Theories about god

by **Mallic** » November 26th, 2005, 4:56 pm

But don't you remember that most respectable theologians believe this is a pair of 'Dingo's Kidneys'

by **Primus** » November 26th, 2005, 6:39 pm

This is what you get from the Spanish Inquisition

by **Mallic** » November 26th, 2005, 7:25 pm

Fear and suprise...

by **SubmissMe** » November 27th, 2005, 9:07 am

It's not a case of rhetorical questions and empty answers. Rather a case that knowledge is based on experience, and where is our experience of God in order to gain knowledge of him?

Exactly, nobody has direct experience of God and so all so called knowledge of him now becomes obsolete. And with no defining knowledge of something it is reasonable to assume it does not exist.

If we can never prove the existence of something, then we can't assume the position that just because we don't know about it doesn't deny its existence. If anything the fact we have NO CONCEPT of God and by definition never can proves that God and all religion in general is an artificial concept.

by **Mallic** » November 30th, 2005, 8:36 pm

Here's a question... What would you do (mentally) if death was staring you in the face, believing what you believe

by **Primus** » November 30th, 2005, 11:45 pm

Same thing I do every Monday morning, roll over in bed and wait for afternoon

by **Mallic** » December 1st, 2005, 8:38 pm

Primus, I know you get the scariest things from the bars you visit, but I meant in the sence of, how would you preper yourself?

by **Primus** » December 1st, 2005, 10:04 pm

Never been to a bar my friend, that's how I'd prepare if it's coming it's coming. But I'm not going to run around for it like a retard, better to sit and relax and just wait for oblivion.

by **Mallic** » December 4th, 2005, 7:20 am

What I am asking is if you would rather live or die?

Mallic (Wasd is all things to all FPS)

by **Primus** » December 4th, 2005, 4:27 pm

Fight and you may die... Flee and you will live. But as you grow old and lay in your beds you would give anything to come back to this day and to fight...

I pick death, because you have to fight for your right to party.

by **Mallic** » December 6th, 2005, 12:48 am

Primus, Are you Makidus with a new account?

by **Primus** » December 6th, 2005, 3:07 am

Nay I am not he whomever ye speak.

I'm just a psychopath wanting to be a woman. Facinated with the idea of being completly encased in latex, possibly losing control of my bladder and being diaper dependent for the rest of my life... oh and I watch way to damn many movies... Then again I'm a Highlander so how could I not have seen Braveheart a few times?

by **Mallic** » December 10th, 2005, 1:56 am

I just found this quote that I think sums up the arguement nicely....

"The only people on Earth who do not see Christ and His teachings as nonviolent are Christians" - Ghandi

Mallic (I ain't steal no cookie bitch)

by **Primus** » December 10th, 2005, 2:32 am

Those who follow a path are convinced they are right. Look in the X-Men at Magneto and Xavier both were confinced they were right. We'll get back to you when it gets sorted out...

Whether there is or isn't a god is questionable, but both sides are equally sure they are right.

On the flip side though isn't the belief in the item enough to be existance in lack of proof? In the movie Excaliber I think (or was it Merlin?) Maab existed as long as there were belivers in the old ways once the last remnents of the old ways were swept... away she became like the parrot and ceased to be.

by **Mallic** » December 18th, 2005, 11:06 pm

This reminds me of The Sound of Silence....

"And the people bowed in praise, To the neon god they made"

Mallic (sic)

by **missypuss** » December 19th, 2005, 1:22 am

I have an idea for a new thread off this topic at this festive time of year. Lets call it "Theories about Santa Clause" cos just because you cant see him .. doesnt mean that he doesnt exsist ...................

by **goldragon_70** » December 24th, 2005, 9:26 pm

ummm, theories about a fat old man with lost of body hair; ummm.... damn sexy!!!!! Damn it, if there was no misses, I would be beging Santa to punish this bad boy, in his work shop all the other days of the year!! :wink:

by **Mallic** » December 25th, 2005, 7:17 am

I think you just described me there...

by **Mallic** » February 12th, 2006, 4:36 am

Let me try to restart this thread by presenting a very debateable topic.

