One Eyed Jack
New member
We're not talking about a way to live someone's life. We're talking about the way to Heaven, and Jesus is the only way.
I never said your life has no purpose.
Well, that's your problem, because I never said that.
Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
We're not talking about a way to live someone's life. We're talking about the way to Heaven, and Jesus is the only way.
I never said your life has no purpose.
Well, that's your problem, because I never said that.
Unless I am misinformed, they have a policy up there that states that anyone in a consciouss state, is not going in, and will be sent back immediately.
Have they changed the rules, and also let in people in consciouss states???
As long as I am consciousness, why would I even want to go to "heaven" i.e. wishing to be dead?)
No, you stated that "my life is not going anywhere".
To me that is rather equivalent to "not having any purpose".
Neither can you judge that or know that.
One Eyed Jack
New member
I have no idea what you're talking about.
That's a misquote, and you know it. That is not what I said.
I was talking about the fact that unless someone is realy dead (that is: having no more consciousness), there is no way that one goes to heaven (or hell).
Am I right about that?
You said: "Your way isn't going to get you anywhere."
But let us not elaborate further on that. I take it that you did not meant that in the way I interpreted it.
No need to discuss that then.
Flake
New member
Re: Re: Re: Atheism
Re: Re: Re: Atheism
This could introduce the burdon of proof argument which is a debate in itself.
Where once some people believed man was created, some people now believe that man evolved, and is an animal as all other animals with the same origins and reasons for being. A reasoned hypothesis based on evidence, developing into a theory as more research is performed. A gap filling up, if not already filled. A god hypothesis, for that is all it can be, is left in a more precarious position, but still a hypothesis nontheless. Many statements and theories are made all the time in reference to everything, but without the proof they are disregarded.
It could be said that aliens made the world, and the burdon of proof would be on the asserter to substanciate the statement, or withdraw it. A cult could arise based on blind faith and tenuous reasoning but that does not count as proof or even evidence of the truth. A book may be produced, but how could it be taken as anything but circumstantial. The alien worshippers could have such a strong conviction that they mistake belief for knowledge spured by desire and reinforced by the book, but thats just an hypothesis of course.
If I find the time to read and research then so can you, educate yourself. I wont preach, but evolution is rather a strong gap filling theory. So convincing in fact that even some god fearers believe the theory to be true.
"This is my proof, God does fill in the Gaps for me".
Exactly, there we have your god of gaps admitted by a theist, thankyou.
If I write a book and said the aliens gave it to me and it explains how they created the world, would that be proof of my alien creation theory? Are you saying faith others hold is not important unless its faith in what you yourself believe? Pointing at your story book is not proof of anything other than gullibility.
You cannot know these things. Believing is not knowing, although you may believe it is. Your quote is meaningless gibberish spoken, purportedly, by a man a long time ago, why even mention it?
Again you are talking of your beliefs as though it is knowledge. You presume that your beliefs, already established as not being knowledge, are superior to what others believe. This is a classic oppressive mode of thought. You believe you are right and they are wrong, but have nothing to back it up other than intuition or better still, self-righteousness. Just add some power and authority and you get a dictator. By the same hand, a non-believer can be guilty of exactly the same process. Neither has the high ground.
The moral codes, label them if you wish, are from yourself. You may say we are born with the essence of morality, that we are educated with it or we gleen from others in our experience of life. You may also say god gave them to us, but why would he not give them to everybody in the same way for all time? Is this your god of gaps leaping in to plug a lack of knowledge of where morality came from?
Yes it could. However, existence of your god does not stop terrible acts. I made my point.
Its a shame you have such a low opinion of yourself. It depends on the definition of "good" and "bad" which again is a lengthy subjective debate.
I didnt say you did have faith in yourself, maybe if you did you wouldnt have had such problems. I see that your belief in god helped you. Faith has been said to be able to move mountains, but its the faith that has power, not what you have faith in. You did it all yourself in the end, you should be proud.
The gullibility of mankind has been exploited for eons. This is how confidence tricksters operate. If you believe in the unlikely and unsubstanciated, but appealing, you have been conned and you cant see it. Dont be ashamed, its part of human nature.
Re: Re: Re: Atheism
This could introduce the burdon of proof argument which is a debate in itself.
Where once some people believed man was created, some people now believe that man evolved, and is an animal as all other animals with the same origins and reasons for being. A reasoned hypothesis based on evidence, developing into a theory as more research is performed. A gap filling up, if not already filled. A god hypothesis, for that is all it can be, is left in a more precarious position, but still a hypothesis nontheless. Many statements and theories are made all the time in reference to everything, but without the proof they are disregarded.
