# To be or not to be?



## JakXT (Apr 3, 2009)

.


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 3, 2009)

When you go to sleep, is it you that wakes up, or do you die with another "you" starting its life, taking up your memories; an endless cycle that means when you go to sleep tonight, you die.


----------



## Cecil (Apr 3, 2009)

There are three kinds of people in the world:

The first kind, and still the most common, reject their fates and substitute their own. I suspect it is necessary to maintain their sanity, though in an ironic way.

The second kind, increasingly common in modern times, rejects substitutions and embraces the truth in the same manner and frenzy that the first kind has about their pseudo worlds. I suspect it is the same mechanism that drives them as does the first group, as they always appear to act subconsciously as if knowing this truth would save them from their fates because they go about with the same behavior as the first group who do it for such a purpose.

The third kind, and the rarest, simply accept their fates in silence.

That's my two cents of philosophical sounding rabble.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Apr 3, 2009)

I've become an amateur one...But it only really opens up when there is a topic at hand :/ I don't just start spewing crap without at least a motive xD

Though some of my previous posts, probably within the last 25 or so, have some real good philosophical base to'em.


----------



## JakXT (Apr 3, 2009)

.


----------



## JakXT (Apr 3, 2009)

.


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 3, 2009)

JakXT said:


> Or maybe you just never wake up, so when you go to sleep you never wake up but dream the rest of your life. You or I could be asleep right now without even knowing it.


That's not plausible, because it means everything being created, found, and etc (researching, gaming, computers, findings, science, etc) is all done by you, which puts you as being the most intellectual and powerful being in the universe. Even if it's a dream, you're the one creating all of it, and all of it would work in the real world to boot. You're also having every conversation ever at the same time and doing things the human mind can not do (advanced number crunching, for example).


----------



## ToeClaws (Apr 3, 2009)

Where do all the packets sent to /dev/null really go?


----------



## Irreverent (Apr 3, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> Where do all the packets sent to /dev/null really go?



Remember Newton's first law of thermodynamics?  Energy cannot be created or destroyed.  You know all this "dark matter" the cosmologists are always ranting about?  That's what it is.  Bits and bytes piped to /dev/null.  The universe is built of star-stuff (I miss Segan) , hydrogen, recycled porn, used dryer lint and the fuzz that accumulates in your belly button.  Well, "innies" anyway.

I'm still trying to figure out why Canadians drive on parkways and park on driveways...... :shock:


----------



## Shatter (Apr 3, 2009)

If nothing we do matters, then the only thing that matters is what we do.


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 3, 2009)

To agnostics, and athists. What is the meaning of life itself?


----------



## Irreverent (Apr 3, 2009)

Ark said:


> To agnostics, and athists. What is the meaning of life itself?



inbefore42

In all perfect, closed, normal or chaotic systems, the end result (given enough time) is always the same.......entropy.  Why must life have meaning at all?

Do you think that the electrons circling the elemental iron nucleus in your body's cells,(having been ejected from a super nova star 40 billion years ago) really give a damn what you had for breakfast?  Do you think the 4 billion year old rock outside your front door cares where or in whom you put your cock?  On a cosmological scale, your existence is but a pico-second on the universe's time continuum; how the hell can that have meaning?


----------



## Tycho (Apr 3, 2009)

Confucius say: Baseball wrong.  Man with 4 balls cannot walk.


----------



## Aurali (Apr 3, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> inbefore42
> 
> In all perfect, closed, normal or chaotic systems, the end result (given enough time) is always the same.......entropy.  Why must life have meaning at all?



why? why do we do anything we do? why must we find meaning in things that have none? Why is it that we categorize?


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Apr 3, 2009)

Not really philosophy but do you know that there is some postulation on the universe being 2 dimensional? We only view it in three dimensions. There is quite a bit of reasearch being done on it.


----------



## Tycho (Apr 3, 2009)

Bullshit bullshit bullshit.


----------



## Irreverent (Apr 3, 2009)

Eli said:


> Why is it that we categorize?



I suspect that a genetically coded, recursive, selection sort algorithm was at one time considered a biological advantage to our evolving species.


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 3, 2009)

Ark said:


> To agnostics, and athists. What is the meaning of life itself?


What is the meaning of life to an animal? To produce more of its species and survive. Supposedly that should be our main goal, but we are smart enough to know that producing more of our species is not helpful to our general survival due to the density of our species. Therefore, our life is simply meant to be lived and survive, whilst protecting and finding solutions for our species as a whole.


----------



## Aurali (Apr 3, 2009)

Placebo said:


> What is the meaning of life to an animal? To produce more of its species and survive. Supposedly that should be our main goal, but we are smart enough to know that producing more of our species is not helpful to our general survival due to the density of our species. Therefore, our life is simply meant to be lived and survive, whilst protecting and finding solutions for our species as a whole.



that's not our "meaning" that's our "function" we are put on this earth to reproduce. It's ingrained into our genetics.


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 3, 2009)

Eli said:


> that's not our "meaning" that's our "function" we are put on this earth to reproduce. It's ingrained into our genetics.


At the same time, our meaning may just be to function. Why don't any other animals have "meanings"? We're the only species that feels as if we have to actually fulfill some sort of plan. All the other animals just live.

Edit: Yes I realize the glaring hole in my argument. :V


----------



## Kangamutt (Apr 3, 2009)

Ark said:


> To agnostics, and athists. What is the meaning of life itself?



It's all moot. So have fun while you still can.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Apr 3, 2009)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Religions are created by man, and are mere structures of society, and should be considered nothing more then such. The actual beliefs contained within should be subject to criticism, until proof is provided that they hold some, if any facts. Facts which are taken on a point-by-point basis, and scrutinized for validity. Truly believing in something with little other then faith or hope is typically foolish, by most scientific measures. Especially if you are basing your morals, opinions, and virtues upon these hopes and faith. It appears that major religions are purposefully based to contradict every other religion - Potentially causing wars, hatred amongst different cultures, and in general, is keeping the world from becoming united in some vague collection of peace.





And probably one of the simplest refutations of God I've read:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
 - Then he is not omnipotent

Is he able, but not willing?
 - He is malevolent (malicious, malign)

Is he both able and willing?
 - The whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
 - Then why call him God?"

Epicurus (341-271 BC)


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 3, 2009)

Lastdirewolf said:


> And probably one of the simplest refutations of God I've read:
> 
> "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
> - Then he is not omnipotent
> ...


That is my favorite quote to say, ever. Isn't it strange how after more than a thousand years, no one can find a proper argument for it?


----------



## Tycho (Apr 3, 2009)

Placebo said:


> That is my favorite quote to say, ever. Isn't it strange how after more than a thousand years, no one can find a proper argument for it?



Might as well try to argue that two plus two doesn't equal four.


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 3, 2009)

Tycho said:


> Might as well try to argue that two plus two doesn't equal four.


Everyone knows it equals fish


----------



## Toaster (Apr 3, 2009)

How do we know if something is right or wrong?

Ya you can guess what I am now..................


----------



## Kanin (Apr 3, 2009)

I like to consider myself a philosopher, I'm not good explaining though, especially not right now.


----------



## makmakmob (Apr 3, 2009)

If OP is a real philosopher, he can tell me where he lies on the spectrum of empiricism and rationalism.
Or if he goes for kant's synthesis instead.


----------



## Icky (Apr 3, 2009)

JakXT said:


> Or maybe you just never wake up, so when you go to sleep you never wake up but dream the rest of your life. You or I could be asleep right now without even knowing it.


Sounds Matrix-y.


----------



## Irreverent (Apr 3, 2009)

Tycho said:


> Might as well try to argue that two plus two doesn't equal four.



 Two plus two doesn't equal four, it equals _very large_ approximations of three and _very small _ approximations of five.  Its all relativity.



makmakmob said:


> Or if he goes for kant's synthesis instead.



This.  There'd be no theoretical physics or cosmology without it.


----------



## GatodeCafe (Apr 3, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> Two plus two doesn't equal four, it equals _very large_ approximations of three and _very small _ approximations of five.  Its all relativity.



You either have zero understanding of math, or zero understanding of relativity.


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 3, 2009)

Well, I seen "evil" mentioned above and honestly I've been pondering over the term since another thread on here; what is evil, and does it exist? If evil is a term created by humans, does it only apply to our race, and what are the necessary requirements for something to be evil.


----------



## Toaster (Apr 3, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Well, I seen "evil" mentioned above and honestly I've been pondering over the term since another thread on here; what is evil, and does it exist? If evil is a term created by humans, does it only apply to our race, and what are the necessary requirements for something to be evil.



This.


----------



## Surgat (Apr 3, 2009)

Time/change isn't real. 

In order for there to be time, events that occur have to have one point in the future, the present, and one in the past. As these properties are mutually exclusive, time is incoherent.


----------



## Irreverent (Apr 3, 2009)

GatodeCafe said:


> You either have zero understanding of math, or zero understanding of relativity.



Perhaps.  But my understanding of math is better than your understanding of  satire.   It was as much a joke as a serious philosophy discussion in a furry forum.  Next time, I'll leave a smilie with the QED.


----------



## Kanin (Apr 3, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> Two plus two doesn't equal four, it equals _very large_ approximations of three and _very small _approximations of five. Its all relativity.


 


GatodeCafe said:


> You either have zero understanding of math, or zero understanding of relativity.


 
Actually both partially correct it is equal 4, but it's also a _very large_ approximations of three and _very small _approximations of five.


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 3, 2009)

Lastdirewolf said:


> And probably one of the simplest refutations of God I've read:
> 
> "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
> - Then he is not omnipotent
> ...



*facedesk* I can't believe you pulled a Epicurus on me -_-# Here, let me elaborate:

> Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
No, he is able to prevent evil. By definition he is God.

> Is he able, but not willing?
The question is a contradiction. His power is defined by his will.

> Is he both able and willing?
Yes. The premise of the question seems to ignore the fact that God also has a will of mercy, which is why his will of judgment need not always be executed instantaneously. 

> Is he neither able nor willing?
No, he is able to prevent evil. By definition he is God.

What gets me is that you even brought up Epicurus. Probably the biggest douche in philosophy. 

Epicurus's main concern, was overcoming fear.  Fear exceedingly unpleasant. Greatest fear of all: death. Handle that, handle anything. Epicurus clever way for handling fear of death.  Return to democritus idea of atoms. All there is is atoms and void. When you are born, atoms come together. When you die, atoms come apart. What's the big deal? Further, you won't even know it when you're dead. You won't be there anymore. Typical: "I was not, I was, I am not. I don't care."

So, if we don't worry about what comes after death, we worry about here and now. What do we do now? Seek pleasure, what Epicurus considered greatest good. But while seeking pleasure, we also need to avoid pain. The problem is, that most pleasures involve some pain, maybe even quite a bit of pain.

Drinking? 
Food? 
Sex?

So we have to find a pleasure without pain. And there is one! The pleasure of learning! I am giving you what Epicurus said is the greatest of pleasures.  *(Epicurus was an idiot!)*


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 3, 2009)

Ornias said:


> This.


What do you think the requirements are? Our entire race, nothing, or is there a fine line?


----------



## jagdwolf (Apr 3, 2009)

Three rules of being an animal

Me first
Pack second
Others last

Its only when we change that order do we become more than the animal.  The greater the order shift the more "human" we become.  I did not say morals please dont confuse those.


----------



## Aurali (Apr 3, 2009)

GatodeCafe said:


> You either have zero understanding of math, or zero understanding of relativity.



Dude. 2 + 2 =10 in base 4


----------



## jagdwolf (Apr 3, 2009)

Everybody has got it wrong

2+2= a threesome with a camera operator..


----------



## Aurali (Apr 3, 2009)

jagdwolf said:


> Everybody has got it wrong
> 
> 2+2= a threesome with a camera operator..


Actually. I'm not wrong.


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 3, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Well, I seen "evil" mentioned above and honestly I've been pondering over the term since another thread on here; what is evil, and does it exist? If evil is a term created by humans, does it only apply to our race, and what are the necessary requirements for something to be evil.


Evil is defined as what God puts as evil in the bible (breaking of the ten commandments, sinning, etc). This doesn't necessarily mean it is evil, but it is the definition meant in the quote. 



Ark said:


> > Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
> No, he is able to prevent evil. By definition he is God.


Then why does he not prevent it?



Ark said:


> > Is he able, but not willing?
> The question is a contradiction. His power is defined by his will.


This statement is contradictory. If he were able to prevent it, it would not be.  



Ark said:


> > Is he both able and willing?
> Yes. The premise of the question seems to ignore the fact that God also has a will of mercy, which is why his will of judgment need not always be executed instantaneously.


God supposedly knows everything. Why would he allow mercy for those that are truly evil in his eyes? Seeing as he had no mercy for all the innocent children and people killed in the bible. 



Ark said:


> > Is he neither able nor willing?
> No, he is able to prevent evil. By definition he is God.


He's not doing his job by your definition of him as God.



Ark said:


> Words  *(Epicurus was an idiot!)*


Irrelevant.


----------



## Aurali (Apr 3, 2009)

Evil is perceptual


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 3, 2009)

I just defined evil mentioned in the quote. It is perceptual, yes, but not as defined in the bible.

Also I'm going to bed


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 4, 2009)

Placebo said:


> Evil is defined as what God puts as evil in the bible (breaking of the ten commandments, sinning, etc). This doesn't necessarily mean it is evil, but it is the definition meant in the quote.


No. Sorry, but the Bible should never be taken into the real-world as an example, ever.


----------



## Irreverent (Apr 4, 2009)

Eli said:


> Dude. 2 + 2 =10 in base 4



All your "base" are belong to us.....  

(base 4 makes my brain hurt.....must have rum)


----------



## Captain Howdy (Apr 4, 2009)

Ark said:


> *facedesk* I can't believe you pulled a Epicurus on me -_-# Here, let me elaborate:
> 
> > Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
> No, he is able to prevent evil. By definition he is God.
> ...



- If he is willing to prevent evil, and able, then why doesn't he?

- If he is able, then why would a perfectly good God do so; if he is willing? And why wouldn't he be willing?