Is suicide morally wrong?

by **aeroue** » February 12th, 2006, 5:39 am

No, it's your life so you can choose, so in itself it is amoral in my opinion.

But depending on the situation of the person it can be immoral.

For example single mum depressed with a couple kids, if she killed herself it would be immoral because of the consequences for her children.

So my opinion is that it's ok, so long as it won't mess up other peoples lives in a very destructive way.

-Not sure where that line is though bettween the amoral/immoral.

by **manlian** » February 12th, 2006, 6:06 am

[quote="Mallic"]Let me try to restart this thread by presenting a very debateable topic.

Is suicide morally wrong?[/quote]

Well, since morality is by definition the author of both good and evil, I think an action is only immoral when juxtaposed against a specific moral system.

So a catholic might say oh yes very immoral, a liberal might say no it's your life etc.

What's moral here and now might be immoral a few miles away, or a few years in the past/future. In fact as if space and time weren't enough we're also separated by culture, circumstance and disposition - all of which make it very difficult to give a universal answer.

by **SubmissMe** » February 12th, 2006, 8:29 am

Life is a gift, if you want to throw it away its entirely up to you.

by **goldragon_70** » February 12th, 2006, 8:58 am

[quote="aeroue":b291/\[url=(https?:\/\/[^\s\[]+):$uid\](.*?)\[\/url:$uid\]/ibef]No, it's your life so you can choose, so in itself it is amoral in my opinion.

But depending on the situation of the person it can be immoral.

For example single mum depressed with a couple kids, if she killed herself it would be immoral because of the consequences for her children.

So my opinion is that it's ok, so long as it won't mess up other peoples lives in a very destructive way.

-Not sure where that line is though bettween the amoral/immoral.[/quote:b291/\[url=(https?:\/\/[^\s\[]+):$uid\](.*?)\[\/url:$uid\]/ibef]

By your logic, suicide is immoral to everyone. Everyone has someone they will be effecting with there death, weather it's there family, the investigators, Coroner, the guy cleaning up after you, or people who read or watch the news.

But then again, maybe it's better to say, that you have to earn the right to kill yourself...one way or another.

by **Mallic** » February 12th, 2006, 8:59 pm

[quote="SubmissMe"]Life is a gift, if you want to throw it away its entirely up to you.[/quote]

Please elaborate

by **SubmissMe** » February 13th, 2006, 12:01 pm

Some feel that if you kill yourself then you have a moral sin on your soul and go straight to hell. People feel life is a gift, even though sometimes it seems more of a curse.

Well I too think life is a gift, and it's the only thing thats ever yours and yours only. Do with it as you please, if you choose to chuck away life via suicide then that's your descision. But you'll regret it in the morning......

by **Mallic** » February 13th, 2006, 2:32 pm

I don't think anyone would care about someone going to hell. The only reasons that someone would go to hell are for things that would make you not like that person. Suicide seems like TOO easy a way out, so thats why people don't like it. Every so often, I think it is good for civilization to fall then rebuild itself. Like natural selection. Thats the only way for thing to keep going. With the world as it is, we look like we are going down that path.

by **aeroue** » February 14th, 2006, 8:47 am

To GoldDragon

No I didn't.
I Said there is a point where your obligations should override, which should also be relative to how bad your life is. Or at least I implied that.

The coroners and the investigators get a job if your dead. So how is it bad for them?

People who read or watch the news are irrelevant it doesn't really effect them.

by **goldragon_70** » February 14th, 2006, 6:41 pm

[quote="aeroue"]To GoldDragon

No I didn't.
I Said there is a point where your obligations should override, which should also be relative to how bad your life is. Or at least I implied that. [/quote]

The overriding of obligations is perspective, you don't know when something small is what makes something big.

[quote="aeroue"]
The coroners and the investigators get a job if your dead. So how is it bad for them?[/quote]

Yes, But I'm sure they would agree that suicide is not the majority of there jobs, just a minority, and still it would cause depression in many, besides more then a few people are effected my suicide, many who live near by, or even know the person in passing may still morn.