It could be said that aliens made the world, and the burdon of proof would be on the asserter to substanciate the statement, or withdraw it. A cult could arise based on blind faith and tenuous reasoning but that does not count as proof or even evidence of the truth. A book may be produced, but how could it be taken as anything but circumstantial. The alien worshippers could have such a strong conviction that they mistake belief for knowledge spured by desire and reinforced by the book, but thats just an hypothesis of course.
If I find the time to read and research then so can you, educate yourself. I wont preach, but evolution is rather a strong gap filling theory. So convincing in fact that even some god fearers believe the theory to be true.
"This is my proof, God does fill in the Gaps for me".
Exactly, there we have your god of gaps admitted by a theist, thankyou.
If I write a book and said the aliens gave it to me and it explains how they created the world, would that be proof of my alien creation theory? Are you saying faith others hold is not important unless its faith in what you yourself believe? Pointing at your story book is not proof of anything other than gullibility.
You cannot know these things. Believing is not knowing, although you may believe it is. Your quote is meaningless gibberish spoken, purportedly, by a man a long time ago, why even mention it?
Again you are talking of your beliefs as though it is knowledge. You presume that your beliefs, already established as not being knowledge, are superior to what others believe. This is a classic oppressive mode of thought. You believe you are right and they are wrong, but have nothing to back it up other than intuition or better still, self-righteousness. Just add some power and authority and you get a dictator. By the same hand, a non-believer can be guilty of exactly the same process. Neither has the high ground.
The moral codes, label them if you wish, are from yourself. You may say we are born with the essence of morality, that we are educated with it or we gleen from others in our experience of life. You may also say god gave them to us, but why would he not give them to everybody in the same way for all time? Is this your god of gaps leaping in to plug a lack of knowledge of where morality came from?
Yes it could. However, existence of your god does not stop terrible acts. I made my point.
Its a shame you have such a low opinion of yourself. It depends on the definition of "good" and "bad" which again is a lengthy subjective debate.
I didnt say you did have faith in yourself, maybe if you did you wouldnt have had such problems. I see that your belief in god helped you. Faith has been said to be able to move mountains, but its the faith that has power, not what you have faith in. You did it all yourself in the end, you should be proud.
The gullibility of mankind has been exploited for eons. This is how confidence tricksters operate. If you believe in the unlikely and unsubstanciated, but appealing, you have been conned and you cant see it. Dont be ashamed, its part of human nature.
LightSon
New member
I do not think so. Death, in my view. does not mean unconsciousness, it means separation.
Spiritual death is when our spirit is separated from God.
Physical death is when our spirit is separated from our body.
I believe that once God gave us consciousness that He will never take it away; we will be conscious forever.
On another point, I note your musings about the length of eternity and how difficult it would be to exist forever. That is a good point and one that I have contemplated.
Scripture teaches that for the saved there will be no more pain, no more sorrow or crying and no more death. In short, there will be a grand paradigm shift in the way we are geared.
I'm going to make a crude analogy. Our bodies and brains are wondrous. If evolution is responsible, then evolution is really really smart. ( <<== tongue-in-cheek). Anyway, those who have experimented with drugs, can often fall into a trap due to the varied pleasure sensations and altered perceptions. Existence on Earth and over time does have a monotonous aspect to it. I postulate that a God who could make possible the "trips" of wonder that are sadly abused by the drug user, can also make possible a paradigm shift where eternal bliss is possible. It is hard to fathom entirely I agree. I take it on faith that good things await those who have trusted Him. Scripture does teach this.
So, basically you are saying that once we become consciouss, we will stay that for the rest of eternity.
But the problem is of course, how could my consciousness, my states of my mind which exist as material forms in my brain, exist without a brain?
My consciousness is not my brain, but without it, my consciousness would be gone. No me! Nada!
I even would not be aware of that, so why should I be in any way
bothered with death itself?
What matters is what I do now!
I have argued against this. Assume that would be the case.
Then I would have to be conscious for all of eternity, which is realy realy long.
Although I expect you do not have experience in that yourself, I would ask you, could you imagine that, having to life for eternity?
And there is no going back! For me I think that would be just hell, as for anyone.
Life is worthwhile, BECAUSE it is not eternal, and BECAUSE you only have one life.
Can you see my point?
Anyhow, I think this whole heaven idea is just an invention.
The idea is of course, to teach people good morals, and to lead decent lives. At the time when this was invented, it was probably desperately needed.
In current days, I would argue people have good morals of their own free will. They do so, because a good moral "pays off" in that others will treat you the way you treat them.
You would be bored to death, in eternity!
You would long to suffering and pain, to at least break the days as they go by and by! Realy!
Just explore the very idea in your mind!
Just think about it. IT WOULD BE REALY HELL (EVEN IN 'HEAVEN')!
This makes our life therefore more important. It's the only one we have!! Think about that!
