why Religions?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Thu 6 Mar, 2008 07:52 pm
@Wizzy,
"Yeah so imagien a religious free world, where that one group of factions is gone.. To my belives, Hitler couldn't have taken over Germany if the hate for Jews wouldn't have been there, and if there wouldn't have been jews, christians or muslims, it would have been realy hard for him to take power. And even if he would have been able to do it with promises of taking back Germanies pride, he still wouldn't have been able to kill those millions of Jews he did kill because they would have been the same as him or anybody els in Germany, people... That was my point al along with the statement about how religion would be a good thing to get rid of just because people fight about it..."(wizzy)"Couldn't it be that the bible is seen as laws and something to be followed to the death just because it is "fictionalized philosophy" that somebody made a stupid misstake and trying to pass of as something better then the human way of thoughts?(wizzy)

Law in general is almost exactly that, whether they be societal, ethical, etc. Fictionalized philosophy is philosophy. That people "conceive a world with no god" is fictionalized in the same way a "god influenced world" is as well. My point is that you cannot have religion or no religion.

"That all of this bloodshed done in the name of God or Allah or whatever comes from a few small people, with a small acceptence for other people and with big heads? The kind of people that most agree that one shouldn't listen to and follow"
Page 2

Page3

Page4
 
Wizzy
 
Reply Fri 7 Mar, 2008 05:37 am
@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon wrote:
As for Sun Tzu, there are people that look at his teachings in the same way people look to the bible for guidance.

Yeah and probably some who look at "Martha Stewart's Homekeeping Handbook" the same way, that's not my point! There's not churches, no wars, no historical executions, no outlawing new technology or anything to stop progress in the history of time done in the name of Sun Tzu a thousand years after his death, but there have been in the name of Jesus and God!

VideCorSpoon wrote:
"Couldn't it be that the bible is seen as laws and something to be followed to the death just because it is "fictionalized philosophy" that somebody made a stupid misstake and trying to pass of as something better then the human way of thoughts?(wizzy)

Law in general is almost exactly that, whether they be societal, ethical, etc. Fictionalized philosophy is philosophy. That people "conceive a world with no god" is fictionalized in the same way a "god influenced world" is as well. My point is that you cannot have religion or no religion.

Ofcourse laws are like that, not argueing with you on that point, I even agree with you... And that's all because as you said, alot of people need ethical frameworks to funtion with other people because othervise our modern world would fail all together.. But do these people need several? That often don't agree on what is right and wrong? Slavery today is outlawed in the western world and that's ethical and moraly right, right? So how come the bible have several paragraphs that's pro-slavery? Or atleast neutral to the subject? Might it be because it's a moral code of law that's outlived it usefullness?
After reading that article I'm starting to understand what you call religion, well, what I call religion and what I have a problem with is those supernatural beeings he wrote about. And yes, you can have a world without them, if everybody would just doubt their exsistance until they do something new to prove their exsistance...
"My Lord, my Lord! What hast Thou done, lately?" - Woody Allen

VideCorSpoon wrote:

Not saying that killing and wars would stop, ofcourse not it never will... People are hatefull, brutal and agressive creatures and allways will be, that's just the way it is... But when you have a large portion beliving in something as a "god", can't that phrase "god told me so" be missused to rally people towards going to war and making them leave out their reasoning ablility we have been blessed with and just following because after all, "god told me so"? When people should be getting angry about the desition to go to war, they might accept it because "god told me so", can't they?
And the french revolution where a bad example as that's one of the most justifyed aggressions ever, atleast to my belives.. Alot of people where exploited and treated like dirt so when they had egnouth, blood ran down the streets, and to me, that's understandible...

VideCorSpoon wrote:
BTW. Here that article I promised you. Interested to hear your opinion on it.