[quote="aeroue"]
People who read or watch the news are irrelevant it doesn't really effect them.[/quote]

There are still people out there that let it effect them.

by **aeroue** » February 15th, 2006, 7:31 am

What do you think then?

"you don't know when something small is what makes something big. "

I assume you mean you can't see the consequences of your suicide so what you saw as a minor obligation, not worth living for, turned out to be bigger?

by **goldragon_70** » February 15th, 2006, 9:48 pm

[quote="aeroue"]What do you think then?

"you don't know when something small is what makes something big. "

I assume you mean you can't see the consequences of your suicide so what you saw as a minor obligation, not worth living for, turned out to be bigger?[/quote]

Yes, that's what I meant to say. I should have phrased that differently. :oops:

by **SubmissMe** » February 16th, 2006, 8:40 am

We are in desperate need of a new conversation topic. Any ideas anyone?

by **Mallic** » February 16th, 2006, 2:51 pm

Ok, what about ASSISTED suicide?

by **SubmissMe** » February 16th, 2006, 4:02 pm

It all depends entirely on the situation. How can we categorise something so diverse with so many variables?

by **Jack** » February 16th, 2006, 5:01 pm

Universe is non-simultaneously comprehended

by **Mallic** » February 16th, 2006, 6:19 pm

Looking back apon the 12 pages of this thread, it has seems to me that we are not supposed to know what happens in the afterlife. After all, if we all knew we where going to go to heaven, what would be the point of living? There IS no point of living, exsept for the sake of having something alive. If nothing was alive, there would be no point of the universe. Billions and billions of galaxies, with billions and billlions of planets. What is the point if there is nothing to watch evolve? I think that is why god put us on the planet, to see how we would fair in the masterpiece of a universe he has created.

After all, wouldn't it all be pointless otherwise?

by **manlian** » February 17th, 2006, 4:51 am

[quote="Mallic"]Looking back apon the 12 pages of this thread, it has seems to me that we are not supposed to know what happens in the afterlife. After all, if we all knew we where going to go to heaven, what would be the point of living? There IS no point of living, exsept for the sake of having something alive. If nothing was alive, there would be no point of the universe. Billions and billions of galaxies, with billions and billlions of planets. What is the point if there is nothing to watch evolve? I think that is why god put us on the planet, to see how we would fair in the masterpiece of a universe he has created.

After all, wouldn't it all be pointless otherwise?[/quote]

Well it should be noted that humans are the only creatures demanding meaning from the Universe.

Of course the universe need not answer, and in fact sometimes wipes us out in large quantities just for shits and giggles.

It seems to me that there need not be any meaning in the Universe beyond what we conjure up for ourselves, although our reason is writ large on everything we experience, sometimes we call it God.

A man said to the universe:
"Sir I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."

=p

by **SubmissMe** » February 17th, 2006, 11:55 am

I think that there is life, then death, then nothing.

Sad but probable.

by **aeroue** » February 17th, 2006, 2:06 pm

Why is it probable?

I personally think it is probable that there is life after death.

by **Mallic** » February 17th, 2006, 4:12 pm

That is the problem. You can say to yourself "I've been a good little christen/whatever I will get rewarded in the afterlife." But there is alway that little voice in the back of your mind saying "But what if I don't go to heaven?" There has been no indication from a diety one way or the other.

by **aeroue** » February 17th, 2006, 5:36 pm

I am not Christian. :evil:

Not in the slightest.

I just think it is more likely that there is life after death.

You have your astral projections, near death experiences, ideas on duality etc.

So why is there not life after death?

by **SubmissMe** » February 18th, 2006, 6:18 am

Think about it, we die, and if we've been good little boys and girls we go to heaven and meet up with dear old grandma and that beloved cat you had that just "ran away" and we all live happily in the afterlife and skip around heaven all day long and play tennis with angels and blah blah blah.....

