Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

i think my opinion is fairly obvious at this point. Thoughts?

Originally posted by Kumar
i think my opinion is fairly obvious at this point. Thoughts?

I often ponder the same things myself. However, I CAN comprehend nothingness and was/is willing to accept it. However, I do not want to risk the chance that there really is a benevolent God out there...so, I chose to live my life as a good person...just in case. Faith? Why not? Couldn't hurt to be a good person could it?

its true, it doesn't hurt to live as a good person. However, i'm sceptical when you say you can comprehend nothingness. Can you really or do you just agknowledge it? Can you really comprehend not existing? Not ever being consious of anything ever again? No thoughts, no sensation, not emotion. Its a tough concept to get one's head around.

Originally posted by Kumar
its true, it doesn't hurt to live as a good person. However, i'm sceptical when you say you can comprehend nothingness. Can you really or do you just agknowledge it? Can you really comprehend not existing? Not ever being consious of anything ever again? No thoughts, no sensation, not emotion. Its a tough concept to get one's head around.

Easy as pie, brother. I thought about these things over a decade ago. (I thought about many many things.) Nothingness isn't that bad...you will never know what nothingness is like because you will never go there. Once you get there...you don't exist...therefore, one can never know this nothingness we speak of.

In my opinion, the concept of heaven and hell seems to flow from the idea that life is too sad and contradictory, and that mankind therefore needs an afterlife where the soul can be at rest and content in the warm glow of an all good existence. Places where, if denied in this life, justice is found.

The reasons behind them can be debated, but they're obviously human-made constructs (at least from my perspective). Most myths were originally designed to explain nature (lightning = Thor's hammer crashing, for example). Others were intended to help people cope with transitions and struggles in their lives...it's likely the early predecessors to heaven/hell were of this variety. Most current dogmas grew out of these origins.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
The reasons behind them can be debated, but they're obviously human-made constructs (at least from my perspective). Most myths were originally designed to explain nature (lightning = Thor's hammer crashing, for example). Others were intended to help people cope with transitions and struggles in their lives...it's likely the early predecessors to heaven/hell were of this variety. Most current dogmas grew out of these origins.

Even though I am fairly religious...I agree with the above statement. Despite this fact, I chose to believe in a God, just in case there really is some sort of transcendent reality after this life.

I can easily see the absurdities of religion and how they are really immature to hold.

Do you guys understand why I still partake in religion or is my point lost in my inarticulateness?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Even though I am fairly religious...I agree with the above statement. Despite this fact, I chose to believe in a God, just in case there really is some sort of transcendent reality after this life.

I can easily see the absurdities of religion and how they are really immature to hold.

Do you guys understand why I still partake in religion or is my point lost in my inarticulateness?

Just in case? That begs the question if "hedging your bets" is true belief, or even a positive reason for faith. Believing something just in case it's true smacks of a subtle fear, and is rooted in selfishness, not altruism.

If I left atheism, for example, on the off chance I'm wrong, and that I don't want to go to hell, I'd hope that doing it just to save my ass would anger God, not make him happy.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Just in case? That begs the question if "hedging your bets" is true belief, or even a positive reason for faith. Believing something just in case it's true smacks of a subtle fear, and is rooted in selfishness, not altruism.

If I left atheism, for example, on the off chance I'm wrong, and that I don't want to go to hell, I'd hope that doing it just to save my ass would anger God, not make him happy.

In my religion, even atheists don't go to hell, so I don't share the belief of fear that you expressed above. The reasoning behind my choosing faith instead of atheism is more of a selfless reason...not selfish. I want to be with my family in the after life. It would be selfish of me to not try my best to be a good person even if it had nothing to do with faith.

Think about it:

Would you like to err on the side of not believing that God is there?

or

Would you like to err on the side of believing that God is there?


Essentially, when I chose faith over atheism, I chose the latter because I would want to look back at my life, IF there is an afterlife, and see that I made the appropriate choice. If there really isn't an afterlife, it wouldn't matter because no one will be able to tell me I was wrong because I won't exit.

No one can prove that there is no afterlife...ever. Even though with my studies in physics, I could clearly see how our universe was created without needing a God, that still doesn't not prove he doesn't exist.

It doesn't harm me or those around me to live my life with only good faith-based intentions. I do not force my religion on others. I don't go out of my way or even try to find fault with negative religious belief systems, but I am not perfect and sometimes, my logic gets the better of my goals and I find fault with another's belief system. (See thread about the Phelps group getting sued.)


You chose atheism because you find it more logical to err on the side that a God doesn't exit. There is no problem with that. IF God does exist, and you erred on the side of believing he didn't, there is always forgiveness, right? (Which is why I almost chose atheism.)

a lot of the basis for my asking of this question in the first place is my fundamental problem with organized religion. In my opinion, it is the most corrupt system ever. I have no problem with a person having their personal beliefs but when a group of people take the helm of those beliefs and begin spouting things about "if you don't do this, then you're going to be tortured for eternity", it just seems like it is simply a medium for controlling large amounts of people.