- A perfect God punishes his so-called creation? Mercy or not, there seems to be a problem with a willing AND able God that either lets his creations die, or makes them die. Especially if they are undeserving (which tends to be the major focal point).

I won't site minute or minority examples, but lets take smoking for an example. At some point, for example, His hand was involved in the creation of tobacco, nicotine, and all that - Not that he directly mixed the chemicals, but he provided the materials to do it, and from the looks of it, is just letting his creations make the chemicals, and letting them die. This isn't a merciful God. How this comes around to the point of evil, I suppose is your interpretation of evil, but I'd say letting a man, or multiple men create a chemical designed specifically to make people addicted, relaxed, and in a lot of cases(if not most cases) kill them over a short period of time. 

I hope this is a sufficient example, but lets move on.

- If he is neither will, nor able, then we wouldn't be God, but from example above, he doesn't sound all that good or righteous. 

I don't have a Biblical background, so I can't exactly start siting verses, Psalms, and what have you, but I'm more then willing to provide examples of problems that are around that God either lets happen, or makes happen. I don't care about all the rest of the guy that said it, we aren't talking about him, we're talking about this one specific thing he said.


----------



## Cecil (Apr 4, 2009)

> Why does God allow evil?


Epicurus assumes evil is not a necessity, which brings me to one of my favorite philosophical topics, the cruel nature of our reality:
Duality.

Evil is very much merely a human concept.  There is no such thing as "good" or "evil".  Also consider if a God is all powerful, shouldn't he be capable of evil? And I've always wondered, shouldn't he also be capable of lying or twisting words? I recall the Adam and Eve story in which Satan tells them the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil would give them the power of a God (or something like that). Only after the fruit do humans appear capable of evil, which makes me wonder, was the serpent lying or telling the truth?

A God in a universe of duality (the Alpha and Omega/of *all things*)... really Epicurus was a bit of a whiner.


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 4, 2009)

Placebo said:


> Then why does he not prevent it?



Because if He eliminated evil, there would be no choice but to do good. God created the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in that garden of Eden in the beginning, and he saw that it was good. The choice he gave to Adam and Eve was good. He willingly lets it exist so that we all have the choice to sin or turn from sin. Thus, free will.



> This statement is contradictory. If he were able to prevent it, it would not be.



God is able, but who are we as humans to try to guess the will of God? I assume, since it's still here, that his plan is to let it stay, at least for now. I agree that His power is defined by his will, not his will by his power.



> God supposedly knows everything. Why would he allow mercy for those that are truly evil in his eyes? Seeing as he had no mercy for all the innocent children and people killed in the bible.



I don't think anybody is truly evil in God's eyes. We all sin and are unable to commune with God as a result, but that does not mean we are beyond saving, as 'truly evil' would suggest. I honestly don't know what happened to all those who died with sin before Jesus forgave all. I wouldn't say that any of us know whether or not God had mercy 'for all the innocent children and people killed in the Bible.



> He's not doing his job by your definition of him as God.



His job as God isn't to eliminate evil for us. If that was His job, then yes, He wouldn't be doing a very good job, but it's not. Resisting temptation and asking forgiveness is our job.



> Irrelevant.



Yes, compared to the questions. But it gets me, to why you base your philosophy from a foolish man who doubted his own existence. His own students had to pull him from danger, from time to time. Because he didn't respect, his own life.


You are considering God from a human temporal perspective and not acknowledging that God does prevent evil in many cases.

In other words, God is so far above us that He is incomprehensible in how He brings His will to pass.

It's like a child playing with a chess master and asking why the chess master allowed them to take a Knight with their pawn not realizing that the master has been thinking ahead 10 moves and that by taking the Knight checkmate is inevitable.

In addition to that, consider this portion of the argument that you have asked about.

The Bible says that God wants people to love Him and obey Him. If people were robotic they would certainly obey Him but their love wouldn't be genuine. So God has given people the ability to make choices because He desires our true love.

Now if God were to "prevent evil", then where would He draw the line?

Would He make it so that if anyone tried to murder another person they would be paralyzed and unable to commit the act?

What if someone was going to steal something or tell a lie or commit a sexual sin?

Would God really be giving us freedom to choose if He was like a police officer that never slept and who followed us around 24/7 and we knew that we couldn't do anything that He didn't approve of?

So God allows some evil, He prevents other evil from coming to pass, and in a complex pattern of bringing His ultimate will to pass, He does it in such a way that for the most part we are unable to discern whether it is God or just what unbelievers would call "chance" that rules over the affairs of humanity.

Here's a passage, said by Jesus (Matthew 13:24-30). It'll explain why even the most heinous people, have a chance in the light. 

Ok, thats all I'm answering right now. I don't want to play 20 questions with you guys right now, and my answers were an effort on my part. If you want to know more, ask a priest/preacher, ask in a christian forum, or hell; read the bible. So you can make perspective yourself. Nothing worse than a narrow-minded individual.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 4, 2009)

I read the Bible once.



Fucking SAD book.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Apr 4, 2009)

Cecil said:


> Evil is very much merely a human concept.  Also consider if a God is all powerful, shouldn't he be capable of evil?



God is a human concept. 

God is all powerful, and all good, by definition. So my interpretation, is that he is capable of evil, because he is all powerful, but by being perfectly good, he does not act evil, perform evil acts, or let them happen. Which would be contradictory of course, that's the point.




Ark said:


> Would God really be giving us freedom to choose if He was like a police officer that never slept and who followed us around 24/7 and we knew that we couldn't do anything that He didn't approve of?
> 
> So God allows some evil, He prevents other evil from coming to pass, and in a complex pattern of bringing His ultimate will to pass, He does it in such a way that for the most part we are unable to discern whether it is God or just what unbelievers would call "chance" that rules over the affairs of humanity.



God is everywhere, God is in every one, and I think also everything - If I remember right. There is also the question of free will, which seems to be a major source of your argument - Do we have free will? Or are we on a system of Determinism? That's still relatively questionable. 

Though it comes full circle when we wonder what his line of evil is. A baby can be slaughtered without having the chance to do anything. Hundreds or thousands can die in a tsunami, hurricane, flood, or other huge natural disaster. How are people supposed to love and obey him if he makes them, or lets them die? Is there a quota of people that must love and obey him, and once that point is met, fuck the rest of'em, good luck?

If God allows evil, then there seems to be a problem here :/ If he created it, and allows it to be or do evil, then wouldn't he be the gun in the murderers hand? It would be like indirect evil that he allowed.


----------



## Cecil (Apr 4, 2009)

> but by being perfectly good, he does not act evil, perform evil acts, or let them happen.


I say Duality. Again. There is no such thing as good or evil, as they are one and the same. They do not exist without the other. He can preform evil acts and be supreme creator of goodness as his evil is what makes other things good. What you expect is that he is the supreme creator of goodness by only by directly radiating good acts, which also makes other things evil by the relativity that good and evil exist upon.



> Do we have free will? Or are we on a system of Determinism?


If I program a robot to be able to chose himself between whether he takes a left turn in a maze or a right turn, and I've seen through my time machine portal as I am transcendent of time and space that he will take a left turn next, when he turns left on that next turn, did he actually choose to turn left?
It sounds to me like you believe free will only stems from defiance, yes?



> How are people supposed to love and obey him if he makes them, or lets them die?


You fear death then? It wouldn't be such a big deal if you saw that in a grand scheme it wouldn't even be a setback, and in the particular scheme we are talking about, in fact it would be a blessing?


----------



## Sinister Exaggerator (Apr 4, 2009)

You people think too much.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Apr 4, 2009)

Cecil said:


> I say Duality. Again. There is no such thing as good or evil, as they are one and the same. They do not exist without the other. He can preform evil acts and be supreme creator of goodness as his evil is what makes other things good. What you expect is that he is the supreme creator of goodness by only by directly radiating good acts, which also makes other things evil by the relativity that good and evil exist upon.
> 
> If I program a robot to be able to chose himself between whether he takes a left turn in a maze or a right turn, and I've seen through my time machine portal as I am transcendent of time and space that he will take a left turn next, when he turns left on that next turn, did he actually choose to turn left?
> It sounds to me like you believe free will only stems from defiance, yes?
> ...



I am not 100% positive on free will to be honest. That's why I bring up Determinism, fearing death - and death itself, have nothing to do with anything at this point in time. Though I refute your comment that my death would be a blessing, and would wish you'd keep from personal attacks. 

Though the turning left thing is missing one thing: a purpose. How did he get there, and why does he need to go left? If he has, say, free reign to choose one direction, somewhere in his past he would have a reason to go left - Otherwise it is simply an unconscious or random action, and not free will. 

However good not existing without evil is a perplexing argument, because from your statement before, evil and (and therefore) good  are human concepts (as is God). Which begins to make a circular argument, which is a huge problem, and still leaves the question; 'if God is perfectly good, then why does he allow evil?'. 

Evil which would not be evil without good, at least in a human mind. That..becomes viciously circular at that point, and we cannot really define it correctly unless we know what Gods' definition of evil is....Then again, humans have different perceptions of what is good and evil as well, so that throws the whole thing into another twist again.


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 4, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> I read the Bible once.
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking SAD book.



It's got it's up, and downs. You must of been reading out of the old testament, which is full of hardships. And of course Jesus's crucifixion T.T but it gets better, when he rises from the dead, to reunite with the prophets.



Lastdirewolf said:


> God is a human concept. God is all powerful, and all good, by definition. So my interpretation, is that he is capable of evil, because he is all powerful, but by being perfectly good, he does not act evil, perform evil acts, or let them happen. Which would be contradictory of course, that's the point.



God cannot cross the line of evil, since it is a contradictory of him being omniscient



> God is everywhere, God is in every one, and I think also everything - If I remember right. There is also the question of free will, which seems to be a major source of your argument - Do we have free will? Or are we on a system of Determinism? That's still relatively questionable.



Yes, free will. A will to act on ones accord.



> Though it comes full circle when we wonder what his line of evil is. A baby can be slaughtered without having the chance to do anything. Hundreds or thousands can die in a tsunami, hurricane, flood, or other huge natural disaster. How are people supposed to love and obey him if he makes them, or lets them die? Is there a quota of people that must love and obey him, and once that point is met, fuck the rest of'em, good luck?



God protects babies, and fools. Those who don't know better (babies), have a right of passage into the pearly gates. As for natural disasters, and those who die in em'. God has given everyone a chance, even if you don't notice it, but God still intervene in our lives at times, not always. People have taken account, and have built there faith. Lots just brush off the voices, and move on. God's definition of evil is sin. Sin means in the ancient greek tongue, "to miss the mark". God has given his 10 commandments, and the seven deadly sins, as guidelines for us to follow. To not acknowledge this, then your asking for it.



> If God allows evil, then there seems to be a problem here :/ If he created it, and allows it to be or do evil, then wouldn't he be the gun in the murderers hand? It would be like indirect evil that he allowed.



There's the problem, that everyone gets. God did not create evil, Lucifer did. God allows evil at some purportions, as you see that demons (and satan) walk amongst us. This is the test, to see if you fall for wickedness in this world, and become attached to earthly materials. Or form a bond with God, and embrace him as your lord and savior.

I can't answer all your questions, since I struggle with my own faith, and still am learning at this moment.


Bathos said:


> You people think too much.



Thats philosophy, for ya :3


----------



## Cecil (Apr 4, 2009)

Wait, shit. I totally didn't mean for there to be a personal attack there. I'm a bit tired right now and can't think through my words. I meant death in general. Not yours specifically. I personally would consider my own a blessing, because I could FINALLY GET OUT OF THIS SHITTY JOB. Anyway.

I really can't say if we have free will or not, as I really don't know either. I just like to think we do.

So a robot programmed to turn corners does not have free will unless he is not turning corners and forging his own purpose? Still sounds like defiance is free will, iv I'm understanding what you're trying to get across.

'if God is perfectly good, then why does he allow evil?'. 
Look, the evil is irrelevant. It's an artifact of our perception.



> God did not create evil, Lucifer did.


And God created Lucifer. That really goes nowhere.


----------



## CAThulu (Apr 4, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> Where do all the packets sent to /dev/null really go?



Only Amelia Earhart knows for sure.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Apr 4, 2009)

Ark said:


> Lastdirewolf said:
> 
> 
> > God cannot cross the line of evil, since it is a contradictory of him being omniscient
> ...


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 4, 2009)

Cecil said:


> And God created Lucifer. That really goes nowhere.



Evil is inevitable, that is all I'm saying. God knew lucifer would rebel, so it matters not. Even if he stayed from creating him, another angel would of took his place. Avoiding to create anything, because you fear it would become evil, would miss with God's plans big time.

Look, it's late, and I'm tired. I'm not up to discussion right now, maybe some other day.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Apr 4, 2009)

Ark said:


> Evil is inevitable, that is all I'm saying. God knew lucifer would rebel, so it matters not. Even if he stayed from creating him, another angel would of took his place. Avoiding to create anything, because you fear it would become evil, would miss with God's plans big time.
> 
> Look, it's late, and I'm tired. I'm not up to discussion right now, maybe some other day.



The forums are 24/7 =P feel free to come back when you're refreshed xD


----------



## Cecil (Apr 4, 2009)

So that's it then Ark? You wouldn't mind if I made the statement, seeing as it's inevitable that when under some lights: God is evil?

And Lastdirewolf, you see that it is perfectly possible to say that, seeing as 
it simply is when under some lights: God is good?

You see, to me it always seemed irrelevant. And besides, I'd think myself a hypocrite to call him absolutely either.

Eh, whatever. My point is done. Need some more pizazz here. So, completely ignoring religion:
Can you prove that you have free will? And if you can't does that prove anything at all anyway?


----------



## CAThulu (Apr 4, 2009)

Cecil said:


> And God created Lucifer. That really goes nowhere.



