Was wondering when someone would officially ignite this powder keg, lol. Any time there is talk of life after death and that sort of thing, it quickly degenerates into this. No one's minds ever get changed, all that ends up happening is someone talks about how flawed science is, then immediately that person is proclaimed dumb, wrong, and all religious people are obviously stupid.
Anyways, may as well say my 5 cents while I am at it. I do believe in a God, a heaven, and a hell. Many people I know do not. I don't really try to persuade them one way or the other, although I am really the one with nothing to lose. See if they are right, there is nothing else after this, I'll be just as dead as they are. However, if I am right, it is unlikely they'll be enjoying themselves any.
With that, should try for a nice subject change. The new Battlenet 2.0 is AWESOME! Discuss!
Very good post. I do disagree in some parts though. It's never been my intention to 'convert' anyone to anything. I'm just trying to advocate what the band Bad Religion calls 'Leave mine to me'. A lot of folks seem prone to misunderstanding and lack of knowledge regarding certain terms, which turns the discussion into a poo-flinging fest as sense starts dwindling. All I really want to do is lay down the differences between theïsts, atheïsts and agnostics, which does seem to have helped some people out in the thread earlier. That, and point out to the 'renowned atheïsts' (I'm sure there's some reading this, if Eiviyn doesn't want to count himself to the group) that their point of view is just as stupid as misled as that of the 'religious people' they hate.
Eiviyn asked why I didn't compare creationism to evolution. I didn't because creationism is stupid people abusing the nomer of religion. Religion is what you make of it. One could call me a Christian and not even be completely wrong - I think the bible has a lot of stories that form good metaphors for (everyday) life. As long as you don't take them completely literally and approach the book with common sense, it can be a source of a lot of good stuff. Which is true for basically anything in life.
People here might need to take another look at the definitions of 'theïst', 'atheïst' and 'agnost'. Atheïst 'arguments', Maity, are as unlikely to 'win' as theïst arguments. The funny thing about atheïsm is that for a lot of people, it's exactly the same as theïsm. Theïsts say "God exists" without proof, atheïsts say "God doesn't exist" without proof. They're both argueing a point that cannot be validated through any means we've got right now. Which is where agnosticism comes into play, which is the belief that we cannot prove whether a God exists or not. Or in my specific case, something I'd call 'temporal agnosticism' (there might be an official term for this), which means that I think we cannot, right now, prove whether a God exists or not.
What folks do need to stop doing though, is act as if religion is to science what chaos is to order, or what cold is to warmth. The two don't need to cancel eachother out. They never have. Even Descarted uttered the theory that the universe adheres to rules of physics without denouncing the possibility of a god.
Doubleclick is right, there. In fact, one of the theories of the afterlife is one that incorporates the ideas of a 'field of energy' somewhere in the universe that we all return to after we die. This doesn't have anything to do with a deity or god and is a theory that could in fact well be scientifically provable somewhere in the forseeable future.
With that said, we need to be argueing definitions here first. What classifies as 'significantly meaningful', Rodrigo? If that means "have some kind of impact on the whole universe", then no, that probably wouldn't really be possible for us at the moment without an afterlife. If it means "have impact on other people", then it would be. If it means "fulfilling to yourself", then it'd be possible as well.
Off-topic: I can't stop thinking of when I see the thread title.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Very good post. I do disagree in some parts though. It's never been my intention to 'convert' anyone to anything. I'm just trying to advocate what the band Bad Religion calls 'Leave mine to me'. A lot of folks seem prone to misunderstanding and lack of knowledge regarding certain terms, which turns the discussion into a poo-flinging fest as sense starts dwindling. All I really want to do is lay down the differences between theïsts, atheïsts and agnostics, which does seem to have helped some people out in the thread earlier. That, and point out to the 'renowned atheïsts' (I'm sure there's some reading this, if Eiviyn doesn't want to count himself to the group) that their point of view is just as stupid as misled as that of the 'religious people' they hate.
Eiviyn asked why I didn't compare creationism to evolution. I didn't because creationism is stupid people abusing the nomer of religion. Religion is what you make of it. One could call me a Christian and not even be completely wrong - I think the bible has a lot of stories that form good metaphors for (everyday) life. As long as you don't take them completely literally and approach the book with common sense, it can be a source of a lot of good stuff. Which is true for basically anything in life.
People here might need to take another look at the definitions of 'theïst', 'atheïst' and 'agnost'. Atheïst 'arguments', Maity, are as unlikely to 'win' as theïst arguments. The funny thing about atheïsm is that for a lot of people, it's exactly the same as theïsm. Theïsts say "God exists" without proof, atheïsts say "God doesn't exist" without proof. They're both argueing a point that cannot be validated through any means we've got right now. Which is where agnosticism comes into play, which is the belief that we cannot prove whether a God exists or not. Or in my specific case, something I'd call 'temporal agnosticism' (there might be an official term for this), which means that I think we cannot, right now, prove whether a God exists or not.
What folks do need to stop doing though, is act as if religion is to science what chaos is to order, or what cold is to warmth. The two don't need to cancel eachother out. They never have. Even Descarted uttered the theory that the universe adheres to rules of physics without denouncing the possibility of a god.
@Tolkfan: Go
Doubleclick is right, there. In fact, one of the theories of the afterlife is one that incorporates the ideas of a 'field of energy' somewhere in the universe that we all return to after we die. This doesn't have anything to do with a deity or god and is a theory that could in fact well be scientifically provable somewhere in the forseeable future.
With that said, we need to be argueing definitions here first. What classifies as 'significantly meaningful', Rodrigo? If that means "have some kind of impact on the whole universe", then no, that probably wouldn't really be possible for us at the moment without an afterlife. If it means "have impact on other people", then it would be. If it means "fulfilling to yourself", then it'd be possible as well.
Off-topic: I can't stop thinking of when I see the thread title.