You already know this, don't you? Because you have only one life, it's value is infinite!
Of course evolution is smart!
Well, you can KNOW that without FAITH.
Just do good things, and you will feel great about yourself.
Do miserable things, and you hate yourself.
What would yopu chooce, having free will?
So, basically what I am saying, all this heaven and hell and other religious are ancient things from the past.
I don't dismerit religion or their followers. It obviously served a goal, else it would not have existed! But you need to see things in perspective, and in it's historic context. Religion fitted in a historical phase, in which humanity realy had no clue.
But please, we live 2000 years after that period.
We have other things to base us on. (and I mean not just science, but just about everything).
Realy, I don't understand how people can still nowadays belief such things! Honestly! It puzzles my mind realy. I ask myself then, is the world and how I see it and my mind so different that
Religion should be put in a museum, so that we can wonder and laugh at our selves in the silly things we used to believe in.
Same what will happen in the future with current day science of course. In a few hundred years, people will laugh when they hear that we believed in the Big bang! Were they nuts?????
Last edited:
LightSon
New member
Yes, that is what I saying. I have a feeling that I was created for more than this Earthly life. Perhaps you have good life. Whatever your income source is, it provides you with ample time to spare on this board, and that is fine. Consider all the millions who live in abject poverty. Is life good for them?
All the wonder of life is to be cherished. My kids provide me great pleasure. To think of them "gone" brings great sadness. The thought that all we have is 80 years is sad to me.
I realize you will reject this out of hand because there is no science to support it. But I believe we are more than just flesh and blood. We also have a spirit. That spirit provides for dynamics which, from a fleshly perspective. can appear ambiguous. All that is me, my love and faith, my devotion to my children are related to my spirit. I believe that our physical brain merely provides an interface to our body. Weird guy right?
I can see your point, but it is because you haven't seen God that your perspective is myopic. (No offense intended). When one is born of God, they inherit eternal life (as opposed to eternal existence). Eternal life is God's life, a qualiity of existence which not only lasts forever, but has an ongoing pleasure value.
I realize you must hold that heaven is fiction. It follows from your worldview. I still can't understand why you do not see that "good morals" is a concept smuggled in from a God-based system. Hitler's good morals was to exterminate jews. How do we know he is wrong? There must be a higher sense of "goodness" if we are to answer that question unequivocally. I think you sense it is wrong because of what your spirit is making you feel. I can't prove that however.
You missed my point. I propose that in heaven, believers will not experience monotony and boredom like we do here. One cannot accurately feel what it will be like in heaven, anymore than one can know what it is to be high on crack cocaine - unless of course you've experienced it. This is what I meant by a paradigm shift.
I disagree. If this Earthly life is all we have, it's value is finite. It's value ends when you die. My brother-in-laws sibling was killed in an auto accident yesterday - He was 18. What is the infinite value of his life? In my view, life has infinite value because it will go on infinitely. Wanna make a good investment? Invest in a God who has the power to raise your body up from dust. You are investing in a future of dust. Please don't do that. You are worth infinitely more than that.
No offense taken.
Here is more "silliness" for you to consider, perhaps have a laugh at.
I believe that the resurrection of Christ is an ontological fact. This fact validates the scriptures and the Christian worldview. It is also the demonstration of God's power over death. Because Jesus revived and was seen of witnesses, I am confident that God will raise me up.
If somehow I am somehow mistaken, I will suffer no worse fate than you. And the quality of my life has improved immeasurable since surrendering to Christ.
editing notes:
changed: "When one is born God" to "When one is born of God".
Last edited:
One Eyed Jack
New member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A god of Zakath's own making.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A god of Zakath's own making.
And what was that?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A god of Zakath's own making.
And what was that?
One Eyed Jack
New member
You said you were referring to something Paul said. What was it?
One Eyed Jack
New member
Ok. So how do you find me uncharitable?
Life is for a large part of humanity still quite miseable.
That is what withdraws me from religion also, cause religion is more concerned with the spiritual needs (so it seems) then the actual and urgent needs of those who suffer.
Life come with pleasure and with sadness.
I am not used to terms like spirit, and this of course triggers for me some religious perceptions and jargon, which are not mine.
But please understand this. We can of course take a flat or vulgar approach in that we can say: everything is matter (like bones, flesh, cells), but that is of course a silly notion.
What matters is of course the specific structures and forms of matter, their specific internal relations, even the historic development of each and every one of them, that is important.
You can not reduce society to humans. You can not reduce human behaviour to your biological stuff. And one can not reduce biology to just chemistry or chemistry to just physics. Because at each level we have to deal with specific structures and relations.
Yet each and everyone of those elements, compounds or structures, can be called 'material'.
So, as to say that we are more as the sum of our cells, then of course that is the case.
