christian, sort of, not the kind you guys are used to anyways.
-
Pretty sure every Christian thinks they are that special kind of Christian.
-
because I never answered the question, I beleive in Physical Evidence And Reasoned Logic.
-
I feel constrained to point out that every time you read a book, or a forum post, and use a TV remote you are making this statement more stupid.
I had no idea my statement would elicit such a strong response. Certainly mankind is in its infancy, and we have a lot to learn and collectively we will learn a great deal more. But the fact that we continue to learn doesn't make my point invalid. Consider this, there is a macro universe that because of the speed of light we can only observe galaxies that are so many light years away, we can't observe the stuff that is beyond that. We can make educated guesses about it, but they are just guesses, no real knowledge. On the reverse side, on the micro level we can really see things like electrons, we can take a beam of electrons and shine them on things larger than electrons and see them, or light with a supercollider, we can speed up atoms and smash them into metal spheres and observe the trails the particles leave behind and then guess about there make up. But our size and the resolution that our senses operate in limit our ability to observe things smaller than sub atomic particles. We have scientific modeling of those particles and we make assumptions, but that can tell us only so much. Add in our mortality and that means we only have a small window of opportunity to learn these things and then it's gone. That's true of a single person, that's true of mankind.
-
Pretty sure every Christian thinks they are that special kind of Christian.
I don't celebrate Christmas or Easter and I refuse to call any religious leader by any title whether I agree with them or not.
I don't believe in hell, or the immortality of the soul, and I don't believe the earth was made in six days.
I wouldn't say I am mainstream.
-
oh, so youre a christian in the way that i'm a lutheran. i see.
-
Pretty sure every Christian thinks they are that special kind of Christian.
I don't celebrate Christmas or Easter and I refuse to call any religious leader by any title whether I agree with them or not.
I don't believe in hell, or the immortality of the soul, and I don't believe the earth was made in six days.
I wouldn't say I am mainstream.
Any particular reason you have thrown those concepts and holidays overboard?
-
I gotta say, you throw out the immortality of the soul and I'm not sure you can even consider yourself Abrahamic anymore.
-
Catholics?
Also, it seems that most Born-Again Christians are naturally more old-fashioned than their counterparts.
-
Catholics?
Um...not really. Pretty sure we believe in that too. :p
Not that I've made any secret of it before, but I was raised Roman Catholic, and I continue to practice the faith as an adult. It's something that's simply always made sense to me, something that's always felt right, and I've found attending Mass every week to deliver a sense of peace and fulfillment that nothing else in my life provides. I have my degree in the sciences, and I've looked upon that pursuit much as the old Renaissance masters did, as a way of grasping even the smallest portion of God's handiwork. Moving beyond the tenets of my own specific faith, I've always found an anthropocentric view of the universe, the idea that those cosmological constants which enable us to exist were set as such so that we might one day come into being to marvel at that universe, to be a fundamentally fascinating and appealing one. I believe there is a greater purpose to each of our lives, even if we aren't able to grasp it ourselves, and I believe that humanity has the potential to achieve great good if we can bring ourselves to embrace that purpose and fulfill the birthright our Creator gave us. And though my physical body is little more than a tiny flash of light in the great sea of the universe, I believe that the true essence that is me will outlast it, though what comes afterwards is far beyond my own comprehension.
So...yeah. That's sort of where I'm coming from.
-
Pretty sure every Christian thinks they are that special kind of Christian.
I don't celebrate Christmas or Easter and I refuse to call any religious leader by any title whether I agree with them or not.
I don't believe in hell, or the immortality of the soul, and I don't believe the earth was made in six days.
I wouldn't say I am mainstream.
I don't see how you can be Christian once you get rid of immortality of the soul to be honest.
-
I find this notion of "souls" amusing.
-
Isn't the whole original purpose of religion to give us some peace of mind by suggesting there's something beyond death, beyond the physical? That even after the body dies, the soul continues forever? It's a story mankind's been telling itself for millenia so that it can accept the inevitable more easily. Get rid of the immortality of the soul and you get rid of one of the basic building blocks of almost every organized religion out there.. If you don't believe in that you may as well call yourself an atheist. The rest of the stuff is just a catalyst :)
-
There are some religions, particularly of the older polytheistic variety, that didn't exactly present all that pleasant of a picture of the afterlife. Oblivion might have seemed a comforting alternative. :p
-
Pretty sure every Christian thinks they are that special kind of Christian.