*throws a wrench into the works*

Lucifer is the latin name for Morning Star, a name also accredited to the planet Venus, since it is just that during times that it's visible at dawn.  A passage in revelations even refers to Christ as The Morning Star:

From Wikipedia:





> The Vulgate uses "stella matutina" to translated "á½ á¼€ÏƒÏ„á½´Ï á½ Ï€ÏÏ‰ÏŠÎ½ÏŒÏ‚" (or, according to some manuscripts, "á½ á¼€ÏƒÏ„á½´Ï á½ á½€ÏÎ¸ÏÎ¹Î½ÏŒÏ‚") in Revelation 22:16, where it is Jesus who is described as the morning star. An echo of this Biblical use is found in the Roman Rite liturgy, in which the Exultet chant in praise of the paschal candle refers to Christ as the morning star (in Latin _lucifer_):
> 
> 
> _May the Morning Star which never sets
> ...


----------



## Cecil (Apr 4, 2009)

A wrench in the works? I read that more as agreeing with what was said.


----------



## CAThulu (Apr 4, 2009)

Cecil said:


> So that's it then Ark? You wouldn't mind if I made the statement, seeing as it's inevitable that when under some lights: God is evil?
> 
> And Lastdirewolf, you see that it is perfectly possible to say that, seeing as
> it simply is when under some lights: God is good?
> ...




THe christian god gave everyone free will to choose his or her own destiny.  Humanity was never meant to be used as puppets.  We're god's children by definition; guided but allowed to make good or bad decisions.

From where I stand, if you remove the christian aspect of it, the gods are an extension of humanity, in as much as they just what they are.  Like humans they can lean either one way or another depending on disposition, but even a god of chaos can bring about creation.


----------



## CAThulu (Apr 4, 2009)

Cecil said:


> A wrench in the works? I read that more as agreeing with what was said.



I'm going to use the excuse that it's four thirty in the morning and I'm thereby confirming whatever arguement I've missed


----------



## Cecil (Apr 4, 2009)

> the gods are an extension of humanity


But alternatively: humanity is an extension of the gods, seeing as they created us within their own context. So I really don't see where that goes either.


----------



## JakXT (Apr 4, 2009)

.


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 4, 2009)

Did this really turn into another Religion thread? God dammit! Wait, FFFFFFFFF!!!!

No, seriously stop; religion sucks.


----------



## makmakmob (Apr 4, 2009)

JakXT said:


> And also yeah there is no meaning to life.



If life has no meaning why do we consider the lives of others so precious?


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 4, 2009)

JakXT said:


> If you cant think of anything just put something simple like if you think god exists or not and explain why,Or answer this (i already have my own answer i just wanna see what you guys think)
> 
> *Keeping in mind that nothing is impossible just very improbable is impossibility possible?
> Think about it and post your answer before looking at my answer.*



No...

Why?  Because we do not yet know everything that is possible, so we cannot say that anything is impossible, only that it is improbable.


----------



## Doubler (Apr 4, 2009)

> If life has no meaning why do we consider the lives of others so precious?


That something has no meaning on it's own doesn't imply it is meaningless to us.
You might also be confusing life with lives. Life in general and individuals.


----------



## Salrith (Apr 4, 2009)

Well, I like to think o myself as a philosopher, but whether my thoughts are interesting or deep... I don't know. They are interesting to me, but that might be because I thought them -- there is nothing more interesting to think about. That is to say, whatever I think, it is the most interesting I will think - anything else that is thought is not my thoughts! Does that make sense?

In terms of how the universe began, since I think that is what you asked? -- well, I have two thoughts on that.
The first is that the universe is infinite, and hence it extends in all directions and dimensions... and so at some point in its infinite life, something will pass along its infinite pathways to the time it began, and will begin it.

My second is that the universe does not exist. Let me explain.
I believe in a universal balance... if something good happens to me, something bad happens to someone else -- it's maybe depressing, but it seems to hold true. You win a million dollars, someone loses a million dollars. You extend life by eating, say, a fish, you take life by killing the fish. IT goes into universal laws, too -- you create matter (I'm aware this is impossible, bt I don't want to get into pair production specifics and conversions, ok.. so sue me or something), you create it's antithesis, too.
I extended this and thought, well, if you took it high enough, through enough dimensions or whatever, perhaps it all cancels out. We have a universe here, so perhaps an... 'anti-universe' or some such is out there somewhere, and they cancel out.
Thus we exist, but on the grander scale, it all cancels down to 0.

My thoughts..


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 4, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> No. Sorry, but the Bible should never be taken into the real-world as an example, ever.


Well it's great you think that, but I'm simply putting down what 80% (actually I can't remember if it was 80% or 40%, but whatever :V ) of human beings define as evil, not everyone on earth.



NewfDraggie said:


> Did this really turn into another Religion thread? God dammit! Wait, FFFFFFFFF!!!!
> 
> No, seriously stop; religion sucks.


We get it. You hate religion. But simply saying, "You guys are all wrong" in a debate is kind of...well, childish.


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 4, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> No, seriously stop; religion sucks.



So you choose to be ignorant?


----------



## Toaster (Apr 4, 2009)

The bible has been changed too many times to be used for anything other than a door-stop. If "god" wishes for me to follow him, then he'll get off his ass and send me a new bible that hasn't gone through a twisted game of telephone.


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 4, 2009)

Ornias said:


> The bible has been changed too many times to be used for anything other than a door-stop. If "god" wishes for me to follow him, then he'll get off his ass and send me a new bible that hasn't gone through a twisted game of telephone.



Hahahaha, what the hell. Look, the bible has been tampered with many times in the past, because they believe it was irrelevant to God's word. Now there are apocrypha books that have been found to thrown out of the bible, or lost for whatever reason. No matter what denomination you are in, there is the basic set of guidelines for you to follow. Every word Jesus speaks is true, the romans wouldn't burn these pages, so there legit. But the most important part, is to have a relationship with Jesus/God. The bible is just a guide in your faith.


----------



## CAThulu (Apr 4, 2009)

> CAThulu: the gods are an extension of humanity





Cecil said:


> But alternatively: humanity is an extension of the gods, seeing as they created us within their own context. So I really don't see where that goes either.



I love it!
a=b always wins


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 4, 2009)

Placebo said:


> Well it's great you think that, but I'm simply putting down what 80% (actually I can't remember if it was 80% or 40%, but whatever :V ) of human beings define as evil, not everyone on earth.
> 
> 
> We get it. You hate religion. But simply saying, "You guys are all wrong" in a debate is kind of...well, childish.


It's still not a religion thread tainted by it, again; if you can't keep threads on a forum from being tainted by Religion then how is the real-world doing? Pretty bad, because of Religion.
Go start a thread on it if you want to discuss it, I think it's fucking stupid myself but as long as it's not affecting me I don't care what somebody believes, sadly that's not the case for most believers that are willing to talk about it; most believers that don't keep it to themselves spread it around like a plague.

I never said you guys are all wrong, I said it's pointless to use it in an argument, ever, for anything.
You don't need the bible to tell you what's wrong and right.


Ark said:


> So you choose to be ignorant?


No, I choose to keep my mind clean of corrupted bullshit.


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 4, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> No, I choose to keep my mind clean of corrupted bullshit.



Oh... ok, I get it. Your narrow minded, makes more sense.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Apr 4, 2009)

Ark said:


> Oh... ok, I get it. Your narrow minded, makes more sense.



I'm not defending Newf here, but you're also saying in this context, that the religions are true, and most likely that the people who follow it, aren't narrow-minded.

He may be going at it in a abrasive manner, but a person who's 'clean', or open to idea's, is a lot more open-minded then someone who's judgment, virtues, opinions, and values are clouded by their religion.


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 4, 2009)

CAThulu said:


> I love it!
> a=b always wins


Well what about: A+x=B+y=C+z=âˆž?
Proof


----------



## Aurali (Apr 4, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> All your "base" are belong to us.....
> 
> (base 4 makes my brain hurt.....must have rum)



It's a Portal Reference :3


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 4, 2009)

Lastdirewolf said:


> I'm not defending Newf here, but you're also saying in this context, that the religions are true, and most likely that the people who follow it, aren't narrow-minded.
> 
> He may be going at it in a abrasive manner, but a person who's 'clean', or open to idea's, is a lot more open-minded then someone who's judgment, virtues, opinions, and values are clouded by their religion.



Not saying that, Newf is just being a bigot. I believe in perspective of both sides, not a biased opinion.


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 4, 2009)

Ark said:


> Oh... ok, I get it. Your narrow minded, makes more sense.


I can say the exact same back at yourself, as you didn't target any specific part of my argument at all and simply committed ad hominem twice in a row makes you clearly narrow-minded, simply because you can't get off that thought; religion followers are usually vastly more narrow-minded than the non-religious, as well. I'm thinking, you know, 90+% of the scientific community.

Just because I choose to exclude myself from something that I've dabbled in the past doesn't make me narrow minded, I will gladly talk about Religion if you want me too so badly, but I can guarantee if I was agreeing with you I wouldn't be narrow minded at all, if I followed religion blindly I would never be considered narrow-minded, but the moment I say I can't stand religion is the moment I become a biased, narrow-minded buffoon in the eyes of the lord and all who follow him.

If you wish to talk about religion, all I request if you simply start a thread on it instead of corrupting 99% of all intellectual threads on this board with it. It's always about Hitler, the USA, or Religion; it's getting fucking ridiculous and its cause is narrow-minded people, such as yourself Ark.


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 4, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> I can say the exact same back at yourself, as you didn't target any specific part of my argument at all and simply committed ad hominem twice in a row makes you clearly narrow-minded, simply because you can't get off that thought; religion followers are usually vastly more narrow-minded than the non-religious, as well. Think you know, 90+% of the scientific community.
> 
> Just because I choose to exclude myself from something that I've dabbled in the past doesn't make me narrow minded, I will gladly talk about Religion if you want me too so badly, but I can guarantee if I was agreeing with you I wouldn't be narrow minded at all, if I followed religion blindly I would never be considered narrow-minded, but the moment I say I can't stand religion is the moment I become a biased, narrow-minded buffoon in the eyes of the lord and all who follow him.
> 
> If you wish to talk about religion, all I request if you simply start a thread on it instead of corrupting 99% of all intellectual threads on this board with it. It's always about Hitler, the USA, or Religion; it's getting fucking ridiculous and its cause is narrow-minded people, such as yourself Ark.



On the contrary, no. I embrace both science, and religion. I value knowledge in every aspect, to make sense to the equation. There are narrow-minded ppl everywhere, doesn't matter if your religious or not. But I know when to draw the line, using logic.


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 4, 2009)

Ark said:


> On the contrary, no. I embrace both science, and religion. I value knowledge in every aspect, to make sense to the equation. There are narrow-minded ppl everywhere, doesn't matter if your religious or not. But I know when to draw the line, using logic.


Then you're conflicted, science has disproven a lot about Religion, and religion disproves science; a conundrum is created as you attempt to keep a non-biased standpoint, the only way to be non-biased in this topic is to not give a shit at all. And in that case, you don't need to do or say anything about it because it doesn't matter.

To believe in religion and also believe in science means you don't fully believe in either, there's parts that conflict too much to co-exist, unless you're simply a moron and don't see these parts, then I guess I see your point.

I simply choose to not believe in religion, but I honestly don't care what somebody else believes in, I still find it quite insulting that they wave it around as if Religion is intellectual, when at its core all there is, is fear; hope and worry; belief of something in fear of the unknown. It defiantly fits in philosophy but because no human can ever, EVER know if a God exists or not (and none have or will ever) there's not point in talking about it past that; no point in attempting to defend it past the point of "it could be" over and over in a circle, honestly what else can you add? I'm just fed up with it, and I apologize if I come off harsh but seriously, it's corrupted garbage; somebody created each religion, a human not a God, and if you want to believe maybe you should piece together your own belief instead of blindly following something another person created, especially following to the extremes like the thumpers.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Apr 4, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> Remember Newton's first law of thermodynamics?  Energy cannot be created or destroyed.  You know all this "dark matter" the cosmologists are always ranting about?  That's what it is.  Bits and bytes piped to /dev/null.  The universe is built of star-stuff (I miss Segan) , hydrogen, recycled porn, used dryer lint and the fuzz that accumulates in your belly button.  Well, "innies" anyway.
> 
> I'm still trying to figure out why Canadians drive on parkways and park on driveways...... :shock:



Do you mean Carl Sagan instead of whoever Segan is?

In addition, to get yelled at, No-One exists in reality, but only exist in my mind. i am just a soul in the midst of nothing, and you all are figments of my imagination... I came to this conclusion because it is hard to come to conclusive evidence that everyone else but my own self exists. And because I know that I exist, I may be the only person that is actually living, whilst everyone else is a Diphenhydramine-like hallucination... Everyone represents the forces within my mind that are constantly duelling to keep a balance....

Its just a suggestion... And others will claim to be the only real person, too... but I am the only person that I know of that knows that they are real....


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 4, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Then you're conflicted, science has disproven a lot about Religion, and religion disproves science; a conundrum is created as you attempt to keep a non-biased standpoint, the only way to be non-biased in this topic is to not give a shit at all. And in that case, you don't need to do or say anything about it because it doesn't matter.
> 
> To believe in religion and also believe in science means you don't fully believe in either, there's parts that conflict too much to co-exist, unless you're simply a moron and don't see these parts, then I guess I see your point.
> 
> I simply choose to not believe in religion, but I honestly don't care what somebody else believes in, I still find it quite insulting that they wave it around as if Religion is intellectual, when at its core all there is, is fear; hope and worry; belief of something in fear of the unknown. It defiantly fits in philosophy but because no human can ever, EVER know if a God exists or not (and none have or will ever) there's not point in talking about it past that; no point in attempting to defend it past the point of "it could be" over and over in a circle, honestly what else can you add? I'm just fed up with it, and I apologize if I come off harsh but seriously, it's corrupted garbage; somebody created each religion, a human not a God, and if you want to believe maybe you should piece together your own belief instead of blindly following something another person created, especially following to the extremes like the thumpers.