Originally posted by Kumar
a lot of the basis for my asking of this question in the first place is my fundamental problem with organized religion. In my opinion, it is the most corrupt system ever. I have no problem with a person having their personal beliefs but when a group of people take the helm of those beliefs and begin spouting things about "if you don't do this, then you're going to be tortured for eternity",...

I do not participate in a religion like that. I agree that religion is very corrupt...I saw this televangelist say to "call now and donate your money to receive forgiveness for your sins." etc. I thought that that was the lamest thing I have ever seen. I will never pay a man/woman to "teach the word of God". I will never ask for forgiveness from another person for MY personal sins.

Originally posted by Kumar
it just seems like it is simply a medium for controlling large amounts of people.

aaaaaannnndddddd....preventing stealing, lying, adultery, and murder is a bad thing? POSITIVE religion is great for keeping order.

Religion is great when you are trying to keep a peaceful people...religion gets out of hand when people use it to do bad things.

Yeah, yeah, religion is peaceful and loving to everyone. Isn't it to be for those that are different?

Originally posted by dadudemon
aaaaaannnndddddd....preventing stealing, lying, adultery, and murder is a bad thing? POSITIVE religion is great for keeping order.

Religion is great when you are trying to keep a peaceful people...religion gets out of hand when people use it to do bad things.

When i say for controlling people, i'm talking about old school catholic church style stuff where they tortured and killed people for "herecy" which was really just a person disagreeing with them...

Originally posted by Kumar
When i say for controlling people, i'm talking about old school catholic church style stuff where they tortured and killed people for "herecy" which was really just a person disagreeing with them...

Though it is and may always be subjective, note how I used the word "positive" in my description of religion.

How is it people can't think past the most primitive aspects of thier brain?

"Human beings cannot fathom nothingness!"

But you just did dumbass, so either

A: You're a lieing bastard. Who just likes to be a dick and make everyone else out to be stupider then you when you yourself don't believe half the shit you say.

B: You've fathomed nothingness thus proving human beings can but choose not to believe in it.

Or C: You've fathomed nothingness and are not human but some kindof mutant or alien or something.



Would it be too outrageous for you peons to possibly comprehend that heaven and hell are not dimensions granteed to us by brownie points or lack thereoff, but a place where spirits reside and build themselves?

Immagine it, Heaven is like a place with very strict border policies. Only ceartain people are allowed in, it's very exclusive. So it's a "paradise" in the sense there's no conflict and there's no dickery. (Presumably)


Everyone else goes to hell. Therefore there's going to be lots of conflict, lots of chaos, and much more dickery. (Again, presumably)

Mankind is really good at complicating matters.

Originally posted by dadudemon
In my religion, even atheists don't go to hell, so I don't share the belief of fear that you expressed above. The reasoning behind my choosing faith instead of atheism is more of a selfless reason...not selfish. I want to be with my family in the after life. It would be selfish of me to not try my best to be a good person even if it had nothing to do with faith.

Think about it:

Would you like to err on the side of not believing that God is there?

or

Would you like to err on the side of believing that God is there?


Essentially, when I chose faith over atheism, I chose the latter because I would want to look back at my life, IF there is an afterlife, and see that I made the appropriate choice. If there really isn't an afterlife, it wouldn't matter because no one will be able to tell me I was wrong because I won't exit.

No one can prove that there is no afterlife...ever. Even though with my studies in physics, I could clearly see how our universe was created without needing a God, that still doesn't not prove he doesn't exist.

It doesn't harm me or those around me to live my life with only good faith-based intentions. I do not force my religion on others. I don't go out of my way or even try to find fault with negative religious belief systems, but I am not perfect and sometimes, my logic gets the better of my goals and I find fault with another's belief system. (See thread about the Phelps group getting sued.)


You chose atheism because you find it more logical to err on the side that a God doesn't exit. There is no problem with that. IF God does exist, and you erred on the side of believing he didn't, there is always forgiveness, right? (Which is why I almost chose atheism.)

Fair enough. You seem to at least have a decent head on your shoulders about the whole thing, so I can't fault your reasons for doing it, though I don't like how you are equating a belief in God with selfless behavior (and non-belief with the opposite). There's nothing inherently immoral about atheism...hell, I feel like I'm probably more moral than many Christians due to the biases they have in place due to their beliefs.

Also, I would again question your criteria for belief in a deity when you yourself admit to being able to explain the creation and existence of the universe as it is without a God. Sure, he might still exist, but there's no logical reason for believing that he does. Your supposedly forgiving God would surely forgive a non-belief in Him, especially since He, in his divine wisdom ( ) is lord over a universe that has no need of him to exist.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Fair enough. You seem to at least have a decent head on your shoulders about the whole thing, so I can't fault your reasons for doing it, though I don't like how you are equating a belief in God with selfless behavior (and non-belief with the opposite). There's nothing inherently immoral about atheism...hell, I feel like I'm probably more moral than many Christians due to the biases they have in place due to their beliefs.