I don't celebrate Christmas or Easter and I refuse to call any religious leader by any title whether I agree with them or not.
I don't believe in hell, or the immortality of the soul, and I don't believe the earth was made in six days.
I wouldn't say I am mainstream.
I don't see how you can be Christian once you get rid of immortality of the soul to be honest.
Try to find the words "immortal soul" next to each other in the Bible.
*Hint. You can't.
The doctrine of the immortal soul was created long after the Bible was written.
There is no dichotomy of body and soul in the Old Testament. The Israelite saw things concretely, in their totality, aand thus he considered men as persons and not as composites. The term nepes, though translated by our word soul, neveer means soul as disticnt from the body or the individual person.... the term [psy-ke] is the New testament word corresponding with nepes. it can mean the principle of life, life itself, or the living being
= New Catholic Encyclopedia.
The Christian concept of a spiritual soul created by God and infused into the body at conception to make man a living whole is the fruit of a long development in Christian philosophy. Only with Origen [died c. 254 C.E.] in the East and St. Augustine [died c. 430C.E.] in the West was the soul established as a spiritual substance and a philosophical concept formed of its nature... His doctrine ..... owed much to Neoplatoism
I could go on.
-
Isn't the whole original purpose of religion to give us some peace of mind by suggesting there's something beyond death, beyond the physical? That even after the body dies, the soul continues forever? It's a story mankind's been telling itself for millenia so that it can accept the inevitable more easily. Get rid of the immortality of the soul and you get rid of one of the basic building blocks of almost every organized religion out there.. If you don't believe in that you may as well call yourself an atheist. The rest of the stuff is just a catalyst :)
I only have faith in what the Bible says (which is nothing like what they preach at churches). I also use reason and logic, but in these things I do not put my faith.
I believe in a hope of resurrection, as promised in the Bible, but I do not believe in an immortal soul.
-
Try to find the words "immortal soul" next to each other in the Bible.
*Hint. You can't.
The doctrine of the immortal soul was created long after the Bible was written.
This is irrevelant to the fact that I cannot name a single Christian doctrine that does not believe in the concept.
In fact, I'm pretty sure it's incorporated into Jewish tradition as well, so...
-
Well there is the alternative interpretation that involves the dead literally rising and given new bodies when Apocalypse comes Satan dies (like God planned) and the world is re-made into a new one... or something.
Technically I would find this interpretation much more believable than immortal souls continuing their existence in some other "plane of existence" that would arbitrarily be named heaven or paradise, but on the other hand it's also a lot more disturbing.
Which might be why the immortal soul aspect has overtaken the other interpretation in popularity.
-
I dunno the immortal soul thing to me sounds a lot less freaky. I don't understand how the resurrection idea would work, but the idea of a consciousness that is not bound to a physical existence makes more sense to me.
-
So you dont believe in the immortal soul because the bible doesn't specifically say that the immortal soul exists. However you don't believe in hell, even though the bible talks about hell a lot, including that Jesus went there.
-
I dunno the immortal soul thing to me sounds a lot less freaky. I don't understand how the resurrection idea would work, but the idea of a consciousness that is not bound to a physical existence makes more sense to me.
the idea of consciousness without a framework for supporting it makes no sense to me.
-
I dunno the immortal soul thing to me sounds a lot less freaky. I don't understand how the resurrection idea would work, but the idea of a consciousness that is not bound to a physical existence makes more sense to me.
the idea of consciousness without a framework for supporting it makes no sense to me.
It makes people feel special, to not be made entirely out of the material world.
-
However you don't believe in hell, even though the bible talks about hell a lot, including that Jesus went there.
The phrase often translated as "Hell" can refer to oblivion, non-exestence.
-
I dunno the immortal soul thing to me sounds a lot less freaky. I don't understand how the resurrection idea would work, but the idea of a consciousness that is not bound to a physical existence makes more sense to me.
the idea of consciousness without a framework for supporting it makes no sense to me.
How so? We know hyperintelligent shades of the color blue can exist. :p
-
I dunno the immortal soul thing to me sounds a lot less freaky. I don't understand how the resurrection idea would work, but the idea of a consciousness that is not bound to a physical existence makes more sense to me.
the idea of consciousness without a framework for supporting it makes no sense to me.
The idea of an immortal soul that detaches itself from the body and continuing to exist elsewhere makes more sense to me than all the corpses in the world being resurrected and turning into zombies at judgment day. :wtf:
-
I dunno the immortal soul thing to me sounds a lot less freaky. I don't understand how the resurrection idea would work, but the idea of a consciousness that is not bound to a physical existence makes more sense to me.
the idea of consciousness without a framework for supporting it makes no sense to me.