I guess you miss the point to philosophy, because in world like ours, you only follow the masses, and you don't think for yourself. Am I supposed to give up my religion, because science says so. I don't respect that god complex logic, that scientist put on themselves. Your not 100% sure that God is real or not, so quit trying. Instead, focus on what's important. Were all still learning about this universe, and questions come to hand to; why? 

I make my philosophy on the knowledge I come across, and make make my elaborations on it. I can question all I want, thats how you learn. So do what you want, no one cares. 

I'm done, yo. So, piss off -_-


----------



## Captain Howdy (Apr 4, 2009)

Ark said:


> I guess you miss the point to philosophy, because in world like ours, you only follow the masses, and you don't think for yourself. Am I supposed to give up my religion, because science says so. I don't respect that god complex logic, that scientist put on themselves. Your not 100% sure that God is real or not, so quit trying. Instead, focus on what's important. Were all still learning about this universe, and questions come to hand to; why?
> 
> I make my philosophy on the knowledge I come across, and make make my elaborations on it. I can question all I want, thats how you learn. So do what you want, no one cares.
> 
> I'm done, yo. So, piss off -_-



I'm pretty sure the masses are pro-religion, or religious. Atheists, and people who don't care either way, are, and have been a minority. 

If science proves that God doesn't exist, then I would hope you would give up on at least Western religions - Of course we aren't at that point yet, but blanket statements can be bad :E

Also with Newf, he's not against philosophy, he's against hearing the same things over and over >_>


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 4, 2009)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Also with Newf, he's not against philosophy, he's against hearing the same things over and over >_>


This.
I love philosophy, my boyfriend is taking that course in University and I read his books and notes. :3


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 4, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> This.
> I love philosophy, my boyfriend is taking that course in University and I read his books and notes. :3



That's great that you love philosophy, but your gonna here the same things in a debate. Hope there was no hard feelings, it's been awhile since I was in a deep discussion ^.^'


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 4, 2009)

Ark said:


> That's great that you love philosophy, but your gonna here the same things in a debate. Hope there was no hard feelings, it's been awhile since I was in a deep discussion ^.^'


Well not really because I will change the topic, simple as that.
I don't mind interesting things that have depth being discussed, but religion goes as far as either you do, or don't believe it. That's really all there is to it. :\


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 4, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> It's still not a religion thread tainted by it, again; if you can't keep threads on a forum from being tainted by Religion then how is the real-world doing? Pretty bad, because of Religion.
> Go start a thread on it if you want to discuss it, I think it's fucking stupid myself but as long as it's not affecting me I don't care what somebody believes, sadly that's not the case for most believers that are willing to talk about it; most believers that don't keep it to themselves spread it around like a plague.
> 
> I never said you guys are all wrong, I said it's pointless to use it in an argument, ever, for anything.
> ...





Lastdirewolf said:


> I'm not defending Newf here, but you're also saying in this context, that the religions are true, and most likely that the people who follow it, aren't narrow-minded.
> 
> He may be going at it in a abrasive manner, but a person who's 'clean', or open to idea's, is a lot more open-minded then someone who's judgment, virtues, opinions, and values are clouded by their religion.



Tell me something, Newf and Lastdirewolf... after all your words have been "spoken", is this not still a PHILOSOPHY thread?




NewfDraggie said:


> Then you're conflicted, *science has disproven a lot about Religion, and religion disproves science*; a conundrum is created as you attempt to keep a non-biased standpoint, the only way to be non-biased in this topic is to not give a shit at all. And in that case, you don't need to do or say anything about it because it doesn't matter.
> 
> *To believe in religion and also believe in science means you don't fully believe in either*, there's parts that conflict too much to co-exist, unless you're simply a moron and don't see these parts, then I guess I see your point.
> 
> I simply choose to not believe in religion, but I honestly don't care what somebody else believes in, I still find it quite insulting that they wave it around as if Religion is intellectual, when at its core all there is, is fear; hope and worry; belief of something in fear of the unknown. It defiantly fits in philosophy but because no human can ever, EVER know if a God exists or not (and none have or will ever) there's not point in talking about it past that; no point in attempting to defend it past the point of "it could be" over and over in a circle, honestly what else can you add? I'm just fed up with it, and I apologize if I come off harsh but seriously, *it's corrupted garbage*; somebody created each religion, a human not a God, and if you want to believe maybe you should piece together your own belief instead of blindly following something another person created, especially following to the extremes like the thumpers.



Newf, you have made your prejudice clear.  You have also shown that you support a fallacy when you say science disproves religion and religion disproves science... IF GOD EXISTS, then He CREATED science, fashioned it into the structure of reality.  And if he doesn't exits, that doesn't change the reality of science, either.  Science can exist without religion, but religion cannot exist without science.  Whether you believe in God or not, science will always be there.  So, there is no conundrum involved.  No conflict.  This means your statement is false, Newf...

I fully believe in science and religion.  How?  Because we don't know everything there is to know about science, all we can do about things like evolution and the dinosaurs is to speculate.  Same is true in the vast majority of science.  We know that gravity works, even if we don't know why it works the way it does.  Over time, we have learned much, speculated on the what, how and why of science, but, ultimately, we don't know everything there is to know, so there are scientific principles out there we haven't discovered yet... and may never discover.  Hopefully this new collider will help us to understand further, but, in truth, any results we get will simply be open to interpretation, and we could very well interpret the data wrong.  Science is not perfect, nor is it the be-all, end-all of reality, any more than religion is.  This is having an open mind, Newf, not spouting of narrow-minded prejudices, like you just did.  The conflicts between religion and science are in your own mind, Newf.

Open your eyes, go out in a dark place on a dark, moonless night, and look up.  You may learn a few things about the universe, if you have an open mind...




Lastdirewolf said:


> I'm pretty sure the masses are pro-religion, or religious. Atheists, and people who don't care either way, are, and have been a minority.
> 
> *If science proves that God doesn't exist*, then I would hope you would give up on at least Western religions - Of course we aren't at that point yet, but blanket statements can be bad :E
> 
> Also with Newf, he's not against philosophy, he's against hearing the same things over and over >_>



Science will never prove that God doesn't exist, any more than it will conclusively prove He does.  So, like Ark said, quit trying to do either, and focus on the important stuff.  As for Newf, if he doesn't want to hear the same things over and over, tough... let him stay out of the thread, if he has a problem with it.  In any discussion of philosophy, religion WILL pop up, far more than science.  Live with it, roll with the punches, or stay out of the philosophical discussion, then.




NewfDraggie said:


> Well not really because I will change the topic, simple as that.
> I don't mind interesting things that have depth being discussed, but religion goes as far as either you do, or don't believe it. That's really all there is to it. :\



If you change the topic, Newf, then you will have derailed the thread, and a mod will have to close it.  Remember, philosophy discussed how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.  We all understand you don't believe it.  And, true, that really is all there is to it, if you don't want to open you mind, or explore the subject in any depth.  To truly explore philosophy, you cannot place limits on your thinking.  Or on your subject matter...


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 4, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Tell me something, Newf and Lastdirewolf... after all your words have been "spoken", is this not still a PHILOSOPHY thread?


No shit, Einstein.


Roose Hurro said:


> Newf, you have made your prejudice clear.  You have also shown that you support a fallacy when you say science disproves religion and religion disproves science... IF GOD EXISTS, then He CREATED science, fashioned it into the structure of reality.  And if he doesn't exits, that doesn't change the reality of science, either.  Science can exist without religion, but religion cannot exist without science.  Whether you believe in God or not, science will always be there.  So, there is no conundrum involved.  No conflict.  This means your statement is false, Newf...


Just because -you-, a human being, say so? No, it is not false, sorry but yours is.



Roose Hurro said:


> I fully believe in science and religion.  How?  Because we don't know everything there is to know about science, all we can do about things like evolution and the dinosaurs is to speculate.  Same is true in the vast majority of science.  We know that gravity works, even if we don't know why it works the way it does.  Over time, we have learned much, speculated on the what, how and why of science, but, ultimately, we don't know everything there is to know, so there are scientific principles out there we haven't discovered yet... and may never discover.  Hopefully this new collider will help us to understand further, but, in truth, any results we get will simply be open to interpretation, and we could very well interpret the data wrong.  Science is not perfect, nor is it the be-all, end-all of reality, any more than religion is.  This is having an open mind, Newf, not spouting of narrow-minded prejudices, like you just did.  The conflicts between religion and science are in your own mind, Newf.


You're in a conundrum, but you're too stupid to see it.
If God created everything, who created him? But if only science exists, everything exists because it simply does.

Here's another one for you, how can humans -ever- know there's a god, simply somebody made it up; all gods are made up, all religions are man-made, man use religion and gods to corrupt, control, and manipulate; even if there was a god, he has never contacted us, ever; all religion is bullshit.



Roose Hurro said:


> Open your eyes, go out in a dark place on a dark, moonless night, and look up.  You may learn a few things about the universe, if you have an open mind...


Go to school.


Roose Hurro said:


> Science will never prove that God doesn't exist, any more than it will conclusively prove He does.  So, like Ark said, quit trying to do either, and focus on the important stuff.  As for Newf, if he doesn't want to hear the same things over and over, tough... let him stay out of the thread, if he has a problem with it.  In any discussion of philosophy, religion WILL pop up, far more than science.  Live with it, roll with the punches, or stay out of the philosophical discussion, then.


It's pretty damn close to proving it now, actually; we've almost figured out how the big-bang occurred and we already know how life started. The only thing we will never know (most likely) is where the elements and matter originally came from and why it exists, but that still doesn't mean somebody created it, at all. Like all religious believers (yes, you're a religious believer, you said so) you use "god" for anything you don't understand, quite simply that's all he is; an explanation for the unknown.


Roose Hurro said:


> If you change the topic, Newf, then you will have derailed the thread, and a mod will have to close it.  Remember, philosophy discussed how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.  We all understand you don't believe it.  And, true, that really is all there is to it, if you don't want to open you mind, or explore the subject in any depth.  To truly explore philosophy, you cannot place limits on your thinking.  Or on your subject matter...


What are you smoking?
Please, oh god please, read next time. You're making yourself look like a total moron as you comment on something you have no idea what you're talking about, attempting to back-seat moderate on a post I made that isn't near related to what you thought it meant.

If somebody debates with me on a topic I do not like, I change it; that's what I said, I have -no- idea how you (again) twisted something so far up an ass you got what you thought I was saying. I'm not breaking any forum rules if somebody brings up a debate outside this website, am I? Because if I am I should watch what I say, I might get an infraction or (oh noes) a ban from my life!

Even on this thread, if somebody brings up a philosophical topic (religion) and I don't like it, and attempt to change  it (which I did, and am doing) it's a subtopic to philosophy, and as long as I stay on-topic with philosophy I'm in the clear; I never eluded to changing that topic, at all.


----------



## ForestFox91 (Apr 4, 2009)

Religion is two things. Something to bring us together, and something to start wars.


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 4, 2009)

ForestFox91 said:


> Religion is two things. Something to bring us together, and something to start wars.


I agree, but I would say one other; manipulation.

Edit: actually two more, (as not to have it unbalanced because god-forbid if religion was more negative than positive) gives people solace in dire situations.


----------



## ForestFox91 (Apr 4, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> I agree, but I would say one other; manipulation.
> 
> Edit: actually two more, (as not to have it unbalanced because god-forbid if religion was more negative than positive) gives people solace in dire situations.


I was trying to bring it down to something simple. As a whole it describes manipulation. It uses good to inflict the bad. And solace is used to bring them together.


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 4, 2009)

ForestFox91 said:


> I was trying to bring it down to something simple. As a whole it describes manipulation. It uses good to inflict the bad. And solace is used to bring them together.



You can't be together with anybody if you're in a fox-hole being shot at, or dieing in a car/hospital/etc, which is why I commented with what I did. :\


----------



## ForestFox91 (Apr 4, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> You can't be together with anybody if you're in a fox-hole being shot at, or dieing in a car/hospital/etc, which is why I commented with what I did. :\


Well I don't necessarily mean the two always to be simultaneous. Solace could mean seeking religion to get rid of an addiction of some sort, or someone trying to recover from cancer. 
and bringing people together I meant figuratively.


----------



## CAThulu (Apr 4, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Well what about: A+x=B+y=C+z=âˆž?
> Proof



*saves pic*  Good thing I don't believe in the bible


----------



## CAThulu (Apr 4, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> I'm still trying to figure out why Canadians drive on parkways and park on driveways...... :shock:



*brain explodes*


Okay....back to religion!


----------



## ForestFox91 (Apr 4, 2009)

People should respect gay people a lot more, we write good music.


----------



## Tycho (Apr 4, 2009)

Doobie or not doobie, that is the question.
threadshitting in a shitty thread, hurhurr


----------



## CAThulu (Apr 4, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Here's another one for you, how can humans -ever- know there's a god, simply somebody made it up; all gods are made up, all religions are man-made, man use religion and gods to corrupt, control, and manipulate; even if there was a god, he has never contacted us, ever; all religion is bullshit.



I think it depends on your viewpoint of bullshit.  Religion also is used as a foundation for moral teachings, for inspiring great works, and for instilling hope in the future...that there is something bigger then us at work.  Science can do the same thing.  It's apples and oranges most times; what works with one, doesn't work with another.  Even within sciences and religion this holds true - thats why not everyone is a christian, a buddhist, an atheist, etc.

We've all seen religion f*ck people up, but we've all seen it do some incredible things for people as well.  I believe in a Creator, and that the gods are an extension of Divinity.  I don't dismiss anything that comes my way.  Does that make me too open minded?  No.  I don't worship Christ and Satan simultaneously.  But all religions have teachers that have helped to further humanity.   Jesus, Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha), Confucius, Lau Tsu...each of them, divine or not, taught us how to treat one another with respect, because mankind aparantly needs guidance to smack it on the head now and again to make a lesson stick. 



NewfDraggie said:


> It's pretty damn close to proving it now, actually; we've almost figured out how the big-bang occurred and we already know how life started. The only thing we will never know (most likely) is where the elements and matter originally came from and why it exists, but that still doesn't mean somebody created it, at all.