Why is THAT not likely? Where to begin.........

by **aeroue** » February 18th, 2006, 1:07 pm

You do not seem to read so well, I am NOT I repeat NOT a Christian, therefore I OBVIOUSLY don't believe in the Christian idea of heaven do I?

Where once did I say it is probable that we will be dancing around with angels?

All I said is that it is probable there is an afterlife.

Unless you are ignorant that does not just mean heaven, it could be anything.

by **Jack** » February 18th, 2006, 3:45 pm

reincarnation... mmmmMMMMmmmm..

by **SubmissMe** » February 18th, 2006, 6:10 pm

[quote="aeroue":/\[url=(https?:\/\/[^\s\[]+):$uid\](.*?)\[\/url:$uid\]/id67e/\[url=(https?:\/\/[^\s\[]+):$uid\](.*?)\[\/url:$uid\]/i63]Unless you are ignorant that does not just mean heaven, it could be anything.[/quote:/\[url=(https?:\/\/[^\s\[]+):$uid\](.*?)\[\/url:$uid\]/id67e/\[url=(https?:\/\/[^\s\[]+):$uid\](.*?)\[\/url:$uid\]/i63]

If your going to give us crackpot theories about an afterlife, please tell us what you think happens when we die. You're far too vague, you can't just give us a probability of an afterlife and then tell us that the afterlife can constitute as ANYTHING. If there is an afterlife, then what is it?

Or am I going to recieve some cop out answer like "We're not meant to know what the afterlife brings"? Because if that's your theory, don't even bother posting it.

by **aeroue** » February 18th, 2006, 7:35 pm

I didn't propose any theories at all.

I don't intend to either, you obviously are not prepared to think outside the box anyway.

What I said was why is there not an afterlife, what reasons are there that make it so impossible?

So far you have given.....

ZERO

I gave reasons as to why I think there probably is, did you reply?

NO

Instead of trying to say oh some crazy christian or oh just some lame crackpot theory to try and discredit the idea of life after death, why don't you try....replying to what I have actually said?

Then we might actually get somewhere.

So I reiterate in a simpler form.

1) Astral projection

2) Near death experinces

3) Philosophical theories advocating life after death i.e. Dualism

What negates these?

And don't just call science, just because science does not explain them yet does not mean they are not real. Scientists are too big headed nowadays, they used to find out the truth now they lock us is to what is accepted as true and possible.

Before Newton 'discovered' gravity people didn't deny apples fell from trees.

Before electricity was discovered people would have laughed at the idea of lightbulbs and TV but they exist.

by **Mallic** » February 18th, 2006, 9:51 pm

Aeroue, What is being pointed out to you is that you can't just say 'There is a probability of something happening after death.' and shrugging when you're asked what that might be. Ok, I'll try to reply to what you said, cause hey, karma might force you ot be an asshole. No one said you where a crazy christian or a lame theorist, mainly because you haven't put forward any thoeries.

Whats that? Are you asking what negates these? Well, you tell me what they mean to you. There is no point in putting down some shopping list of the paranormal, them mubling some incoeherant shit about T.Vs exsisting when there weren't any electricity. Just so you know, saying that people didn't deny apples fell from trees and then talking about people not beleiving in electricity doesn't really prove anything.

Also, for future reference, when you present a theory, you have to prove it, its not us who have to disprove it. You are to vauge in your description to give any reasons to the negitive.

by **aeroue** » February 19th, 2006, 6:34 am

The 'Incoherent shit about TVs'

You obviously misinterprested what I said maybe I did not put it forward clearly enough.

Basically, just because science does not yet believe something exists does not mean it does not exists until it proves it to be false.
Also why is it not enough to simply show that there is life after death? Why do I have to tell you what it is like? Surely the most important point is not that we go to heaven, hell or whatever but that we still exist?

quote:Mallic

Also, for future reference, when you present a theory, you have to prove it, its not us who have to disprove it. You are to vauge in your description to give any reasons to the negitive(negative).

/end

I was not proposing a theory! Just that there is life after death which I personally think could easily be a theory in itself.