The idea of an immortal soul that detaches itself from the body and continuing to exist elsewhere makes more sense to me than all the corpses in the world being resurrected and turning into zombies at judgment day. :wtf:
those things both make about the same amount of sense as a fat man that dresses in red driving a team of flying reindeer, giving presents to everyone on christmas night.
-
those things both make about the same amount of sense as a fat man that dresses in red driving a team of flying reindeer, giving presents to everyone on christmas night.
You're wrong there. He only gives presents to nice people.
-
The idea of an immortal soul that detaches itself from the body and continuing to exist elsewhere makes more sense to me than all the corpses in the world being resurrected and turning into zombies at judgment day. :wtf:
Not to materialist point of view. Make a distinction between "sounds more pleasant" and "makes more sense".
The reason why the literal resurrection interpretation has lost its popularity should be obvious. Resurrecting 6000 year-old-corpses sounds like an impossibility even to young earth creationists, and nasty as a concept, too.
Technically, though, I would imagine the logistics would be that the state of consciousness of people would be "backed up" at the moment of death, then when appropriate it would be inserted into a new body. To me, that makes more sense than an immortal soul with no material framework, like Turambar said.
Not that I entertain any particular notions of likelyhood for this event either, but for an assumed superpowerful being, I could see it as "doable" on a (sufficiently advanced) technical level.
-
I guess you're right. The immortal soul sounds more poetic to me than ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE.
-
I guess you're right. The immortal soul sounds more poetic to me than ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE.
Technically, with manufactured bodies (which, if I recall my sources right, would need no nourishments and would "live" forever) it would be ZOMBIE ROBOT JUDGEMENT DAY APOCALYPSE which to me sounds a lot more AWESOME (if not as poetic) than immortal souls...
-
Technically, though, I would imagine the logistics would be that the state of consciousness of people would be "backed up" at the moment of death, then when appropriate it would be inserted into a new body. To me, that makes more sense than an immortal soul with no material framework, like Turambar said.
That is exactly what I believe.
As for hell, it takes a little longer to explain, but ill go ahead and do it little by little.
First, their are several words and phrases that are often translated to hell, each with a different meaning.
There is the Hebrew word Gehenna, the Hebrew word She'ohl or Sheol, the Greek word Hades, the Greek phrase translated to "lake of fire", and the Greek phrase that translates to "second death".
Gehenna was a real, physical place just outside of Jerusalem, it was were they burned the bodies of people not deemed worthy of a burial, IE criminals. Sheol is often translated as "the pit" or "the grave", and refers to the burial grounds.
I believe that all these terms are used symbolically, not literally.
For example, Rev. 20:13,14 says
The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.
If Hades was a real place, how could it be thrown into the lake of fire? Also, if you consider Hades to be a literal place, then the sea and death must also be literal, and that doesn't make any sense.
Also notice that the lake of fire is not Hades but an entirely deferent entity.
Not only that, but how would have the first Christians understood it? They, like I mentioned earlier, did not believe in a soul that lives on after death, so the idea of hell being a place where those souls go wouldn't enter their mind when reading revelation.
Again, I could keep going, but I don't have the time at the moment, perhaps I will continue in a later post.
-
Try to find the words "immortal soul" next to each other in the Bible.
*Hint. You can't.
The doctrine of the immortal soul was created long after the Bible was written.
This is irrevelant to the fact that I cannot name a single Christian doctrine that does not believe in the concept.
What about the first Christians? The ones around the time the Bible was written? Like I said, even the Catholic Church acknowledges that the doctrine of the immortal soul was incorporated into Christendom long after the Bible was written.
-
The bible was also written/compiled/edited a good while after the first Christians died.
-
The bible was also written/compiled/edited a good while after the first Christians died.
No, actually, it wasn't.
Archaeologists have found various compilations of the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic Scriptures, notably the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament used by early Christians. There is no evidence of any tampering or additions aside from, arguably, John 8:1-11 which is missing from the older Greek versions, and a few other verses of little consequence, like Mathew 17:21.
Like other literature from antiquity, the text of the New Testament was (prior to the advent of the printing press) preserved and transmitted in manuscripts. Manuscripts containing at least a part of the New Testament number in the thousands. The earliest of these (like manuscripts containing other literature) are often very fragmentarily preserved. Some of these fragments have even been thought to date as early as the second century
-
Second century isn't a while after jesus?