Maybe, maybe not.  They could have always been there waiting for a chain reaction to start.  Whether that was touched by a Creator or not we'll never know for sure.   And maybe we're not meant to know now, or ever.  Same with what happens to us after we die.  It kind of takes the mystery out of life if you know before your time is up.  How much effort would you put into this cycle if you knew with absolute certainty that you would be reincarnated?  Or that no matter how evil you acted, you'd still end up in paradise?  There would be anarchy.  I believe that the most die-hard atheist still doubts that there is no afterlife, just as much as the most fanatic fundimentalist (take your pick of religion) doubts that there is one.

The point is there is no proof, and there likely never will be.  we can't dismiss science or an interpretation of religion off hand because of this.  who's to say God has or has not been there from the begining?  Remember that time is only a dimention and it _changes_.


----------



## jagdwolf (Apr 5, 2009)

Religion, reguardless of which form, is all about giving a good feeling inside when its all said and done.  it is because humans are weak and fear death.  And when weakness and fear combine, then control and manupilation will soon follow.

I wont bash religions its kinda pointless.  

As to good and evil......here is a thought.   A man rapes his daughter for years as a child.  She tells alot of people but no one offers help.  One day she kills him, which act was evil?

A man kills another man, who was trying to kill someone?  Does that make him evil?

Good, evil, its all perception.  to force your perception of good and evil on someone, is that an evil act or a good act?


----------



## CAThulu (Apr 5, 2009)

jagdwolf said:


> Religion, reguardless of which form, is all about giving a good feeling inside when its all said and done.  it is because humans are weak and fear death.  And when weakness and fear combine, then control and manupilation will soon follow.



 Waaay too simplified.  It's not just about giving a good feeling.  



jagdwolf said:


> As to good and evil......here is a thought.   A man rapes his daughter for years as a child.  She tells alot of people but no one offers help.  One day she kills him, which act was evil?
> 
> A man kills another man, who was trying to kill someone?  Does that make him evil?



Self defense, or the defense of someone else where extreme force is used where no other alternative is available, is not evil.  

The man raping his daughter was commiting evil by corrupting his own flesh and blood instead of protecting her.

The people who did not help commited evil by ignoring, and thereby assisting the girl's father.

If the girl acted in self defence by definition she was saving her own life from a predator.  That is open to interpretation but most would not consider that evil.



jagdwolf said:


> Good, evil, its all perception.  to force your perception of good and evil on someone, is that an evil act or a good act?



Not all things are open to interpretation.  You jump off a 10 storey building and land on concrete, you will die.  Gravity is not up for negotiation.  To say there are no absolutes, is an absolute.  It is not all black and white, nor is it all shades of gray.  All three colours exist, for grey would not exist without black and white.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 5, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> No shit, Einstein.



Then stop whining, Newf, when religion ends up in a philosophy thread.




NewfDraggie said:


> Just because -you-, a human being, say so? No, it is not false, sorry but yours is.



Oh, so you're the one who's right... just because YOU say so?  Remember, you are also a human being.  Not only that, but you have this religious prejudice that has been clearly stated out in the open for all to see.  Unfortunately, you are blinded, unable to see that religion and science can live in perfect harmony... one cannot disprove the other.  Two-way street, Newf...




NewfDraggie said:


> You're in a conundrum, but you're too stupid to see it.
> If God created everything, who created him? But if only science exists, everything exists because it simply does.
> 
> Here's another one for you, how can humans -ever- know there's a god, simply somebody made it up; all gods are made up, all religions are man-made, man use religion and gods to corrupt, control, and manipulate; even if there was a god, he has never contacted us, ever; all religion is bullshit.



Again, Newf, you spout your flagrant bias... your prejudice and your narrow mind.  YOU are the one too stupid to see the stupidity in your own words.  If God created everything, that means He existed before everything He created existed.  It also means that He created all the functional principles of science that we have discovered.  But, if only science exists, then all the functional principles of science that we have discovered still exist anyway, so it doesn't really matter if you believe in God or not.  Doesn't matter if He exists or not, science... the "laws" of reality... remains the same.

So, I say again, the conflicts between religion and science are in your own mind, Newf...




NewfDraggie said:


> Go to school.



Been there, done that, have the degree to show for it...

However, your response is a non-sequitur.  So, unless you have something sequitous to say about my words, I would recommend you follow my advice... go out and look up at the stars for a while.  It's very relaxing...




NewfDraggie said:


> It's pretty damn close to proving it now, actually; we've almost figured out how the big-bang occurred and we already know how life started. The only thing we will never know (most likely) is where the elements and matter originally came from and why it exists, but that still doesn't mean somebody created it, at all. Like all religious believers (yes, you're a religious believer, you said so) you use "god" for anything you don't understand, quite simply that's all he is; an explanation for the unknown.



So, you figure out how the Big Bang occured.  That will not disprove God in the slightest, since, if God _did_ create the universe and all of the reality we know, we were never given the details of exactly how he did... other that that he spoke and BOOM! the universe came to be.  Sound familiar?




NewfDraggie said:


> What are you smoking?
> Please, oh god please, read next time. You're making yourself look like a total moron as you comment on something you have no idea what you're talking about, attempting to back-seat moderate on a post I made that isn't near related to what you thought it meant.
> 
> *If somebody debates with me on a topic I do not like, I change it*; that's what I said, I have -no- idea how you (again) twisted something so far up an ass you got what you thought I was saying. I'm not breaking any forum rules if somebody brings up a debate outside this website, am I? Because if I am I should watch what I say, I might get an infraction or (oh noes) a ban from my life!
> ...



Newf, Newf, Newf... that is the definition of "derailing" a thread, is it not?  So, I ask you... what are YOU smoking?  All you've been doing lately is whining on religion in this thread, not on the philosophy of non-religion... or whatever philosophical point you've been trying to make.  Accept that a topic on philosophy will have religion in it, and go about presenting your own philosophy, without any religious context.  Just don't bash others for bringing it in.  Especially when the OP first brought up a religious philosophical point to discuss.  Present a philosophical viewpoint that philosophizes on the absense of God, if you will.  That would fit the topic quite well.  You see, if somebody debates with you on a topic you do not like, you either leave the debate, or you debate on the topic presented, whether you like it or not.

So, debate, don't whine about the religious content of the debate, okay?  Present your philosophical views, and let those who read your views decide if they agree with you or not.  Don't go telling people that you're sick of hearing religious views being brought into a philosophical discussion.  That eludes to you wanting religion removed from the philosophical debate.

This is your quote that started it all:



NewfDraggie said:


> Did this really turn into another Religion thread? God dammit! Wait, FFFFFFFFF!!!!
> 
> No, seriously *stop*; religion sucks.



Note your use of the word "stop"...?  Does this not tell all of us that you want us to STOP using religion in this discussion?  Hmmm...?

For your information, Newf... no, we don't have to stop.  YOU have to live with the content of the discussion, whether you "like it" or not.  Otherwise, you're just a whining baby.  Suck it up and be a man, Newf...

Oh, and CAThulu, nice post:



CAThulu said:


> I think it depends on your viewpoint of bullshit.  Religion also is used as a foundation for moral teachings, for inspiring great works, and for instilling hope in the future...that there is something bigger then us at work.  Science can do the same thing.  It's apples and oranges most times; what works with one, doesn't work with another.  Even within sciences and religion this holds true - thats why not everyone is a christian, a buddhist, an atheist, etc.
> 
> We've all seen religion f*ck people up, but we've all seen it do some incredible things for people as well.  I believe in a Creator, and that the gods are an extension of Divinity.  I don't dismiss anything that comes my way.  Does that make me too open minded?  No.  I don't worship Christ and Satan simultaneously.  But all religions have teachers that have helped to further humanity.   Jesus, Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha), Confucius, Lau Tsu...each of them, divine or not, taught us how to treat one another with respect, because mankind aparantly needs guidance to smack it on the head now and again to make a lesson stick.
> 
> ...


----------



## Xipoid (Apr 5, 2009)

A man once told me that life had no answer because it had no question. A man once told me that the quest for everything can lead to nothing and the quest for nothing can lead to everything. A man once told me to listen but never believe, always know. He said to live like you mean it and die like you want it.

He asked where I was and where I was headed. I had no answer. I never had an answer, and when he died I still had none. It wasn't until I saw him in the casket that I finally found mine. I immortalized it on his tombstone so he'll always know. Here and Forward.


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 5, 2009)

Prove it, Roose.


----------



## jagdwolf (Apr 5, 2009)

CAThulu said:


> Waaay too simplified. It's not just about giving a good feeling.
> 
> 
> sure it is. I mean the only reason to believe is to feel good about death, knowing that there is a better place, IE feel good.
> ...


 

Sure they are.  There are only one thing in this life (until science can pull a Freejack for us) that is abusolute and thats death.  As to the 10 story building....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesna_Vulovićhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesna_Vulović

I know its wiki, but you can also go the guinness book of records for the same info but im just to lazy.


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 5, 2009)

There's actually several people that fall from airplanes (well jump, but the chute doesn't work) and smash into the ground, not just soft earth but even solid concrete (even breaking it), but they're unharmed and get up and walk away with minor injuries. It's not an act of god, there's -never- been an act of god before, it's just thermals, wind, and how they fell. It's luck, but in a world that is living "luck" everything is bound to happen at some point (two planes colliding in the air, already happened).


----------



## Aurali (Apr 5, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> There's actually several people that fall from airplanes (well jump, but the chute doesn't work) and smash into the ground, not just soft earth but even solid concrete (even breaking it), but they're unharmed and get up and walk away with minor injuries. It's not an act of god, there's -never- been an act of god before, it's just thermals, wind, and how they fell. It's luck, but in a world that is living "luck" everything is bound to happen at some point (two planes colliding in the air, already happened).


I like how Newf gets uptight that people are still religious.


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 5, 2009)

Eli said:


> I like how Newf gets uptight that people are still religious.


I love how I mentioned it simply -not- being an act of god, and I'm considered up-tight about people being religious. But if I say it was an act of god there's no negatives proclaimed at all; super cool story, Bro.


----------



## Kanin (Apr 5, 2009)

Ok, I'm to lazy to go into detail with something. So, I'll just say this:
Life is like a word, it has no meaning unless you give it one.
(Yes I know I said that the most generic way possible)


----------



## Takun (Apr 5, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> When you go to sleep, is it you that wakes up, or do you die with another "you" starting its life, taking up your memories; an endless cycle that means when you go to sleep tonight, you die.




Sad thing, this was my biggest fear growing up.  AS LONG AS I CAN REMEMBER, I was worried of this.

I slept in my parents bed for awhile, because I figured if they were there than I couldn't be replaced. . .


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 5, 2009)

Philosophy and religion go together like bread and butter. However, no one likes to eat plain butter. :V


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 5, 2009)

Takumi_L said:


> Sad thing, this was my biggest fear growing up.  AS LONG AS I CAN REMEMBER, I was worried of this.
> 
> I slept in my parents bed for awhile, because I figured if they were there than I couldn't be replaced. . .


Yeah this was apparently my ex's biggest fear (or one of them), I personally ain't afraid of it, because I can't comprehend it being plausible enough to be true, and even if it is true it doesn't matter anyway.

Sometimes I think about it, but honestly it's only when I'm really bored.


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 5, 2009)

Placebo said:


> Philosophy and religion go together like bread and butter. However, no one likes to eat plain butter. :V


Yes. This is exactly what I mean, nice simile.


----------



## jagdwolf (Apr 5, 2009)

death is the final part of life.  when you look at it that way, its easy to take.  I mean who wants to live forever......well if I were like, immortal, that would be kewl.  but since im just a piece of flesh, well we all know theres a worm with my name on it.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Apr 5, 2009)

Lord Kanin said:


> Ok, I'm to lazy to go into detail with something. So, I'll just say this:
> Life is like a word, it has no meaning unless you give it one.
> (Yes I know I said that the most generic way possible)



I actually kinda like that idea. Makes things easy.


----------



## Kanin (Apr 5, 2009)

Lastdirewolf said:


> I actually kinda like that idea. Makes things easy.


 
If you like that then when it's not the middle of the night I'll post some more, that was more of one of my basic idea.


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 5, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Yes. This is exactly what I mean, nice simile.


I'll be here all week. 

I was going to add that fat Americans like plain butter but...naaahh.


----------



## CAThulu (Apr 5, 2009)

jagdwolf said:


> Sure they are.  There are only one thing in this life (until science can pull a Freejack for us) that is abusolute and thats death.  As to the 10 story building....
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesna_Vulović
> 
> I know its wiki, but you can also go the guinness book of records for the same info but im just to lazy.



Reiterating:
_*Not all things are open to interpretation. You jump off a 10 storey building and land on concrete, you will die. Gravity is not up for negotiation. To say there are no absolutes, is an absolute.* It is not all black and white, nor is it all shades of gray. All three colours exist, for grey would not exist without black and white._

In other words.  There _are_ absolutes and non-absolutes.  To say there is only one or the other is extremism and false.


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 5, 2009)

Placebo said:


> I'll be here all week.
> 
> I was going to add that fat Americans like plain butter but...naaahh.


Yeah, that's just mean. And honestly not true.


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 5, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Yeah, that's just mean. And honestly not true.


I wouldn't know though, I'm not fat. :V


I'll quit while I'm ahead.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 5, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Prove it, Roose.



Newf... you need to be more specific.




Placebo said:


> Philosophy and religion go together like bread and butter. However, no one likes to eat plain butter. :V



But my sister liked to eat plain mustard straight out of the jar...




jagdwolf said:


> death is the final part of life.  when you look at it that way, its easy to take.  I mean who wants to live forever......well if I were like, immortal, that would be kewl.  but since im just a piece of flesh, well *we all know theres a worm with my name on it*.



Oh, shoot...

Sorry about that, jagdwolf, but I think I used your worm as bait, the last time I went fishing...


----------



## jagdwolf (Apr 5, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Oh, shoot...
> 
> Sorry about that, jagdwolf, but I think I used your worm as bait, the last time I went fishing...