I equate it to a selfless behavior for the most part. I do believe in a heaven that has entry prerequisites. Since I believe in that heaven, I want to be there with my family after I die. It would be selfish of me to not try my best to make it there with them. The selfish part is the exact same reason it is selfless...I want to be there with them when I die.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Also, I would again question your criteria for belief in a deity when you yourself admit to being able to explain the creation and existence of the universe as it is without a God. Sure, he might still exist, but there's no logical reason for believing that he does. Your supposedly forgiving God would surely forgive a non-belief in Him, especially since He, in his divine wisdom ( ) is lord over a universe that has no need of him to exist.

The only thing it does is explains the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy..but it still does not explain the "why" for the universe. (Being logical, no religious person can just throw stuff down my throat and expect me to believe it.) The "whys" are why I continue to believe in a Creating Deity.

To address the forgiving portion you brought up.

Yes, he would forgive me. However, in my faith, I believe that there is more than one degree of happiness to obtain in heaven.

I don't want to make this a religion debate because I really do love the philosophy part of this.

Well, it's about heaven/hell, so it naturally intersects with religion some.

And creating a "why" for the universe is pretty much the same as creating a god or gods (which humans have done throughout their history). Both are subjective and created by the individual, not set forth by an omnipotent deity. The universe itself is inherently without meaning, until we bring meaning to it for ourselves.

I can appreciate your desire to realize a heaven-state at the end of life, I just think that it's still not on solid reasoning other than a vague "what if" scenario. There's as good a chance that you're wrong as there is that you're right, so enjoying family/friends/etc. in the moment is just as important as planning to spend eternity with them.

Originally posted by Kumar
i think my opinion is fairly obvious at this point. Thoughts?

No, they are the carat and stick...

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Well, it's about heaven/hell, so it naturally intersects with religion some.

I am talking about focusing on specific religions. I want to avoid that because that may necessitate the need to move this thread.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
And creating a "why" for the universe is pretty much the same as creating a god or gods (which humans have done throughout their history). Both are subjective and created by the individual, not set forth by an omnipotent deity.

BINGO!

Originally posted by DigiMark007
The universe itself is inherently without meaning, until we bring meaning to it for ourselves.

Strangely, I agree. I really can't find a way to logically argue with a counterpoint. Does that mean that God exists because there is no meaning to the universe without God? Maybe...but it is still a faith based perspective and not concrete science.

Here is a something interesting that I thought about while doing cardio yesterday...

It takes a form of faith to believe in concrete laws in science. There are always slim chances that even our scientific laws are not technically able to be laws. (Look up the definition of "law" as it is used in science to gain a grasp of what I mean...if necessary.)

For instance, when you drop a stone from 10 meters above sea level, it is a scientific law that it will fall at 9.8 meters a second a second. (no, I did not stutter.) However, there are several probabilities that would prevent the stone from falling. A sudden strong gust of wind to cause it to fall slower. A bird could prevent it from falling. A person around you could prevent it from falling all the way. Even the very stability of universe's physics could collapse and everything would cease to exist as we know it. (A very very very slim probability that our universe would become unstable and collapse again, but still a possability right now.)

My point is, even 100% certainty is not 100% certainty. You have faith that the rock will fall at 9.8 meters a second a second by subconsciously believing that nothing could possibly change that fact. In the same vein, I subconsciously know that nothing could change the fact that the Universe was created by a God. It is a fact for me, more true than the laws of physics he created. In religion, they call that a sure knowledge...which something past just plain faith. (Indeed, you could apply the idea of "a sure knowledge" to our physics example to.) Basically, a sure knowledge is just faith in a stronger form.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I can appreciate your desire to realize a heaven-state at the end of life, I just think that it's still not on solid reasoning other than a vague "what if" scenario. There's as good a chance that you're wrong as there is that you're right, so enjoying family/friends/etc. in the moment is just as important as planning to spend eternity with them.

Part of obtaining my heaven IS enjoying "family/friends/etc." In my religion, to not do that would technically be a sin. (Not showing appreciation to the things you have been blessed with.)

See, nothing I believe (and nothing most skeptics believe) is 100%, because that's a dogma, like religion. Our opinion shifts as our knowledge grows. Certain things, like physcial laws you mentioned, can be treated as facts. But they are provisional facts, not unchanging edicts that no force could ever change.

It honestly seems like a double standard, because you were making the point that you can't prove a negative earlier. Within subjective reality, literally nothing can be proven 100%, making your "sure knowledge" a little silly.

That kind of faith is basicaqlly saying "Well, it's faith, so I don't care how good your argument is, or how little logic I'm basing my opinion on. It's faith, so I know it's true and nothing I ever encounter will change it." Irrational stubbornness, and an attempt to hide from rational debate behind an impenetrable wall of knowledge that is as concrete as it is baseless.

Don't constru this as a personal attack, because it isn't. I like you, and you seem to be much more civil than most who attempt to describe their beliefs here. But I simply can't agree with your reasoning, so that's what I'm critiquing...it's a good discussion at least.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Strangely, I agree. I really can't find a way to logically argue with a counterpoint. Does that mean that God exists because there is no meaning to the universe without God? Maybe...but it is still a faith based perspective and not concrete science.