Loved it Spoon, great stuff and Buddhism have been one of the few religions I've agreed with to some point since it's not about following an invisible person who decides everything for you without you knowing, it's a theory on how people should interact with eachother, act towards eachother and act to live peacefully instead of the caos controlled by tyrans, it's about acceptence not discrimination, it's a fairly sane way to see the world... Then comes nirvana and so on and fine, if they wish to make empty promises about a afterlife they can, just because they have a sane way of trying to lead their people... Ofcourse this is a little utopian outlook on buddhism, there's alot more then this in there and I don't even know that much.. Know that it's alot about pain and how to stay away from it, as I recall it atleast...
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Fri 7 Mar, 2008 04:13 pm
@Wizzy,
"Yeah and probably some who look at "Martha Stewart's Homekeeping Handbook" the same way, that's not my point! There's not churches, no wars, no historical executions, no outlawing new technology or anything to stop progress in the history of time done in the name of Sun Tzu a thousand years after his death, but there have been in the name of Jesus and God!"

In the name of what Sun Tzu embodies, the concept of war, there is. In the name of war, we fight instead of talk.

"Ofcourse laws are like that, not argueing with you on that point, I even agree with you... And that's all because as you said, alot of people need ethical frameworks to funtion with other people because othervise our modern world would fail all together.. But do these people need several? That often don't agree on what is right and wrong?

Do people need several conflicting ides on right and wrong? That's an excellent point! This creates confusion and factionalization.

Slavery today is outlawed in the western world and that's ethical and moraly right, right? So how come the bible have several paragraphs that's pro-slavery? Or atleast neutral to the subject? Might it be because it's a moral code of law that's outlived it usefullness?After reading that article I'm starting to understand what you call religion, well, what I call religion and what I have a problem with is those supernatural beeings he wrote about. And yes, you can have a world without them, if everybody would just doubt their exsistance until they do something new to prove their exsistance...
"My Lord, my Lord! What hast Thou done, lately?" - Woody Allen


Exactly right!!! Well reasoned! Your thoughts are not unlike the dilemma posed by Descartes and his thoughts on existence.


Not saying that killing and wars would stop, ofcourse not it never will... People are hatefull, brutal and agressive creatures and allways will be, that's just the way it is... But when you have a large portion beliving in something as a "god", can't that phrase "god told me so" be missused to rally people towards going to war and making them leave out their reasoning ablility we have been blessed with and just following because after all, "god told me so"? When people should be getting angry about the desition to go to war, they might accept it because "god told me so", can't they?
And the french revolution where a bad example as that's one of the most justifyed aggressions ever, atleast to my belives.. Alot of people where exploited and treated like dirt so when they had egnouth, blood ran down the streets, and to me, that's understandible...


God does not necessarily equate to "god told me so" You could take god to mean, "that which is not understandable." T play devils advocate, Humans do not understand everything, otherwise we would never have discoveries and innovations. We understand that the universe is immeasurable and ever expanding, but there is always a polar opposite to everything we say with definiteness. There could be something that understands immeasurability. As for the French revolution, that is commonly referred to in history, especially by napoleon, as the "reign of terror." Doesn't seem to ideal to me.

"Loved it Spoon, great stuff and Buddhism have been one of the few religions I've agreed with to some point since it's not about following an invisible person who decides everything for you without you knowing, it's a theory on how people should interact with eachother, act towards eachother and act to live peacefully instead of the caos controlled by tyrans, it's about acceptence not discrimination, it's a fairly sane way to see the world... Then comes nirvana and so on and fine, if they wish to make empty promises about a afterlife they can, just because they have a sane way of trying to lead their people... Ofcourse this is a little utopian outlook on buddhism, there's alot more then this in there and I don't even know that much.. Know that it's alot about pain and how to stay away from it, as I recall it atleast..."
dukha, the pain we suffer in corporeal form striving to achieve release from the "wheel of samsara" or life.
 
Wizzy
 
Reply Fri 7 Mar, 2008 07:07 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon wrote:
In the name of what Sun Tzu embodies, the concept of war, there is. In the name of war, we fight instead of talk.