 


well damn...now im gonna live forever.   but speaking of worms, theres one in a bottle with my name on it.  now wheres that salt and lime


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 5, 2009)

jagdwolf said:


> well damn...now im gonna live forever.   but speaking of worms, theres one in a bottle with my name on it.  now wheres that salt and lime



Just make sure you don't overindulge... or choke on that worm.  _*grin*_


----------



## Salrith (Apr 5, 2009)

Well, it seems to me that religion and science can go together quite easily.
However, _a literal interpretation_ of religion and science don't mesh so well.

Take something as simple as the big bang (assuming that that is indeed what happened, remembering that it can never be proven, only disproven... it just has avoided this long enough to be held true hehehe) and genesis.
Keep in mind here that I have never read the bible, and am not religious, so details might be a bit off...
From what I know of the beginning, god suddenly said, "Let there be light", and presto - instant universe. This doesn't disagree with the big bang theory, if you take it figuratively. God made a decision for the universe to come into being, and it was done... it no where specifies _how_ or any other details, really, in terms of the very very beginning.
Hell, even a literal interpretation of that could be valid. Whose to say that the universe before the instant of creation wasn't a point in perfect balance, and some being from somewhere 'spoke', and this disturbed that balance, and everything went *boom*?

Religion gets into most any philosophical discussion because, at its heart, religion is a - facet of a - philosophical view of the universe and an attempt to explain it.
Science on the other hand is an attempt to explain the universe, sans philosophy, metaphors, etc - hence why it doesn't come in quite as often...

Religion is not the thoughts of a sheep, blind faith is (with no insult to any ovines here }:=8)). Religion was brought about by deep thought and philosophy, coupled with analogies and axioms that were honed to high efficiency and compactness over the ages (which makes for a hard time reversing the process, and for much confusion hehe). Blind faith is when people follow religion but cease to question it and build upon it. In a way, I suppose you _could_ tink of science as the evolved form of religion, while modern religion is what happened when some people decided not to take such a drastic step as to shed the philosophical aspect...

Hmm.


----------



## Icky (Apr 5, 2009)

Gaaah..this is not something good to read at this time at night.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Apr 5, 2009)

I don't think religion was brought around by deep thought necessarily, it seemed more like a bad rumour that spread fast, and because so many people in a small area believed it, it spread further. 

Politicians, Kings, what have you, seem to have been using religion as a reason for their existence, a reason for war, a way to keep the masses under their control, and/or some sort of territorial thing. They weren't always too intelligent, and for the longest time, thinking that God doesn't exist was blasphemy, so Atheistic and the like were kept in the minority, so the idea's weren't able to spread like a quick answer to life and death. (It's easier to believe, once you're in the context, that God has everything under control, then it is to believe that luck and chance may be your only hope)

It's genius, I must admit; whether any religion is true, or they are all false. It is _effective_ and it's hard to argue with that.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 5, 2009)

Salrith said:


> Well, it seems to me that religion and science can go together quite easily.
> However, _a literal interpretation_ of religion and science don't mesh so well.
> 
> Take something as simple as the big bang (assuming that that is indeed what happened, remembering that it can never be proven, only disproven... it just has avoided this long enough to be held true hehehe) and genesis.
> ...



Ahhh... only thing is, the universe wasn't made in an instant, it was made over a period of seven "days".  And when you take in the line "To God, a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day"... well, that puts a whole new perspective on the process.

Correct.  Even God tells us to test our faith, to see that it is true.  Even God doesn't expect us to follow Him blindly... how can we "see the light" if we are blind?

And yes, religion and philosophy have a common point, where science, as you said, is an attempt to explain things in a more practical, concrete way.  So, religion and philosophy could be considered twin brothers, while science is more the third cousin, five times removed (or something of that sort).

Yes.  "Hmm", indeed...


----------



## Doubler (Apr 5, 2009)

There's a big gap between the casual use of the word 'philosophy' and the practice of philosophy in academic circles. Saying philosophy and religion are alike isn't entirely true, and claiming that science and philosophy are far removed even less so. Philosophy as practiced at university is generally a lot more like science than it is like religion.

Modern science is scrutinized, described and occasionally grounded in philosophy. The various meta-questions of why and how are largely philosophical, and to state it roughly whenever there is a question concerning science (or religion) rather than a scientific question (or a religious question) you can bet philosophy will be involved.


----------



## ForestFox91 (Apr 5, 2009)

It will always be hardest to argue with someone who has no common sense. They will never get any point, and bludgeon you with circular logic.

The greatest thing my dad ever told me!


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 5, 2009)

ForestFox91 said:


> People should respect gay people a lot more, we write good music.



I like Freddie Mercury, and Elton John 

Here's a thought, do you think in any possible way, that there exists an intelegence beyond are Universe? Think about, how does a Big Bang so imperfect. Can create such a perfect Universe, with everything having its part in the world? So far as the Big Bang Theroy says, how did nothing, out of thin air. Bash together, to create everything? Makes you question, huh. 

I'll leave this here, for you guys to debate on.


----------



## Doubler (Apr 5, 2009)

That's mostly a question of physics. In my understanding the big bang theory does not at all say something came from nothing.

Anyway, before any good debate is possible, you need to clarify your questions.
What would constitute an intelligence for you? What would you count as being 'beyond the universe'? What are these notions of 'perfection' you're talking about? On what basis do you claim one thing is imperfect, the other perfect, or that one thing is more perfect than the other?


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 5, 2009)

Doubler said:


> That's mostly a question of physics. In my understanding the big bang theory does not at all say something came from nothing.
> 
> Anyway, before any good debate is possible, you need to clarify your questions.
> What would constitute an intelligence for you? What would you count as being 'beyond the universe'? What are these notions of 'perfection' you're talking about? On what basis do you claim one thing is imperfect, the other perfect, or that one thing is more perfect than the other?



For example, the human eye. Probably the most complicated organ on the human body, there's no way that natural selection just up'd and did this. The way the universe works, acts as if it has a brain. Why is this, and how is it possible. The Universe is like a Granfather Clock, someone had to make, but whom? This stuff, just doesen't happen.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Apr 5, 2009)

Ark said:


> For example, the human eye. Probably the most complicated organ on the human body, there's no way that natural selection just up'd and did this. The way the universe works, acts as if it has a brain. Why is this, and how is it possible. The Universe is like a Granfather Clock, someone had to make, but whom? This stuff, just doesen't happen.



Someone didn't have to make it; the Fine Tuning argument has it's flaws. 

For one, if there is a designer, he really half-assed the job, and doesn't have a consistent blue-print for what we are. Not everybody is born to the best of their ability, some are born with disease and die, some are born physically or mentally crippled. Sure, the base of a human body seems fine tuned, but what about people who are born with their heart outside their body? Or no heart at all? Doesn't sound very well tuned at all. 

Making it sound more like chance, biology, physics, and what have you, then a almighty creator. 

Plus, let's just say for a second that a creator does exist - How did he do it? There was nothing, and then there was a lot of things. Which can potentially explained by science, but not by a creator.

Why did he do it? If he did, what was the purpose? And why did we evolve over time (talking cavemen to current times) - He didn't do it right the first time?

Nobody possesses the ability to create something out of nothing on the human scale, which may not be a counter-argument, but it is strange.

Also, why did it take so long for the creator to create humans? If he's all perfect, and all powerful, shouldn't he have managed to create everything within even a million years?



As well with things being so fine tuned by a creator, why is it humans have to adapt to the world, and not vice versa?

(See: The Inadequacy Objection)


----------



## Doubler (Apr 5, 2009)

Ark, you didn't answer my questions.

But your argument is simply: look at how complex it is; this can't not have been created by some intelligence. But this is begging the question.
The theories you try to attack with this explain how relative complexity can develop from less complex things without an underlying intelligence.


----------



## Surgat (Apr 5, 2009)

Ark said:


> For example, the human eye. Probably the most complicated organ on the human body, there's no way that natural selection just up'd and did this.



Incorrect. 
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html 

Plus, if there was a designer for the human eye, it couldn't have been too intelligent, since they put blood vessels in front of the retinas in human eyes.


----------



## Bambi (Apr 5, 2009)

Oh lawd.

Person One: Everything is arbitrary because the sun doesn't talk to us.
Person Two: What do you mean the sun doesn't talk to us?
Person One: Don't you get it ...? Everything we do, doesn't matter. Nothing matters. We are all like little electrons, why give life a meaning, lol.
Person Two: ...???

Seriously.

You guys are simply taking the philosphers of the 19th and 18th century, butchering their ideas and concepts, and melding them in with your own myspace musings about why life is futile.

Why live?

I say, "Why die?"


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Apr 5, 2009)

Both religion and science have problems. Take religion for instance. If God created everything, what created God? I agree, things are overly complex to have simply stumbled over by chance, even over trillions of years. And not only organisms, but the way they interact. Co-evolution of symbiotic relationships is a big problem with evolution. But there are more. Then science has the same problem of where did it all come from to begin with. If matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, where did everything come from? The Big Bang didn't create matter, it set up the framework for the current layout and organization within the universe. But even it has problems. Thing to take away here is that no one knows. We dont have a clue. And anyone that pretends to know and says they are right and you are wrong are full of shit. No matter what book or scientific theory they point to. Believe what you want. Believe what you fell is right.


----------



## CAThulu (Apr 5, 2009)

A video on the evolution of the eye http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html


----------



## CAThulu (Apr 5, 2009)

Bambi said:


> Oh lawd.
> 
> Person One: Everything is arbitrary because the sun doesn't talk to us.
> Person Two: What do you mean the sun doesn't talk to us?
> ...



So we don't butcher the ideas and concepts of 18th and 19th century philosphers.   And so we don't overpopulate the planet and burn out already-strained resources faster then we currently are.

Discussing philosophy can lead to a lot of dead ends, or it can break through and form a new path.  Many waves have to break against stone before it changes that stone's form


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 5, 2009)

Actually the world is going to become underpopulated very very soon just you wait and see.


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 5, 2009)

Load_Blown said:
			
		

> Actually the world is going to become underpopulated very very soon just you wait and see.



FEMA DEATH CAMPS!!!


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 5, 2009)

Doubler said:


> There's a big gap between the casual use of the word 'philosophy' and the practice of philosophy in academic circles. Saying philosophy and religion are alike isn't entirely true, and claiming that science and philosophy are far removed even less so. Philosophy as practiced at university is generally a lot more like science than it is like religion.
> 
> Modern science is scrutinized, described and occasionally grounded in philosophy. The various meta-questions of why and how are largely philosophical, and to state it roughly whenever there is a question concerning science (or religion) rather than a scientific question (or a religious question) you can bet philosophy will be involved.



Yes, science and philosophy are far removed, but, like any cousin, they are still in the same family.  Religion and philosophy are simply more closely related.  Yes, science asks why, but it also asks how... the why is the philosophical side, the how is the practical side.  The reason religion and philosophy are more closely related?  Well, like brothers, they both came from the same womb, even if they may have had different fathers.  Of course, looking at it another way, philosophy could be considered the father of religion.  Can't have one without the other, can we?




Rostam The Grey said:


> Both religion and science have problems. Take religion for instance. If God created everything, what created God? I agree, things are overly complex to have simply stumbled over by chance, even over trillions of years. And not only organisms, but the way they interact. Co-evolution of symbiotic relationships is a big problem with evolution. But there are more. Then science has the same problem of where did it all come from to begin with. *If matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, where did everything come from?* The Big Bang didn't create matter, it set up the framework for the current layout and organization within the universe. But even it has problems. Thing to take away here is that no one knows. We dont have a clue. And anyone that pretends to know and says they are right and you are wrong are full of shit. No matter what book or scientific theory they point to. Believe what you want. Believe what you fell is right.



Hmmm... mind if I interject a thought in here?  If God created everything, yet matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, would this not indicate that God did not create out of nothing?  Would this not seem to indicate that God created everything out of Himself... out of the "substance" of His very Existance?  Would not his "Word" be the energy that formed the matter of our universe?


----------



## jagdwolf (Apr 5, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Just make sure you don't overindulge... or choke on that worm. _*grin*_


 

now theres a deep quesiton for you, If I am imortal, and I start choking on a worm, do I die or just keep gagging for all eternity?


Oh and I never overindulge.......


can't remember who's tail your sniffing after if you do!


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 5, 2009)

jagdwolf said:


> now theres a deep quesiton for you, If I am imortal, and I start choking on a worm, do I die or just keep gagging for all eternity?
> 
> 
> Oh and I never overindulge.......
> ...



Indeed...

As for the deep question?  You gag for all eternity (unless someone performs the Heimlich Maneuver, or you manage to swallow the worm)...


----------



## jagdwolf (Apr 5, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Indeed...
> 
> As for the deep question? You gag for all eternity (unless someone performs the Heimlich Maneuver, or you manage to swallow the worm)...


 


well crap, just im gonna gag then. cause no one gonna save my furry tail!  LOL.  

but it depends on the size of the worm and how much it um....wiggles.   yea wiggles


----------



## Doubler (Apr 5, 2009)

> Yes, science and philosophy are far removed, but, like any cousin, they are still in the same family. Religion and philosophy are simply more closely related. Yes, science asks why, but it also asks how... the why is the philosophical side, the how is the practical side. The reason religion and philosophy are more closely related? Well, like brothers, they both came from the same womb, even if they may have had different fathers. Of course, looking at it another way, philosophy could be considered the father of religion. Can't have one without the other, can we?


By that logic modern science is the direct offspring of (western) philosophy, while (western) religion and (western) philosophy are more like 'buddies', which occasionally cross paths and have even been married for some time.
Honestly, I don't see this shared 'womb' between (western) philosophy and religion.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 5, 2009)

Doubler said:


> By that logic modern science is the direct offspring of (western) philosophy, while (western) religion and (western) philosophy are more like 'buddies', which occasionally cross paths and have even been married for some time.
> Honestly, I don't see this shared 'womb' between (western) philosophy and religion.



I was being general.  Philosophy, not Western or Eastern or Northern or Southern, just philosophy in general... the concept.  And it was just speculation, perhaps all hot air, perhaps with a bit of truth?  Who knows...