No, it doesn't mean that God exists because of this. God is a human-made construct. And many peoples' meanings have nothing to do with a creator or a deity. Your meaning, and others', might be God....but that doesn't make him real except as a thought in your mind, nor does it make heaven or hell real. That borders on Aquinas' ridiculous "a priori" argument that posits if you can imagine a perfect creator, he must exist.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
It honestly seems like a double standard, because you were making the point that you can't prove a negative earlier. Within subjective reality, literally nothing can be proven 100%, making your "sure knowledge" a little silly.



That kind of faith is basicaqlly saying "Well, it's faith, so I don't care how good your argument is, or how little logic I'm basing my opinion on. It's faith, so I know it's true and nothing I ever encounter will change it." Irrational stubbornness, and an attempt to hide from rational debate behind an impenetrable wall of knowledge that is as concrete as it is baseless..

Sort of.

Unlike others who believe in God, I believe in evolution. I believe God made everything the way it was made as shown by science...not absurd instantaneous creation. The typical creationist theory sounds crude and insulting to the God that they worship as being all knowing and all mighty.

My sure knowledge comes from personal experiences that I would equate to an empirical knowledge which is a prerequisite in my mind to believe things. I know that religious faith isn't supposed to be that way, but it is with me.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Don't constru this as a personal attack, because it isn't. I like you, and you seem to be much more civil than most who attempt to describe their beliefs here. But I simply can't agree with your reasoning, so that's what I'm critiquing...it's a good discussion at least.

HAHA...far from being a personal attack. These things should ALWAYS be talked about. With a world running around with a bunch of judgemental religious crazies, discussions like this should provide a symbiotic center to the extreme polars on religion.

My workout partner, who professes to not be an atheist because atheism is still a theism, debates these types of things with me all the time.



Originally posted by DigiMark007
No, it doesn't mean that God exists because of this. God is a human-made construct. And many peoples' meanings have nothing to do with a creator or a deity. Your meaning, and others', might be God....but that doesn't make him real except as a thought in your mind, nor does it make heaven or hell real. That borders on Aquinas' ridiculous "a priori" argument that posits if you can imagine a perfect creator, he must exist.

I probably didn't word that right. I am saying that the Universe is hard to make sense of without deity...meaning that one could say that that, in and of itself, is proof of deity and another could say it is evidence of our current scientific ignorance.

Originally posted by dadudemon
...I probably didn't word that right. I am saying that the Universe is hard to make sense of without deity...meaning that one could say that that, in and of itself, is proof of deity and another could say it is evidence of our current scientific ignorance.

So, are you saying that ignorance is proof of a god?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, are you saying that ignorance is proof of a god?

No, I am saying that there are two points of view. One says that the whys of the universe are explained by Deity and another point of view says we are just scientifically ignorant and we just have to grow in our knowledge to eliminate the need for a God. (Some people have already done the latter. I have not, as you can read in my previous posts.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, I am saying that there are two points of view. One says that the whys of the universe are explained by Deity and another point of view says we are just scientifically ignorant and we just have to grow in our knowledge to eliminate the need for a God. (Some people have already done the latter. I have not, as you can read in my previous posts.)

But there are more then two point of view...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But there are more then two point of view...

Obviously. But they are not points of view that I consider.

Originally posted by Captain King
How is it people can't think past the most primitive aspects of thier brain?

"Human beings cannot fathom nothingness!"

But you just did dumbass, so either

A: You're a lieing bastard. Who just likes to be a dick and make everyone else out to be stupider then you when you yourself don't believe half the shit you say.

B: You've fathomed nothingness thus proving human beings can but choose not to believe in it.

Or C: You've fathomed nothingness and are not human but some kindof mutant or alien or something.



Would it be too outrageous for you peons to possibly comprehend that heaven and hell are not dimensions granteed to us by brownie points or lack thereoff, but a place where spirits reside and build themselves?

Immagine it, Heaven is like a place with very strict border policies. Only ceartain people are allowed in, it's very exclusive. So it's a "paradise" in the sense there's no conflict and there's no dickery. (Presumably)


Everyone else goes to hell. Therefore there's going to be lots of conflict, lots of chaos, and much more dickery. (Again, presumably)

wow... ok first of all, that was the most unnecessarily combative and angry statement i have ever heard. That fact alone shows that you probably don't have a very solid point and have to mask your lack of evidence with anger and "in-your-face" tactics.
Secondly, simply mentioning the word "nothingness" isn't even remotely similar to comprehending the concept.

this is a topic for simple discussion, not attacks on people for questions they pose. That's just immature.

learn to play noob...

Originally posted by dadudemon
Obviously. But they are not points of view that I consider.

If you have not considered all points of view, how can you know if you are right?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Even though I am fairly religious...I agree with the above statement. Despite this fact, I chose to believe in a God, just in case there really is some sort of transcendent reality after this life.

I can easily see the absurdities of religion and how they are really immature to hold.