Although of course I did back up my opinion with those three examples which clearly are in favour of life after death. I noticed you mentioned the paranormal stuff, not that near death experiences are that unusual and are well documented, I also noticed you completely skipped over my mentioning of duality, which is not 'paranormal' nor 'incoherrant shit about TV's' it is philosophy. The only truly paranormal one I mentioned is astral projection, which I mentioned because I have done it, so it is a big reason for me. But if your going to simply cast away the reasons I gave there blatantly wont be anyway you can rebuke them ie. give any reasons to the negative.

Originally I was replying to SubmissMe's

Quote:

I think that there is life, then death, then nothing.

Sad but probable.

/end

Which you may notice is just as vague as mine except I gave examples as to why I thought it was probable and he didn't. I just wanted his reasons why.

by **SubmissMe** » February 19th, 2006, 7:52 am

How can anyone possibly call on dualism of "proof" of an afterlife? Gimme a break. That has been criticised in so many different ways and forms by so many different philosophers that I could write a friggin' book about it.

If you believe in an afterlife, good for you. But you need to gime some sort of solid proof to back up your claims. You're holding on to hazy explainations like near death experiences and yet you refuse to let us "call on science".

So you're saying that we can't actually use science to disprove you? Its not a case of science doesn't prove them so that doesn't mean they're not real, its a case of science CAN'T prove them which DOES mean they are'nt real.

It's not up to me and Mallic to disprove an afterlife, because we don't actually know what your idea of an afterlife is! You've put forward a hazy notion of an afterlife and then put it to us to prove it as false, here's an idea - why don't you prove it as true?

Because you can't. You can't possibly know about life after death or heaven or hell or afterlife or reincarnation or anything else for that matter. Why? Because it's not empirically verifiable.

Of course we cannot conclusively disprove you, but we can make a damn good probability that you're wrong. But what do people like you do? They hold on to that /\[url=(https?:\/\/[^\s\[]+):$uid\](.*?)\[\/url:$uid\]/i./\[url=(https?:\/\/[^\s\[]+):$uid\](.*?)\[\/url:$uid\]/i/\[url=(https?:\/\/[^\s\[]+):$uid\](.*?)\[\/url:$uid\]/i/\[url=(https?:\/\/[^\s\[]+):$uid\](.*?)\[\/url:$uid\]/i/\[url=(https?:\/\/[^\s\[]+):$uid\](.*?)\[\/url:$uid\]/i/\[url=(https?:\/\/[^\s\[]+):$uid\](.*?)\[\/url:$uid\]/i/\[url=(https?:\/\/[^\s\[]+):$uid\](.*?)\[\/url:$uid\]/i/\[url=(https?:\/\/[^\s\[]+):$uid\](.*?)\[\/url:$uid\]/i/\[url=(https?:\/\/[^\s\[]+):$uid\](.*?)\[\/url:$uid\]/i/\[url=(https?:\/\/[^\s\[]+):$uid\](.*?)\[\/url:$uid\]/i/\[url=(https?:\/\/[^\s\[]+):$uid\](.*?)\[\/url:$uid\]/i/\[url=(https?:\/\/[^\s\[]+):$uid\](.*?)\[\/url:$uid\]/i/\[url=(https?:\/\/[^\s\[]+):$uid\](.*?)\[\/url:$uid\]/i1% that they might just be right.

I'm sorry but that's just not good enough.

by **aeroue** » February 19th, 2006, 9:20 am

My point was, about science that it evolves it changes what it can prove now, is not what it will be able to prove in 20 years and we can prove more now than 100 years ago.

I mean you can try and use science if you want, but for all we know our science is wrong. I am just assuming we havn't reached the peak of our scientific knowledge.

I wasn't working on proofs either, you can't because you can't actually know for sure, I was working on probability. And as of yet you have yet to make a single statement as to why it is unlikely.

If I am so wrong and if it is so unlikely please tell me why, that was my origional question and all I really wanted to know.

by **SubmissMe** » February 19th, 2006, 1:59 pm

Becuase you can't see it, hear it, feel it, touch it, smell it.

You can't verify it through experience ergo it is unlikely.

Theories about god

Who is online