Your view might be more correct than mine.  After all, this is a philosophy thread...


----------



## ForestFox91 (Apr 5, 2009)

People, who put their word in god, should only cast their stones at me, only if they, themselves have not sinned. 

Seriously many religious people are quite hypocritical.


----------



## CAThulu (Apr 5, 2009)

Doubler said:


> By that logic modern science is the direct offspring of (western) philosophy, while (western) religion and (western) philosophy are more like 'buddies', which occasionally cross paths and have even been married for some time.
> _Honestly, I don't see this shared 'womb' between (western) philosophy and religion_.



Maybe it's like a parasitic twin.  One feeds off the other. :/


----------



## Kommodore (Apr 6, 2009)

What I find interesting is how every topic on philosophy always degrades in a religious one unless closely watched. Just once I would like to see a thread on philosophy that doesn't get religion involved. At least not in the way that it is usually done. Obviously you are going to touch on the concept of god of you are talking philosophy, but the diatribes people go one don't seem very related to philosophy.


----------



## CAThulu (Apr 6, 2009)

Religion is very controversial, and is often philosophised about.  It's also the one that most people have contact with.  Not everyone can debate science, but everyone can debate religion.  It is at the core of human existance, because we have the ability to think outside of our baser insticts and beyond the 'now'.  We are aware of life and death moreso then any other creature on this planet.  

It's just something you have to get used to being brought up.  *shrug*


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Apr 6, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Hmmm... mind if I interject a thought in here?  If God created everything, yet matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, would this not indicate that God did not create out of nothing?  Would this not seem to indicate that God created everything out of Himself... out of the "substance" of His very Existance?  Would not his "Word" be the energy that formed the matter of our universe?



But then you're led back to what created God?


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 6, 2009)

Rostam The Grey said:


> But then you're led back to what created God?



No you're not... God is eternal, no beginning, no end.  There is no higher Being in the universe (or outside of it, either).  That's the definition of God.  In other words, just because you were created doesn't mean God was created by some other, Higher Power.  Because then, God would not be God, would He...?


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 6, 2009)

"And that's when I killed him your Honor."
or alternatively,
"And that's why religion can never be right."


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 6, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> "And that's when I killed him your Honor."
> or alternatively,
> "And that's why religion can never be right."



_Poit?  Narf!_


----------



## CAThulu (Apr 6, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> "And that's when I killed him your Honor."
> or alternatively,
> "And that's why religion can never be right."



And that's when they made me their chief.

Or...

Some things that are bigger then our minds can comprehend should not be automatically dismissed or labelled incorrect.

Also...let's take a look at the word 'religion'.  Are we talking about a belief system with traditions and whatnot, or one's personal faith with Deity?


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 6, 2009)

We shouldn't base our lives around what might be. We can base our lives around finding out the truth, but sitting here typing about what might be isn't doing that.


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 6, 2009)

Instead of bickering everybody, why not pick up a book.


----------



## Aurali (Apr 6, 2009)

Ark said:


> Instead of bickering everybody, why not pick up a book.



where is the fun in that?? Making religious people whine and atheists whine is fun!

(why atheists whine confuses the hell out of me.. they seem to be more pushy then the religious o.o)


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 6, 2009)

Eli said:


> where is the fun in that?? Making religious people whine and atheists whine is fun!
> 
> (why atheists whine confuses the hell out of me.. they seem to be more pushy then the religious o.o)



I like to know, who the HELL starts these threads >:[

DAMN ATHEISTS!!!


----------



## Aurali (Apr 6, 2009)

Ark said:


> I like to know, who the HELL starts these threads >:[


It's hypocritically delicious
I don't believe in god. I don't discount that there is no god however... and when people question me on this.. I point them to MY church


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 6, 2009)

Eli said:


> It's hypocritically delicious
> I don't believe in god. I don't discount that there is no god however... and when people question me on this.. I point them to MY church



lol, church on wheels.

I like to join your church *.* To bad we'll have a small congregation :C


----------



## CAThulu (Apr 6, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> We shouldn't base our lives around what might be. We can base our lives around finding out the truth, but sitting here typing about what might be isn't doing that.




Yes, but what one's _'might be'_ may be another's _'is'_.  Like it or not, there are people who will tell you with absolute conviction that 'yes, there is a God, and if you don't believe in Jesus you WILL go to HELL, which is a very real place'.  And they believe this with as much certaintanty as the sky is blue, fire is hot, and water is wet.

If you try to say to a very religious person that they are basing their lives on what might be in relation to their faith, I"m pretty sure they won't be shy about correcting you.  Besides, finding the existance of Deity is also another means of finding the 'truth'.  It may not be based in science, but not everything is.


----------



## Carenath (Apr 6, 2009)

JakXT said:


> How many philosophers are there around here?
> I wanna hear some actually good theories instead of talking to my friends about this stuff and only getting "Wha?" as a response.
> I wanna hear other peoples thoughts about how everything came to be rather than having to talk to myself about it.


I am a philosopher, but I hardly talk to anyone about it, because the typical reaction I expect to get is:
"Stop talking out your arse" or "*rolleyes* what are you on about"

My idea... of how we all came to be... involves the concept of a ten-dimensional multiverse.. vibrations.. a little pinch of quantum physics.. the belief that reality is an illusion and shaped by our unconcious mind... and an open mind.


----------



## Aurali (Apr 6, 2009)

Carenath said:


> I am a philosopher


You are not a philosopher.


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 6, 2009)

Carenath said:


> I am a philosopher, but I hardly talk to anyone about it, because the typical reaction I expect to get is:
> "Stop talking out your arse" or "*rolleyes* what are you on about"



Unless your a philosophy professor, ah no. You may have a philosophy of life, but it doesn't make you a philosopher. Just someone who loves knowledge, and is willing to learn more. You don't see ppl like Socrates, and Plato walking the streets, teaching complete strangers of your view of everything. Wait, yes there is; silly me x3



> My idea... of how we all came to be... involves the concept of a ten-dimensional multiverse.. vibrations.. a little pinch of quantum physics.. the belief that reality is an illusion and shaped by our unconcious mind... and an open mind.



I can't even comprehend this :/


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 6, 2009)

Complicated ideas do not translate into philosophy.


----------



## ForestFox91 (Apr 6, 2009)

Jokes=LIES!!!!


----------



## Jelly (Apr 6, 2009)

Your thread before it was posted had an infinite number of wondrous possibilities!
And now it has collapsed to only 1 or 0.
You either posted something horrendously shitty or didn't post at all.

How nutty is that?

HOTDAMNRAZMATAZ PHILOSOPHY THREAD WITH NO TOPIC.

Obligatory: Qualia. I'm sure someone mentioned it.
The concept that experiencing something, as opposed to simply knowing about it in full (say, you might know the wavelength of a certain shade of red, and know everything about red, but if you lived in a room where everything was black and white, and you were dressed in black and white and could never see red - would something unique be gained by being exposed to the color red, despite all your knowledge of it?), is unique information that has value epistemologically (in whatever way, I guess, you personally interpret). It's supposed to be an response to physicalism.


----------



## Carenath (Apr 6, 2009)

Ark said:


> Unless your a philosophy professor, ah no. You may have a philosophy of life, but it doesn't make you a philosopher. Just someone who loves knowledge, and is willing to learn more.
> 
> I can't even comprehend this :/


I'm not a professor, no. I used the term rather loosely. As you said it, Im someone who loves knowledge and is willing to learn more. But you dont need to be a philosophy professor, to take an interest... I suppose that makes me an amature. I spend a lot of time thinking, and contemplating things on slightly deeper level at times because I enjoy it.

This might help, though I recommend reading the book: http://www.tenthdimension.com



Eli said:


> You are not a philosopher.


Depends on your definition 



Placebo said:


> Complicated ideas do not translate into philosophy.


One mans complicated, is another mans simple. I argue my ideas are philosophical, they deal with the nature of our existance, our reality, weither or not there is a God.


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 6, 2009)

Carenath said:


> This might help, though I recommend reading the book: http://www.tenthdimension.com



Talk about insane, man hasn't even found the 4th dimension, let alone figured out our own. I'll look more into this, but it's probably some crazy theory.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 6, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> We shouldn't base our lives around what might be. We can base our lives around finding out the truth, but sitting here typing about what might be isn't doing that.



Philosophy is philosopy, and practical matters are practical matters.  This is a philosophical thread, Newf, so live with it...




Eli said:


> where is the fun in that?? Making religious people whine and atheists whine is fun!
> 
> (*why atheists whine confuses the hell out of me.. they seem to be more pushy then the religious* o.o)



I've always wondered about that, myself...




CAThulu said:


> Yes, but what one's _'might be'_ may be another's _'is'_.  Like it or not, there are people who will tell you with absolute conviction that 'yes, there is a God, and if you don't believe in Jesus you WILL go to HELL, which is a very real place'.  And they believe this with as much certaintanty as the sky is blue, fire is hot, and water is wet.
> 
> If you try to say to a very religious person that they are basing their lives on what might be in relation to their faith, I"m pretty sure they won't be shy about correcting you.  Besides, finding the existance of Deity is also another means of finding the 'truth'.  *It may not be based in science, but not everything is.*



I am so glad to hear someone finally say this...




Ark said:


> Talk about insane, *man hasn't even found the 4th dimension*, let alone figured out our own. I'll look more into this, but it's probably some crazy theory.



Yes we have... it is called "time"...


----------



## Henk86 (Apr 6, 2009)

How everything came to be?

Boring old random chance is what I think. There is no great plans, and not to sound all terminator or anything but 'there is no fate but what we make'. There doesn't have to be a grand purpose as to why things are here in the first place.


----------



## El Furicuazo (Apr 6, 2009)

Ark said:


> To agnostics, and athists. What is the meaning of life itself?



My answer to that would be that life itself does not has a universal or fixed meaning, but rather the one each one wants to give it.  In my case, life would be the greatest chance to do anything at all.  Life should be enjoyed, but we must consider that there are some actions that damage ourselves & or others, & those actions should be avoided.


----------



## Aurali (Apr 6, 2009)

Carenath said:


> Depends on your definition



One of my favorite intellectuals describes the following

"How I understand the philosopher -- as a terrible explosive, endangering everthing... my concept of the philosopher is worlds removed from any concept that would include even a Kant, not to speak of academic "ruminants" and other professors of philosophy..." -Friedrich Nietzsche

Yeah. You aren't a philosopher.


----------



## Carenath (Apr 6, 2009)

Ark said:


> Talk about insane, man hasn't even found the 4th dimension, let alone figured out our own. I'll look more into this, but it's probably some crazy theory.


Its the authors interpretatino of current string theory, but is not a scientific interpretation, more of a philosophical one.



Eli said:


> "How I understand the philosopher -- as a terrible explosive, endangering everthing... my concept of the philosopher is worlds removed from any concept that would include even a Kant, not to speak of academic "ruminants" and other professors of philosophy..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
> 
> Yeah. You aren't a philosopher.


You almost make it sound like some elitist group where only those who walk the fine line between genius and insantiy may be considered worthy to enter.

I did say, if you failed to read my reply to Ark, that I am an amature, philosophy is an interest of mine, but hardly a career path. I dont have the inclination to study it, I merely spend my free time exploring the subject, a product of having met many similarly minded individuals. I also said I used the term loosely, I dont consider compareing myself to Plato or Socrates.


----------



## Aurali (Apr 6, 2009)

Carenath said:


> You almost make it sound like some elitist group where only those who walk the fine line between genius and insantiy may be considered worthy to enter.
> 
> I did say, if you failed to read my reply to Ark, that I am an amature, philosophy is an interest of mine, but hardly a career path. I dont have the inclination to study it, I merely spend my free time exploring the subject, a product of having met many similarly minded individuals. I also said I used the term loosely, I dont consider compareing myself to Plato or Socrates.



I shall key word it for you

*Philosopher-- a terrible explosive, endangering everthing.*


----------



## nrr (Apr 6, 2009)

Ark said:


> Unless your a philosophy professor, ah no.



This is a rather short-sighted definition of what a philosopher is.  I'm not admitting that there's a lot of legitimacy to calling someone a philosopher who doesn't have academic credentials, but it isn't fair to discount them instantly based on those grounds either.

Similarly, I won't automatically discount someone as being a mathematician if he or she doesn't possess the necessary qualifications for the traditional definition.  Nevertheless, I do remain skeptical because mathematics is an involved field with many moving parts, and there are many people who claim to know things they really don't. 

I expect the same to hold true for philosophy given the overlap between the two disciplines.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 7, 2009)

philosophy is the worst there's no "credentials" to be found


hey i got a philosophy for you it's called you're all a bunch of deviants


----------



## nrr (Apr 7, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> philosophy is the worst there's no "credentials" to be found



You'd actually be rather surprised.  Mathematics gets its notion of logic and proof from philosophy, and a majority of classical mathematicians were philosophers and vice versa.



			
				Load_Blown said:
			
		

> hey i got a philosophy for you it's called you're all a bunch of deviants



hay i got a philosophy for you it's called why not type with some semblance of punctuation so you don't read like a fucking ignorant twit

... oh, wait, did I just write that for everyone here to read?  Whoops!


----------



## Aurali (Apr 7, 2009)

nrr said:


> hay i got a philosophy for you it's called why not type with some semblance of punctuation so you don't read like a fucking ignorant twit
> 
> ... oh, wait, did I just write that for everyone here to read?  Whoops!


Kick his ass nrr! <3

The thing about being Philosopher is.. it is an excuse to be an idiot. It's a way to be stuck up. It gives someone the ability to criticize and "correct" with no real reason other than his own beliefs.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 7, 2009)

I don't know about you man but apostrophes are punctuation where I come from


----------



## nrr (Apr 7, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> I don't know about you man but apostrophes are punctuation where I come from



where im from, its the other way around.  were not fond of capital letters either.

looks like another backwards japanese thing to me!


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 7, 2009)

ã‚ã‚â€¦.I'm watching Trigun in a bit you can stop by if you like.