Do you guys understand why I still partake in religion or is my point lost in my inarticulateness?


I can relate


I went from Catholic to Agnostic to Atheist to Buddhist to Buddhist Agnostic to Buddhist Theist....my beleifs are the cumulation of certain studies and findings from research and experience.

As of now I beleive several things:

1) God is the Universe- male and female, all things good and bad

2) Heaven and Hell do exist, but on Earth, not in another unexplainable plane, and they exist as a result of our choices

3) God's Law is the Law of Attraction (a simplified version, but I can explain that later)

4) I also beleive in a cycle of Life and Death

5) Last, but not least, I beleive the Mind determines the state of the body. kind of the whole "mind over matter" thing. I am much more careful what I think and say, because I used to beleive my thoughts and words had less consequences than my actions, but now I beleive that thoughts and words are equal to actions.




Long story as to how I came to those conclusions....but the point is, once where I ridiculed all things religious, I now understand and respect why you came up to your own personal conclusion.


There is nothing wrong with believing in God, and everything right with trying to be a good person

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you have not considered all points of view, how can you know if you are right?

I never said that I have never considered them...just that I don't consider them...meaning I have discarded any other specifics and narrowed it down to two. Deity in any form versus, no deity in any form...that is what I have narrowed it down to.

(When I say deity, I really mean any form of Transcendent Reality i.e. reincarnation, etc...I basically believe that the Universe was intelligently created by something bigger than my puny reality.)

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I can relate


I went from Catholic to Agnostic to Atheist to Buddhist to Buddhist Agnostic to Buddhist Theist....my beleifs are the cumulation of certain studies and findings from research and experience.

As of now I beleive several things:

1) God is the Universe- male and female, all things good and bad

2) Heaven and Hell do exist, but on Earth, not in another unexplainable plane, and they exist as a result of our choices

3) God's Law is the Law of Attraction (a simplified version, but I can explain that later)

4) I also beleive in a cycle of Life and Death

5) Last, but not least, I beleive the Mind determines the state of the body. kind of the whole "mind over matter" thing. I am much more careful what I think and say, because I used to beleive my thoughts and words had less consequences than my actions, but now I beleive that thoughts and words are equal to actions.




Long story as to how I came to those conclusions....but the point is, once where I ridiculed all things religious, I now understand and respect why you came up to your own personal conclusion.


There is nothing wrong with believing in God, and everything right with trying to be a good person


Unfortunately, the rest of the world isn't like all of us in this thread. If it was, we really wouldn't have problems.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I never said that I have never considered them...just that I don't consider them...meaning I have discarded any other specifics and narrowed it down to two. Deity in any form versus, no deity in any form...that is what I have narrowed it down to.

(When I say deity, I really mean any form of Transcendent Reality i.e. reincarnation, etc...I basically believe that the Universe was intelligently created by something bigger than my puny reality.)

How you considered that the universe was NOT created?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Unfortunately, the rest of the world isn't like all of us in this thread. If it was, we really wouldn't have problems.


The problem is we naturally feel a need to blame someone us for our own suffering/problems.

Once we decide to take responsibility for our own lives, the good and the bad, then we can stop judging and blaming others. When we recognize a belief or practice that another person has, which does not coincide with our own, it becomes hard to respect it. It takes maturity to do so.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How you considered that the universe was NOT created?



I don't think that matters. He can beleive what he wants, as long as he does not try to use his beleif to hurt or oppress others.


The way we decide to treat each other is far more important than wondoring how the Universe came to be.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I don't think that matters. He can beleive what he wants, as long as he does not try to use his beleif to hurt or oppress others.


The way we decide to treat each other is far more important than wondoring how the Universe came to be.

Spoiler.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Spoiler.


LOL


Somehow, I knew this was what you already know.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How you considered that the universe was NOT created?

See my previous posts in this thread for the answer for that question.

Originally posted by dadudemon
See my previous posts in this thread for the answer for that question.

If you are going to referee to a previous post, please place a link to it. I'm not going to go and back-read something that may not be identifiable as an answer to my question.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you are going to referee to a previous post, please place a link to it. I'm not going to go and back-read something that may not be identifiable as an answer to my question.

I figured that if you are going to participate in this dicusion, I shouldn't have to repeat myself.

My bad.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I figured that if you are going to participate in this dicusion, I shouldn't have to repeat myself.

My bad.

I did not say repeat: I said give link. There is a difference.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I did not say repeat: I said give link. There is a difference.

Here you go...and no...no link...I had to repeat myself.

Originally posted by dadudemon
In my religion, even atheists don't go to hell, so I don't share the belief of fear that you expressed above. The reasoning behind my choosing faith instead of atheism is more of a selfless reason...not selfish. I want to be with my family in the after life. It would be selfish of me to not try my best to be a good person even if it had nothing to do with faith.

Think about it:

Would you like to err on the side of not believing that God is there?

or

Would you like to err on the side of believing that God is there?