-
Second century isn't a while after jesus?
Jesus died in the 30's of the first century, the Apostle John died in the 70's, thats pretty close for me.
Anyway, I am not going to argue with you, believe what you want.
-
Just pointing out your inconsistencies. :P
-
...Why do we have Scientology adds on this site?
-
They're on to us. :nervous:
-
Perhaps banning an0n was a bad idea... :nervous:
-
Peace is a lie; there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
Alternatively, the Emperor's light is my torch.
-
Isn't the whole original purpose of religion to give us some peace of mind by suggesting there's something beyond death, beyond the physical?
I believe that is just one side story. I think the origin of religion is the same as is the origin of science - amazement, wonder and the need to understand. The same fuel, a different engine. As for the question, I believe humans are ill suited to actually know much.
-
Alternatively, the Emperor's light is my torch.
"I am the hammer. I am the right hand of my Emperor, the instrument of His will, the gauntlet about His fist, the tip of His spear, the edge of His sword, I am the gauntlet about His fist, I am the bane of His foes, and the woes of the treacherous! I am the end!"
-
I discovered a group on Facebook called "Church of Behemecoatyl". I joined it.
-
"I am the hammer. I am the right hand of my Emperor, the instrument of His will, the gauntlet about His fist, the tip of His spear, the edge of His sword, I am the gauntlet about His fist, I am the bane of His foes, and the woes of the treacherous! I am the end!"
"To break Imperial law is to break faith with the Emperor, and both are signs of degeneracy. A mind that can do so is by definition flawed, invariably creating flawed thinking and flawed behavior, which are symptoms of the essential inferiority of a human being who can set themselves against their Emperor. Criminals err. And when they err, we have them."
"The Emperor's word is the Law, and the Arbites are the voice by which that word is spoken."
-
Nerds. :p
-
"I am the hammer. I am the right hand of my Emperor, the instrument of His will, the gauntlet about His fist, the tip of His spear, the edge of His sword, I am the gauntlet about His fist, I am the bane of His foes, and the woes of the treacherous! I am the end!"
"To break Imperial law is to break faith with the Emperor, and both are signs of degeneracy. A mind that can do so is by definition flawed, invariably creating flawed thinking and flawed behavior, which are symptoms of the essential inferiority of a human being who can set themselves against their Emperor. Criminals err. And when they err, we have them."
"The Emperor's word is the Law, and the Arbites are the voice by which that word is spoken."
I am the bone of my sword.
Steel is my body, and fire is my blood.
I have created over a thousand blades.
Unknown to death.
Nor known to life.
Have withstood pain to create many weapons.
Yet, those hands will never hold anything.
So as I pray, Unlimited Blade Works!
-
"I am the hammer. I am the right hand of my Emperor, the instrument of His will, the gauntlet about His fist, the tip of His spear, the edge of His sword, I am the gauntlet about His fist, I am the bane of His foes, and the woes of the treacherous! I am the end!"
"To break Imperial law is to break faith with the Emperor, and both are signs of degeneracy. A mind that can do so is by definition flawed, invariably creating flawed thinking and flawed behavior, which are symptoms of the essential inferiority of a human being who can set themselves against their Emperor. Criminals err. And when they err, we have them."
"The Emperor's word is the Law, and the Arbites are the voice by which that word is spoken."
"We do not know what our chances of survival are, so we fight as if they were zero. We do not know what we are facing, so we fight as if it was the dark gods themselves. No one will remember us now and we may never be buried beneath Titan, so we will build our own memorial here. The Chapter might lose us and the Imperium might never know we existed, but the Enemy — the Enemy will know. The Enemy will remember. We will hurt it so badly that it will never forget us until the stars burn out and the Emperor vanquishes it at the end of time. When Chaos is dying, its last thought will be of us. That is our memorial — carved into the heart of Chaos. We cannot lose, Grey Knights. We have already won."
Or my personal favorite.
"Good work, officer. What's your name?"
"None of us have names. Deployment in six minutes, brother-captain. The Emperor protects."
-
Hmm. So I'm taking from this, Mr. Mare, that you believe Counter's Grey Knights stuff is worth reading. y/n?
For some reason I'd had the sense that Counter was one of the--many--unremarkable-bordering-on-unreadable BL authors.
-
Hmm. So I'm taking from this, Mr. Mare, that you believe Counter's Grey Knights stuff is worth reading. y/n?