Same is true for our consciousness. We know it is connected to the brain, without the brain no consciousness. We can explain phenomena of consciousness based on brain activity.
But neither is consciousness matter or reducable to matter.
How can we know that (can you look in my brain and see that a certain brain state realy corresponds to what you have called for yourself God?) he he
Of course, because of the way I was raised, educated, and learnt to thing in different terms and concepts as those who are reiligously raised.
I have however reasons to assume, that although we have developed different concepts in our mind, for our relation with the material world, realy there is only matter.
Matter one can not see. Like you can not see fruit. You can only eat an apple or an orange, but not fruit itself, since it is - like matter - an abstract category. Matter is infinite and eternal, it can neither be destroyed or destructed, it can only change from one form into another. Matter and motion are inseperatable. Matter is it's own cause and is not dependend on something else.
In the philiosophical sense, matter is that what is independend, outside and apart from the mind / consciousness. Acc. to materialism matter is the primary stuff, consciousness and mind the secondary stuff (it is dependend on matter).
How does one proof that there realy is just matter?
Actually this can not be performed by science, since science only explores specific material forms, but not matter itself.
How to explain or proof that all those material phenomena (atoms, light, fields, living things, etc.) are nothing but specific forms of the same substance, matter?
I can not realy proof that matter exists. But the opposite position then would be to assume that nothing realy exist. All what I think that exists, would then just exist in my mind itself, without there realy being an actual world. It would be like Matrix. Not a real world, but one self-imagined or inprinted in our mind.
As to the position of religion. Religion claims that there is a God, we can not see, just assume there is one. We can see the effects of what God is or does, but not God itself. God is in eternity also.
God is also called the 'essential being' in that it must necessarily exist (since there can not be 'nothing'). God however is not thought of in a material or physical form, but spiritual form.
Even when this is a weird assumption, in the philosophical sense the abstract category we call God and the abstract category we call matter, are in fact one and the same. (that what constitutes the world, or what the world in essence is)
Although in religion to God are attributed 'superhuman' qualities (being good, all powerfull, etc) this is just a human way of characterizing an unseeable/untouchable abstract category.
In reality we would just need one concept, and not both.
Although these two concepts agree on many points, there are of course differences.
My viewpoint is that of materialism. I think as a human being is free, and only obliged to itself, it's fellow humans and the natural world, and does not 'owe' it's existence to some 'higher being'.
Since we are now enlightened by science and the methods of science, I can think we better could deal with the concept of matter then the concept of God.
Why would having morals having anything to do with there being a higher being?
If I feel pain, I feel bad. How much effort would it cost me to realize, that if I hurt someone else, that is bad too?
And even if I don't realize that immediately, the person I hurt will likely hurt me too. So, next time, I will be more carefull, cause I know the other person has the same feelings as me.
What 'higher' understanding is necessary there, the morals we have follow quite evidently from the soceity we live in, and how we reflect on ourselves.
Heaven is inherently a human invention as to comfort those that have earthly miserable lives.
But for the hungry, food is more comforting then a fiction of a heaven, healtcare more comforting for the ill, etc.
Do Gods accept credit cards... hehe
No actually, none of that is making sense to me.
There is no life after death.
I think we should take the story about heaven and hell, as being a human invention, as a teaching of a moral.
It would teach people to actually care how to live their life.
And the teaching came with a reward and a punishment.
I think it might have had it's merits for that time.
For my perspective, I could just state that death and birth belong to life as natural as anything else. I think the perspective of an after life, makes people alienated to their own lives, and desires.
We better stick to the facts.
The resurrection of Christ. I have been puzzled about that.
It is a fact of human history, in that it is recorded as such.
But it is a faith fact. Can thousands of people believe something that is not factual true? We have evidence for such phenomena too, like we see in an illusionists show. When we don't know how the trick is performed, we are inclined to believe what we see. Even if we know in the back of our head, that it is a trick.
What can I say besides that my mind is puzzled about it.
I don't have a natural explenation, neither have I heard one.
But I hold is as to the evidence, this is strictly the evidence from many people that he realy died (no more heart beat, pulse, respiration, blood cluttered, etc) and that many witnesses saw him a few days later alive.
I think apart from that, we can state no more. As far as I know there is no testimony or eye-witness report of what happened at this supposed moment of resurrection. (or is there?)
So, if these are the facts as are presented to us through documented history, I would suppose that people would give this phenomena a supernatural explenation. What else could they explain it with?
So, the resurrection of Christ, is the only thing which maybe has not been adequately explained. But there are no other known resurrection phenomena we know of.
Would all of what we know from so many other sources have to be wiped out, just because there is one case in which we may not be having an adequate explenation?
Sometimes we can not know everything. But does that mean the supernatural is the only possible explenation?
- Status