Essentially, when I chose faith over atheism, I chose the latter because I would want to look back at my life, IF there is an afterlife, and see that I made the appropriate choice. If there really isn't an afterlife, it wouldn't matter because no one will be able to tell me I was wrong because I won't exit.

No one can prove that there is no afterlife...ever. Even though with my studies in physics, I could clearly see how our universe was created without needing a God, that still doesn't not prove he doesn't exist.

It doesn't harm me or those around me to live my life with only good faith-based intentions. I do not force my religion on others. I don't go out of my way or even try to find fault with negative religious belief systems, but I am not perfect and sometimes, my logic gets the better of my goals and I find fault with another's belief system. (See thread about the Phelps group getting sued.)


You chose atheism because you find it more logical to err on the side that a God doesn't exit. There is no problem with that. IF God does exist, and you erred on the side of believing he didn't, there is always forgiveness, right? (Which is why I almost chose atheism.)

Originally posted by Kumar
i think my opinion is fairly obvious at this point. Thoughts?

I don't think "human" is the correct word for the thread title; not all religons or societies belive in Heaven and Hell.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Here you go...and no...no link...I had to repeat myself.

Thanks, but that did not answer my question.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Have you considered that the universe was NOT created?

When I said NOT created, I meant not created by any means: not by a god or by natural means. What if the universe is eternal? The big bang was just one event in an endless number of events.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Thanks, but that did not answer my question.



When I said NOT created, I meant not created by any means: not by a god or by natural means. What if the universe is eternal? The big bang was just one event in an endless number of events.

I did answer that question in that post. If you are not familiar with that theory, why bother? It is really complex and irritatingly long to explain...maybe I can find a link on it. Basically, you are wanting to put in a position where I have to admit that I closed minded. I am not closed minded and I can't be put into that position.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I did answer that question in that post. If you are not familiar with that theory, why bother? It is really complex and irritatingly long to explain...maybe I can find a link on it. Basically, you are wanting to put in a position where I have to admit that I closed minded. I am not closed minded and I can't be put into that position.

It's not complicated, and I never said you were closed minded.

Please don't say what my intent is without asking me first.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It's not complicated, and I never said you were closed minded.

Please don't say what my intent is without asking me first.

In his defense, you often don't say much and your meaning isn't always obvious, even though your point is usually sound enough. Brevity is the soul of wit, as they say, but it can lead to confusion as well.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It's not complicated, and I never said you were closed minded.

Please don't say what my intent is without asking me first.

You need to meditate on the things we have talked about before you post next.

I forgive you of you mistake. Just don't let it happen again.

What do you mean by nothingness? By heaven and hell? While I'm tempted to go into the possible transcendent aspects of this, even just psychologically, I am intrigued by the question. For if "Nothingness" is the absence of sensory input, then the brain will create its own input. And whether "Heaven" or "Hell" materializes I would say depends on what's going on in that person's unconscious.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You thought it was incomplete because you didn't read my long ass diatribe. Also, I was joking in my last post...I was trying to lighten the mood because it was getting too serious between us.



You seem to do just fine though; whatever you are doing seems to be working.

Thank you.

I didn't mean it as a personal slight, and yes you do a fine job. It can just be hard to follow threads when posts and discussion points vary wildly, and people are constantly referring to different things. Helps to keep in mind, is all.

if shaky has dyslexia than beethoven is a terrible composer!

Originally posted by Kumar
i think my opinion is fairly obvious at this point. Thoughts?

I think every human being can comprehend nothingness, they just dont want to. Heaven and hell is the result of something much greater than the lack of being able to comprehend something. Although, i believe in heaven and hell. I am willing to acknowledge i dont know anything. I dont know if there is a heaven and hell. It is very possible there is not. If there is no relevance to religion. Then Heaven and hell is the result of control and not humanities inability to comprehend nothingness. Humans can find a way to relate to anything and find ways to understand foriegn aspects of life.

We can't comprehend nothingness because, imo it doesn't exist.
There is "something" everywhere.

Originally posted by Sirius77
We can't comprehend nothingness because, imo it doesn't exist.
There is "something" everywhere.

But nothingness by definition would not exist.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But nothingness by definition would not exist.

The existence of nothing is still something....therefore nothing is something therefore nothing can be nothing.

Even if it means that nothing recognizes it as nothing, nothing is still something.

Nothing fails.

Also, if nothing existed for an eternity, no one would be around to say that it existed for eternity. If something could instantly appear in that nothingness...but still not break the rules of nothingness, meaning, it has a timeline perpendicular and infinitely small to the reality of nothingness, nothingness wouldn't be interrupted...indeed, an infinite number of perpendicular timelines could exist as far as nothingness's eternal perspective is concerned. In fact, an infinite numver of timelines could extend, perpendicular, but parallel to the nothingness timeline. Furthermore and infinite number of timelines could exist on one of the infinite timelines that exists on one of the time lines that exists on the nothingness time line. It could go on to an infinite number of timelines for each time lines...sort of like a fractal. Whose to say the dimensional limitations of the time lines? Do they have to be confined to the 1d space I have defined? NO!!! We could compound this nothingness by including the presence of an 11 dimensional set of physics.

