Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by THA ITIS, Aug 9, 2012.
More dramatic than this?
Cutting Balls Off - Hog Castration - YouTube
From atheists to castration in 3 pages sharp.
who and what is not god?
I grew up on a farm, so my answer is yes, lol
Perhaps it's a confession?? =D
yeah when i saw my buddy's dad basically scrape the sheeps balls off i was done
So you would rather go to absolute darkness than maybe live once more or be happy with your son?
And does your religion have to lie in the church?
To say there is NO god is arrogant, to say there is, is arrogant aswell. But the first has consequences, the other has none. Not even einstein, dawkins, or newton were atheists. All of your theories of creation stem from them. Men who are/were agnostic or took the bible in the literal sense. But you are a POSITIVE ATHEIST. You STATE there is NO God.
MissAndrya you make no sense. You just said the top line of the wager.
''To me, if there is no God, there is no hell.''
You are dismissing the other side.
And galatea, what you just said is basically.
The church says to live life without sin, work hard, and when you die you will be happy and go to heaven.
Being Lustful, Greedy, and gluttonous and all of those sins are easy to do and they make you feel good but to not do them is to suffer. But if you do them, when you die you won't be happy. You will see your life as the disgusting thing that it is.
You can tell the world that you're content ending and not seeing light or having any hope of seeing the beautiful world ever again. But you can't lie to yourself.
I am using Pascal's wager because most here are not educated enough/do not understand Buddhist values nor do they apply to atheism but most atheists find heaven and the ending of burning in a place of torture forever something that is OK and you can live your life how fucked up you want to, chop off childrens hands for a living, nothing will happen, it's morally alright to do that. The bible itself is corrupt and distorted. Thanks to europeans.
(the white man fucks shit up again yay!)
Now, you are speaking as if all religions are suppressing everyone in this day and era.
And you assume there is some ''supreme architect''. What?
Then, afterwards you say if, atheist beliefs are true, that believing in something false then dying. How would you know your beliefs are false? Your just going to go into nothingness forever. You wouldn't even know. That is LESS than petty.
Now you say that religion influences things?
How come we have abortions? That IS afterall against majority religion. But we still have it. Religious IDEALS do not affect people anymore. You will not be purged for your atheist belief in this day and era.
No mechanism for questioning false ideas?
How did we move out from the dark ages, then?
Everyone had that philosophy. There were less edgy teenage kids nowadays who claim they are atheists back then in the dark ages.
If you told me, that according to some stupid book I will burn forever for not believing, would you expect me to believe you? But if I believe I will come back to the earth and live another life with my family? Oh, thats nice to think about. But I'd rather be forever alone, thanks. But hey, you know what, fuck it.
All you atheists enjoy the sadist lifestyle, I see no reason to argue with you guys further. It's like telling a gay man to try pussy, he'll reject it cause he likes a mans butthole more.
(im not saying being gay is bad or anything though)
Basically what I'm trying to get across to you butthurt atheists is;
1. Don't dismiss these religious texts because of all the bullshit around it.
2. Learn to read between the fucking lines and take the teachings of the book.
3. Knowledge yourself before dismissing something because you just don't like going with the tide
Atheist is a VERY strong word.
Not even the smartest, have called themselves atheist.
Einstein was agnostic. Kim Ung Yong (210 IQ) believes in God.
Oh the irony.
I don't have a religion, I don't concern myself with living life based on one or being constricted by it. I don't put restrictions on life, period. But I do stick to the saying "Memento Mori" and along the lines of my hedonisticly inspired life.
Oh, I'm greedy, gluttonous and lustful, and have a disgusting life? Tell me more about that, please. I would like to know how you came to that conclusion. ~ And even if I were all of the above, how does that make it your business?
When I die, I will be dead and gone. The only time when my system will fully shut down and begin to rot. Once even my bones are gone, there will be nothing left. I did make it clear I believe not in any sort of afterlife and zombie apocalypse-like returning, etc., right? Okidoki then.
you're all over the place. i have no idea what you're trying to say here.
i don't think i said anything of the sort.
no. i'm pointing out that not every version of god comes with implicit threats of hell towards non-believers, and the ones who do punish for non-belief are usually dedicated to a specific religion/holy book, and will punish all those who don't come into their fold, not just specifically atheists. so your risk assessment is skewed to begin with.
the deistic god (supreme architect) was just one example of a version of god which doesn't necessarily send people to hell.
you wouldn't, that's why i said its easy to make the argument you're making when you limit the scope to an individual's lifetime. but presumably you'll have kids, presumably you'll interact with other humans and influence them with your beliefs as others have influenced you, and so your beliefs will likely outlive you. seeing as we are a species who's biggest strength is our intellect and our striving for understanding and knowledge, i'd say the truth is sort of intrisically relevant to us.
i think it's reasonable to prefer blunt reality over a comfortable delusion, even on the individual level. we're part of a very priviledged part of the universe that gets to think about things, to percieve existence, and so i think it's foolish to suggest that the truth is something petty and that happiness is more important.
imagine, for a thought experiment, that you were able to be purposely put into a coma and allowed to live your life in an artifical computer matrix that seems every bit as real as our current reality, a perfect imitation, except your life in this matrix would be just slightly more enjoyable than life in the real world. you'd have slightly better luck as the odds would be slightly rigged in your favor. and you'd never know it was a fake; all memory prior to the coma would be replaced with artificial memories. would you take that opportunity?
so you're suggesting religion doesn't influence anything because abortion exists? that's not really worth responding to, to be honest.
in any case, my point wasn't religion specific as your initial post wasn't religion specific. my point was more that beliefs in general influence humanity, and yes i'd stand by that assertion.
everyone did not have 'that philosophy.' the philosophy i was referring to was your warped pascal's wager logic. i'm sure that some did have that philosophy, and i'm sure that those individuals didn't spend much time challenging their religion, which further cements my point.
it's not about what i'd prefer to be true, though. either its true or its not. believing in it won't get me there.
i'll take this analogy. what you're doing in this thread is exactly like trying to convince a gay man, who is intrisically inclined towards an attraction to the same sex, either through biology or through experience, to convert to screwing women instead. only, rather than trying to convey to him why women are so appealing, you decide to base your argument on AIDS statistics that you've just made up on the spot.
i don't have a problem with the texts, when read in their proper context; as cultural and historical relics, as tall tales and poetry. i don't derive my moral standards from them because they're outdated, but i don't judge the writers based on todays standards. i only judge my peers in the 21st century by those standards, many of whom will still strangely suggest the standard laid out in those texts is absolute, the will of god, at which point 'cultural context' goes right out the window.
einstein called belief in a personal god 'childish,' not that it really matters. "so-and-so believes this and he's really smart" is not a compelling argument for anything.
you cited dawkins earlier as not being atheist either, yet he has a sliding scale from 1 to 7, 1 being "i know there is a god" and 7 being "i know there is not a god." he places himself as 6.9. i'm not sure where i'd fall but i can assure you that it's below 6.9.
Exactly. We won't care when we're dead, as we won't have the capacity to. None of this religious nonsense has any bearing on what happens after that.
oh you re in for a surprise.. and not a religious one let me say that..
Yeah, that's probably when my lotto numbers will come in, lol
Separate names with a comma.