His work is, at the least, readable in Grey Knights. I know he's done other books for BL, and though I can't recall which one I read one and it was frankly horrible. Grey Knights and Dark Adeptus are both worth a read and Grey Knights is actually quite good, but Hammer of Daemons is at best a chore.
This is the exact opposite of the Ultramarines books where it's not readable until after the first omnibus.
-
I believe all politicians lie; here's why:
In a world where politicians lie, adding polititions who don't would make the existing world more complicated. As such the Occam's Razor proves they don't exist.
-
Occam's razor doesn't prove anything, it just states that without any evidence to the contrary, we should go with the explanation with the lowest complexity, until other data arises which can prove or disprove one of them.
one of the reasons I'm atheist :blah:
-
I'm an Atheist. 'Nuff said.
But I like to mess with people by saying 'how can little chains of molecules think, have emotions, and want to do things?'
-
But I like to mess with people by saying 'how can little chains of molecules think, have emotions, and want to do things?'
Uh. They don't?
-
Occam's razor doesn't prove anything, it just states that without any evidence to the contrary, we should go with the explanation with the lowest complexity, until other data arises which can prove or disprove one of them.
one of the reasons I'm atheist :blah:
If you prove that there are politicians who don't lie, then I guess I'll believe. :P
But so far the world is less complex without truth-telling politicians.
-
But I like to mess with people by saying 'how can little chains of molecules think, have emotions, and want to do things?'
Uh. They don't?
No, they don't, we're not little chains of molecules, we're ****ing huge.
and if anyone starts calling genes selfish, as in actually being sentient organisms, I'm gonna go ape****.
-
But I like to mess with people by saying 'how can little chains of molecules think, have emotions, and want to do things?'
Uh. They don't?
No, they don't, we're not little chains of molecules, we're ****ing huge.
and if anyone starts calling genes selfish, as in actually being sentient organisms, I'm gonna go ape****.
You and me both, the biologist in me (And I am a zoology student, so that's pretty much all of me) is already fizzing.
-
:blah:
I just meant it boggles the mind to accept chemical reactions are what's responsible for human sentience. I honestly don't care really, so I'm fine with it, but a bunch of my friends have been kept up at night because I brought that up on purpose.
-
:blah:
I just meant it boggles the mind to accept chemical reactions are what's responsible for human sentience. I honestly don't care really, so I'm fine with it, but a bunch of my friends have been kept up at night because I brought that up on purpose.
Does it boggle your mind to accept the movement of electrons as what's responsible for the actions of the computer you're typing on?
It's the exact same thing. A computer. Just made of meat.
-
Although, the appearance of complexity in systems governed by simple rules does appear to be quite... Dare I say it? Miraculous... Until you see there's a documented evolutionary process that leads up to the existence of most biological features.
Irreducible complexity my arse.
-
Mini-bump.
I was at a camp called Super Summer for the last few days. It was a church camp, and it gave me time to evaluate what I really believe.
I believe in the teachings of Jesus, as recorded in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
I believe that Mary had not known the touch of a man at the time of the conception.
I believe that Jesus was God's son, and that he was the Messiah.
I believe that Jesus died, and trhough his death, those who believe in Him are saved.
I believe that the Cross, while significant, has been slightly... overvalued. Jesus's death is what is important. The instrument by which that was accomplished is less so. That is not to say it is completely irrelevant, merely less important, I think, than Christian society displays. In some cases, the Cross has become an outright idol.
I believe that all who believe in Jesus are saved from 'Hell,' and that 'Hell' is not necessarily the place of fire and torture that it is always made out to be. Perhaps it is, and perhaps it is not. I only know that to be in Hell is to be serparated from God eternally.
I believe that Heaven is real and that followers of Jesus will have internal life in it.
I do not believe in Paul's writings and epistles as law. Paul was a wise man, but I treat his words as another person's opinions. I am a Christian, first and foremost, not a Paulite.
I do not believe that a good person who does not have the opportunity to know God suffers for it.
I do not believe that any denomination is correct, or that an affiliation with any denomination is necessary to be a Christian.
I do not believe that any belief should be forced on anyone, no matter the reason. Ever. If belief is not accepted willingly, it is not belief.
I do not believe that every action is an action of God. Too much relies on free will and the actions and events of those who demonstrate that free will by not choosing to follow Jesus for them to be the work of God.
Less related to my faith, I do not believe that a church should be a political organization, nor should it and science conflict in any meaningful way.
-
^ :yes:
-
If I'm honest, if I were to become a follower of any faith, it wouldn't be Christianity.