Well, on topic: Are heaven and hell effects of this incomprehension? No, I don't really think so, they may be more like wish of fulfillment than anything else, that or maybe someone long time ago knew something and then mutilate it in heaven or hell, who knows.

I like the idea of nothingness, I like the logical void that it creates around death because men are supposed to think that nothing happens after death because the corpse doesn't move. "Look, it doesn't move, it must be pinned into nothingness!" Man, I don't even know how can scientists call that. I suppose that you define life around the ability to perceive things, to remember and all those things mortal. I think that the concept of nothingness is just the idea of men not knowing how to define existence without perception. After dying you lose the physical means to feel and to think, then even if you are still there you are plunged into nothingness, the nothingness of not feeling and never thinking again.

I think that the concept of nothingness is easy, imagine you cannot feel anything at all, and give yourself the added bonus of not being able to remember or make reason of your emptiness. I mean, really I don't see that as something to be scared off, at the end nothing happens. People are just clingy to their feelings thats all.

I am an Atheist once you die that is it, nothing after that, so you best make the most of what you have, and do what you can while you have the chance, make the most of life and everyday, your only here once and that's a fact.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The existence of nothing is still something....therefore nothing is something therefore nothing can be nothing.

Even if it means that nothing recognizes it as nothing, nothing is still something.

Nothing fails.

Also, if nothing existed for an eternity, no one would be around to say that it existed for eternity. If something could instantly appear in that nothingness...but still not break the rules of nothingness, meaning, it has a timeline perpendicular and infinitely small to the reality of nothingness, nothingness wouldn't be interrupted...indeed, an infinite number of perpendicular timelines could exist as far as nothingness's eternal perspective is concerned. In fact, an infinite numver of timelines could extend, perpendicular, but parallel to the nothingness timeline. Furthermore and infinite number of timelines could exist on one of the infinite timelines that exists on one of the time lines that exists on the nothingness time line. It could go on to an infinite number of timelines for each time lines...sort of like a fractal. Whose to say the dimensional limitations of the time lines? Do they have to be confined to the 1d space I have defined? NO!!! We could compound this nothingness by including the presence of an 11 dimensional set of physics.

Nothingness would not have time or space. Nothingness would not have dimensions or physics. Nothingness would not have anything.

why not? Just the word, NOTHING, has something in it.

Originally posted by debbiejo
why not? Just the word, NOTHING, has something in it.

Originally posted by Neo Darkhalen
I am an Atheist once you die that is it, nothing after that, so you best make the most of what you have, and do what you can while you have the chance, make the most of life and everyday, your only here once and that's a fact.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I see it in my reality, dont you??

Originally posted by Mindship
What do you mean by nothingness? By heaven and hell? While I'm tempted to go into the possible transcendent aspects of this, even just psychologically, I am intrigued by the question. For if "Nothingness" is the absence of sensory input, then the brain will create its own input. And whether "Heaven" or "Hell" materializes I would say depends on what's going on in that person's unconscious.

thats a cool idea. I thought i heard somewhere, a theory about afterlife saying something like, as you are dying, your brain begins to go into a dream like sequence. Like, you may experience some sort of afterlife but it is a dream type experience and, like dreams, it happens extremely fast relative to normal time. That is, you experience what seems like a very long time but really its just the time between when you lose conciousness before you die and when your brain actually ceases to function.

What your desires............

Along with them and imagination, they will make the real happen. The first step in creation is thought.........take care in your thoughts.

Thoughts = intentions = actions= equal manifestations.....

something happens when you die, but you are never you after you die. That's the definition of die.

Once you die, you die end of story, case closed...............

maybe heaven n hell r merely creations to compound man's need 2 believe that good deeds n livin a prescribed good life has it's reward while bad deeds don't go unpunished

Originally posted by Kumar
its true, it doesn't hurt to live as a good person. However, i'm sceptical when you say you can comprehend nothingness. Can you really or do you just agknowledge it? Can you really comprehend not existing? Not ever being consious of anything ever again? No thoughts, no sensation, not emotion. Its a tough concept to get one's head around.

We cannot go around with out any emotions, or thoughts, etc that is one of things that makes up. Now, as for the Heaven/Hell thing (not everyone has to agree with me) I believe the exsits, which is why I am doing my very best to be as good and as faithful as I can be.

Peace,
Amanda

Originally posted by Cornlady
We cannot go around with out any emotions, or thoughts, etc that is one of things that makes up. Now, as for the Heaven/Hell thing (not everyone has to agree with me) I believe the exsits, which is why I am doing my very best to be as good and as faithful as I can be.

Peace,
Amanda

Why do you need a threat to be a good person? Can't you be your very best without the threat of a hell?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why do you need a threat to be a good person? Can't you be your very best without the threat of a hell?

Of course, I would be good; even if there was no Hell.

Peace,
Amanda

Originally posted by Cornlady
Of course, I would be good; even if there was no Hell.

Peace,
Amanda

Then why believe in hell?