----------



## nrr (Apr 7, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> ã‚ã‚â€¦.I'm watching Trigun in a bit you can stop by if you like.



No thanks. Â¦Â³


----------



## Kommodore (Apr 7, 2009)

Whats all this nonsense about what it takes to be a philosopher? Socrates _himself_ did little more than walk the streets of Athens asking complete strangers what their thoughts of life and controversial topics were. Philosophy is, according to the Oxford dictionary, _"the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence,"_ and a philosopher as _"a person engaged or learned in philosophy."_ Even if you do not put any faith into the dictionary definition of what makes a philosopher, there is nothing to suggest that you need a special "philosophy degree" to be considered a philosopher. The be a _respected_ philosopher, perhaps, but not to simply be one. To suggest so is to assume that getting a piece of paper to your name somehow gives you credentials you didn't have before. It doesn't, what gives you the credentials is the effort and time you put into educating yourself, and the same applies to philosophy.


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 7, 2009)

Well a philosopher can do only one thing with his life, and if you have a degree can only do one job; teach.


----------



## JakXT (Apr 7, 2009)

.


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 7, 2009)

JakXT said:


> But dreams can be shared! so if everyone went to sleep and didn't wake up it is possible that they are sharing the same dream so it wouldn't just be you thinking everything up.


Then the dream becomes reality and there's no difference anyway.


----------



## CAThulu (Apr 7, 2009)

JakXT said:


> The cake is a lie but the muffin is a factual inaccuracy...so whats the donut?



The truth in the lie?


----------



## Irreverent (Apr 7, 2009)

CAThulu said:


> The truth in the lie?



No, that's a Timbit.


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 7, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Well a philosopher can do only one thing with his life, and if you have a degree can only do one job; teach.



This^ 

... is what I meant.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Apr 7, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> No you're not... God is eternal, no beginning, no end.  There is no higher Being in the universe (or outside of it, either).  That's the definition of God.  In other words, just because you were created doesn't mean God was created by some other, Higher Power.  Because then, God would not be God, would He...?



And God said "let there be God" and there was God...

No, it doesn't explain anything. Like I said before, pretending to know the answer only shows how much people dont know. And faith is only good as far as you can throw it. Aetheists have faith they are right. Scientists have faith they are right. Christians have faith they are right. But none know the truth.

I tend to think there is a God lending some sense of order to the chaos, but that's my opinion based on my limited knowledge. But I don't believe in the christian God.


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 7, 2009)

Rostam The Grey said:


> But I don't believe in the christian God.



Then what God, do you believe in?


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Apr 7, 2009)

Ark said:


> Then what God, do you believe in?



I haven't really subscribed to a religion at the moment. I feel there must be something due to the order that exists, but I don't pretend to know what. I also dont waste time hoping for some super being to intervene in my life. I thank God for the life I've been given. But I take responsibility for my actions and don't ask God to forgive me. I ask the people I have wronged to forgive me.


----------



## CAThulu (Apr 7, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> No, that's a Timbit.




I thought a Timbit was a naked singularity?


----------



## Carenath (Apr 7, 2009)

Eli said:


> The thing about being Philosopher is.. it is an excuse to be an idiot. It's a way to be stuck up. It gives someone the ability to criticize and "correct" with no real reason other than his own beliefs.


Now where in my post did I imply that I'm stuck up and solely wish to critcise and correct for no reason other than my own beliefs?
I dont assume I am right about anything, its my own belief and opinion most of the time.



CommodoreKitty said:


> Whats all this nonsense about what it takes to be a philosopher? Socrates _himself_ did little more than walk the streets of Athens asking complete strangers what their thoughts of life and controversial topics were. Philosophy is, according to the Oxford dictionary, _"the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence,"_ and a philosopher as _"a person engaged or learned in philosophy."_ Even if you do not put any faith into the dictionary definition of what makes a philosopher, there is nothing to suggest that you need a special "philosophy degree" to be considered a philosopher. The be a _respected_ philosopher, perhaps, but not to simply be one. To suggest so is to assume that getting a piece of paper to your name somehow gives you credentials you didn't have before. It doesn't, what gives you the credentials is the effort and time you put into educating yourself, and the same applies to philosophy.


I like you :3


----------



## Telnac (Apr 8, 2009)

"Apparent Age" is the term for what I believe.

In essence, the Universe is exactly 30 seconds old.  Everything in it, from the most distant galaxies to your most recent memories, are but part of the Universe's initial state.


----------



## Aurali (Apr 8, 2009)

Carenath said:


> Now where in my post did I imply that I'm stuck up and solely wish to critcise and correct for no reason other than my own beliefs?
> I dont assume I am right about anything, its my own belief and opinion most of the time.



when exactly did you assume I was talking about you in that post?
One more time in just in case you didn't get it. You aren't a philosopher.. Intellectual maybe. Philosopher no. Especially after this post.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 8, 2009)

JakXT said:


> Also you can tell that humans will never live long enough to discover time travel because if they did they would come back in time and give us more advanced technology so we could solve problems like global warming (If possible) and so they would have more advanced technology then. *Lets talk about time paradox's for a while i like them they are mind bogglingly fun.*



I follow the scenario that all events in time happen, and that going back in time will simply mean that the time-traveler was the one who made the recorded events happen in the first place, by trying to change the future.

Oh, and I did read an interesting theory on time and reality... that time is stationary, like a series of still pictures, and it is only our perceptions that give us the illusion that we are moving through time, when each moment in time is actually unmoving.  Like a film, you may be able to view the frames of past and future, but you cannot change it, only perceive the frames.  You know, that whole "My life flashed before my eyes" thing...




Rostam The Grey said:


> And God said "let there be God" and there was God...
> 
> *No, it doesn't explain anything.* Like I said before, pretending to know the answer only shows how much people dont know. And faith is only good as far as you can throw it. Aetheists have faith they are right. Scientists have faith they are right. Christians have faith they are right. But none know the truth.
> 
> I tend to think there is a God lending some sense of order to the chaos, but that's my opinion based on my limited knowledge. But I don't believe in the christian God.



Yes, it does.  God cannot be a created being, because then "God" would not be God:  Whoever created "God" would be God.  This is not pretending, this is making sense.


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 8, 2009)

If God wasn't infinite, then there would be an endless chain of "who created who". It's a bit of a paradox situation, if so. God sits outside our demension, where time cannot reach. So this concludes, that God is measureless.


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 8, 2009)

Or simply doesn't exist.
If you think that -whatever- that created the universe is god, that doesn't mean it was living. If you believe in a living, thinking, intellectual being that started the universe then it's kinda silly. If you want to say God must exist because what else started everything at the base form, then we can say God is the Big Bang, simply an event.


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 8, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Or simply doesn't exist.
> If you think that -whatever- that created the universe is god, that doesn't mean it was living. If you believe in a living, thinking, intellectual being that started the universe then it's kinda silly. If you want to say God must exist because what else started everything at the base form, then we can say God is the Big Bang, simply an event.



Then its ridiculous to say that God didn't create the Universe. It takes a mind, to make one.


----------



## Henk86 (Apr 8, 2009)

God is just an idea humanity came up with, an idea for a wide variety of things like money making, easing peoples fear of death, to simplify our existance and to set a code of conduct. But perhaps the most profound is the idea of being in control, in other words power. People have used the idea of a god to command empires, kingdoms, Modern governments and to start wars in order to conquer others. The idea of god, is a very dangerous thing when put in the wrong hands.

The universe doesn't have to have a purpose, it's creation just may have been random, it had no designer either, again how the universe has unfolded was most likely random, same with why there is life on earth.


----------



## Dreltox (Apr 8, 2009)

Placebo said:


> At the same time, our meaning may just be to function. Why don't any other animals have "meanings"? We're the only species that feels as if we have to actually fulfill some sort of plan. All the other animals just live.
> 
> Edit: Yes I realize the glaring hole in my argument. :V


 Well, and not pushing religion on others, but this, makes you think. Why are we the only ones given, well more than just instinct? And for all we know, maybe thats just the way we (evolved,god(s) created us WHATEVER!). This is what makes me believe in a higher power. I mean maybe, the higher power is simply evolution or gods/godess'. But nonetheless we are a special species. No one can deny that. And just to poke fun, did you know that the bible never contradicts itself and is one of the only ancient sorta things to pass a special test (I can''t recall the name ) So... ya.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Apr 8, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Yes, it does.  God cannot be a created being, because then "God" would not be God:  Whoever created "God" would be God.  This is not pretending, this is making sense.



Are you God? Then how do you know?


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 9, 2009)

Ark said:


> Then its ridiculous to say that God didn't create the Universe. It takes a mind, to make one.


No it doesn't, evolution is proven to have developed our mind, there was no involvement with any god at all; that's like saying it takes a computer to make a computer, and don't relate the human brain as a computer because it's not even close to the same thing.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 9, 2009)

Rostam The Grey said:


> Are you God? *Then how do you know?*



How do you NOT know?

God is the Supreme Being, the Highest Power.  There is nothing higher than God, by any definition (even the Bible makes this clear)... and if I have to keep explaining this over and over again, I imagine you'll eventually grow tired of it, and go drool elsewhere.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Apr 9, 2009)

If there is an intelligent designer, then he really didn't do a fantastic job making this world. 

It can all basically be summed up under the Inadequacy Objection:

Almost everything has to adapt to it's environment, and a number of things have evolved to do so.

This may be intelligent design, but it's not very intelligent.


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 9, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> How do you NOT know?
> 
> God is the Supreme Being, the Highest Power.  There is nothing higher than God, by any definition (even the Bible makes this clear)... and if I have to keep explaining this over and over again, I imagine you'll eventually grow tired of it, and go drool elsewhere.



Ok, we don't know so why do we pretend to know?
If I don't know what's in a box, I'm not going to say it's god or anything else, I'm going to check; if I can't check the box, I will assume nothing.


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 9, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> No it doesn't, evolution is proven to have developed our mind, there was no involvement with any god at all; that's like saying it takes a computer to make a computer, and don't relate the human brain as a computer because it's not even close to the same thing.



Thats like saying, the Skyscraper just appeared out of thin air. For example, the architect (God), created the blueprint. And the industrial workers (Atoms) built the Skyscraper. Without the architect, the building would of never been built. As long as those workers were never hired, nothing is done. Now they don't work, without the other. Which furthers my arguement, for inteligent design.

And evolution doesn't show to have an intelegence, only a random act. And don't say God, didn't do a good job at creating the Universe. What's so imperfect about it, earth isn't the center of the Universe anymore.


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 9, 2009)

But as we know there's no blueprint put in place, depending on the temperature, scenario, oxygen level, humidity, etc etc etc, life will always be different, even in its own species.
If you think a being had the knowledge, time, and power to do all of this, planned out from only base elements and energy, then I'm calling you a crack-pot. It's merely coincidence the Universe exists, and it's merely coincidence we exist inside it.

And we build skyscrapers without the assistance of a God telling us what to do, we do it because we want/have to do it, there's no external force telling us we have to do it.

Evolution is trial and error, natural selection and that's all; there's no intelligent design put in place, it's impossible. Explain to me why the *top* intellectual people in this world believe there's no God, believe in evolution, and laugh at intelligent design. Are you attempting to say that you know more than these people?


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 9, 2009)

Half of the top thinkers today, are FOOLS. They never think about anything, unless they can see it. "Can I see the molecules floating in front of my face, NO!" Of course we can't test metaphysical energies around us, but to disaprove there isn't. Is even more foolish. Not long ago, the greatest minds thought the world was flat, the earth is the center of the Universe, the molecule is smallest thing. Now your telling me, that what the *top* thinkers today, got it all right. I don't think so, we have MUCH to learn.


----------



## Doubler (Apr 9, 2009)

One relevant question here might be: why would the universe need creation when God would not?


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 9, 2009)

Ark said:


> Half of the top thinkers today, are FOOLS. They never think about anything, unless they can see it. "Can I see the molecules floating in front of my face, NO!" Of course we can't test metaphysical energies around us, but to disaprove there isn't. Is even more foolish. Not long ago, the greatest minds thought the world was flat, the earth is the center of the Universe, the molecule is smallest thing. Now your telling me, that what the *top* thinkers today, got it all right. I don't think so, we have MUCH to learn.



They're more right, and MUCH more intelligent than you, buddy; maybe you're the FOOL that is wrong. If you're going to talk about the world being flat and us being the center of the universe, lets talk about another thing we were wrong about, God. Oh wait...


----------



## makmakmob (Apr 9, 2009)

Ark said:


> If God wasn't infinite, then there would be an endless chain of "who created who". It's a bit of a paradox situation, if so. God sits outside our demension, where time cannot reach. So this concludes, that God is measureless.



It's logically valid to say the universe had no beginning. Hence, defeating the problem of contingency.


NewfDraggie said:


> They're more right, and MUCH more intelligent than you, buddy; maybe you're the FOOL that is wrong. If you're going to talk about the world being flat and us being the center of the universe, lets talk about another thing we were wrong about, God. Oh wait...



I'm not overly confident with this statement. Not only can something _never_ be utterly proves with the empirical methods upon which science is grounded, but there is also no solid evidence, synthetic or analytical, which proves or disproves the existence, or possible existence, of an infinite being. Science relies on the assumption that all current theories are in reality wrong to a certain degree, so we can constantly improve them.


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 9, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> They're more right, and MUCH more intelligent than you, buddy; maybe you're the FOOL that is wrong. If you're going to talk about the world being flat and us being the center of the universe, lets talk about another thing we were wrong about, God. Oh wait...



Don't look at science as absolute fact


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 9, 2009)

Ohhai my name is science and it's my job to figure out things.


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 9, 2009)

Ark said:


> Don't look at science as absolute fact


I'd much rather look at science as current-fact, depending on what it is, total fact rather than pure hope/belief/etc.


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 9, 2009)

Placebo said:


> Ohhai my name is science and it's my job to figure out things.



Lets all figure things out ^^


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 9, 2009)

Ark said:


> Lets all figure things out ^^


With science.


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 9, 2009)

Placebo said:


> With science.



SCIENCE!!!


----------