Hell could not be a nothingness. There is something there. It's not a place of somethingness IMHO, but still is real.

Welcome to hell, it seems that for you who believe in this notion, that no matter what you do you shall go to hell in some way.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The existence of nothing is still something....therefore nothing is something therefore nothing can be nothing.

Even if it means that nothing recognizes it as nothing, nothing is still something.

Nothing fails.

Also, if nothing existed for an eternity, no one would be around to say that it existed for eternity. If something could instantly appear in that nothingness...but still not break the rules of nothingness, meaning, it has a timeline perpendicular and infinitely small to the reality of nothingness, nothingness wouldn't be interrupted...indeed, an infinite number of perpendicular timelines could exist as far as nothingness's eternal perspective is concerned. In fact, an infinite numver of timelines could extend, perpendicular, but parallel to the nothingness timeline. Furthermore and infinite number of timelines could exist on one of the infinite timelines that exists on one of the time lines that exists on the nothingness time line. It could go on to an infinite number of timelines for each time lines...sort of like a fractal. Whose to say the dimensional limitations of the time lines? Do they have to be confined to the 1d space I have defined? NO!!! We could compound this nothingness by including the presence of an 11 dimensional set of physics.

All you have done is to show how unstable nothingness is.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
All you have done is to show how unstable nothingness is.

I have shown the nothing truly doesn't exist...at least from a philosophical all encompassing point of view. One can NEVER be certain that nothing is truly nothing. Since there is no way to test whether I am right or wrong, at this point, that point stands that there is truly not something that can be qualified as perfect nothingness. You can set absolutes or limits to defining what nothing is, but in the end, that is just a restricted perspective.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I have shown the nothing truly doesn't exist...at least from a philosophical all encompassing point of view. One can NEVER be certain that nothing is truly nothing. Since there is no way to test whether I am right or wrong, at this point, that point stands that there is truly not something that can be qualified as perfect nothingness. You can set absolutes or limits to defining what nothing is, but in the end, that is just a restricted perspective.

Nothingness dose not exist. It cannot exist, because if it did, it would be something. All that shows is that nothingness is unstable.

If you took everything in the universe, including space and time, and placed it into a singularity, what would be outside the singularity?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Nothingness dose not exist. It cannot exist, because if it did, it would be something. All that shows is that nothingness is unstable.

If you took everything in the universe, including space and time, and placed it into a singularity, what would be outside the singularity?

Obviously, I different set of governing physics. I WIN!

Originally posted by dadudemon
Obviously, I different set of governing physics. I WIN!

Ok, put those "different set of governing physics" into the singularity also. Now what is outside of the singularity?

A singularity.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
A singularity.

Very good. So, would you say there is no outside of the singularity? In other words, nothingness is outside of the singularity.

No?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ok, put those "different set of governing physics" into the singularity also. Now what is outside of the singularity?

FAIL! physics are different inside a singularity..

Originally posted by dadudemon
FAIL! physics are different inside a singularity..

That does not matter.

The quest is: Why is there something instead of nothing?

The answer is: Nothingness is unstable and always becomes something.

Note: the word "always" suggests time, but time does not exist in nothingness, therefore, always is irrelevant.

A singularity and how the laws of physics work are irrelevant to nothingness.

Nothingness cannot exist. It never has and will never exist. That is the fundamental reason the universe does exist.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That does not matter.

The quest is: Why is there something instead of nothing?

The answer is: Nothingness is unstable and always becomes something.

Note: the word "always" suggests time, but time does not exist in nothingness, therefore, always is irrelevant.

A singularity and how the laws of physics work are irrelevant to nothingness.

Nothingness cannot exist. It never has and will never exist. That is the fundamental reason the universe does exist.

Well, nothing, as you are trying to describe, cannot exist. It would be the lack of a universe, dimension, space, matter, etc. I have no idea how to convey what I mean....but......nothing doesn't exist because there is no way to call something nothing. If you have universe with virtually measurable dimensions and it contains absolutely NOTHING...no uncertainty principles apply....then it is STILL something.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, nothing, as you are trying to describe, cannot exist. It would be the lack of a universe, dimension, space, matter, etc. I have no idea how to convey what I mean....but......nothing doesn't exist because there is no way to call something nothing. If you have universe with virtually measurable dimensions and it contains absolutely NOTHING...no uncertainty principles apply....then it is STILL something.

That is correct, but that is empty not nothing. Nothingness is absolutely unstable and cannot exist.

We are on the same page, but what you are trying to describe is emptiness not nothingness.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is correct, but that is empty not nothing. Nothingness is absolutely unstable and cannot exist.

We are on the same page, but what you are trying to describe is emptiness not nothingness.

no..I was describing some people's definition nothingness. emptiness could be used to describe.

Originally posted by dadudemon
no..I was describing some people's definition nothingness. emptiness could be used to describe.

I wasn't being accusatory.

Nothingness can be difficult to talk about and is often confused with emptiness. On another thread, that was the point I was getting at, while not letting JIA get his, "god made it" in without being challenged.