Yes, in the name of what Sun Tzu embodies there is, but what he embodies is what? War, exacley. He where a general, his mission where to finnish of the enemy as effective as possible but I don't know if you have read the art of war be he also clearifies that the best generals will never be famous because they will never fight.. Even he, the star general of that era said that fighting should be the last resort and I have a hard time beliveing that anybody have said efter the year 500 A.D (1000 years after his death) had to kill somebody in the word of Sun Tzu, as alot of people have done with "god" or "allah" or whatever...

VideCorSpoon wrote:
Do people need several conflicting ides on right and wrong? That's an excellent point! This creates confusion and factionalization.

Yeah so, wouldn't it be easier with one moralcode in a society instead of 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 different? And which should go in first hand? The 2000year old one that's not adjusted to our time OR the new one that changes every other month just to fit the current time?

VideCorSpoon wrote:

Well, yeah but not slavery as in people working against their will 18hours/day without pay just housing and gruel once a day.. If you'd really pull the line a bit between slavery and master you could say that there's just a few select people who are the masters of today can't you?

VideCorSpoon wrote:
Exactly right!!! Well reasoned! Your thoughts are not unlike the dilemma posed by Descartes and his thoughts on existence.

A funny thing about this (as you've done this a few times now) when you compare what I say to earlier famous philosophers is that, I've never read anything from these fellas.. I mean, I know who descartes was but I've never read anything of his works... Might have to do that...

VideCorSpoon wrote:
God does not necessarily equate to "god told me so" You could take god to mean, "that which is not understandable." T play devils advocate, Humans do not understand everything, otherwise we would never have discoveries and innovations. We understand that the universe is immeasurable and ever expanding, but there is always a polar opposite to everything we say with definiteness. There could be something that understands immeasurability. As for the French revolution, that is commonly referred to in history, especially by napoleon, as the "reign of terror." Doesn't seem to ideal to me.

Not saying that it equates to "god told me so" but can't a politician or other leader use it as a excuse or justification towards doing something that seems bad? As you said alot of people need that ethical framework and belive (taking from the article now) that what "God say" is right because he say so, not that it's right before he says so.. If a charismatic person rally people around the phrase (ofcourse, more advanced) "god told me so" and truely belive it, isn't that a sign of how fragile the ethical framework of "religion" is?
And for the "reign of terror", you listen to napoleon on what's right and wrong? Razz
Ofcourse I don't even know that much about the french revolution except that conditions in France before it where much worst then good for the average man.. When a few people exploid the masses, the masses can, will and should revolt and turn the exploiders into dust...


VideCorSpoon wrote:
dukha, the pain we suffer in corporeal form striving to achieve release from the "wheel of samsara" or life.

Yeah I did like it Smile
As I said I don't know that much about buddhism except of what I mentioned, thus I don't know term and ideas in detail... But from what I know, it seems like the most reasonable religion we have at modern times...
 
Candide phil
 
Reply Sun 9 Mar, 2008 08:21 am
@ChemicalRush,
from my experience, Religion serves three main purposes, of which there are sub-types. These 3 main purposes are to explain and allay the fears of death; to explain the world around the believer in terms that aren't so difficult to believe at face value; and to keep human morals (or lack thereof) in check. The reason that religion lives on, besides humanity's constant need of it, is that the leaders of such religious institutions are able to evolve with the times and adapt to new changes, albeit a bit slowly. Churches become community centers; as such they are integral to neighborhoods around the world, and thus no one has any incentive to remove them.

That's my analysis anyway.
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Sun 9 Mar, 2008 10:01 am
@Candide phil,
"A funny thing about this (as you've done this a few times now) when you compare what I say to earlier famous philosophers is that, I've never read anything from these fellas.. I mean, I know who descartes was but I've never read anything of his works... Might have to do that..."(wizzy)"Not saying that it equates to "god told me so" but can't a politician or other leader use it as a excuse or justification towards doing something that seems bad?

So can the mob (the people) who oppose the politician and leader. They could say, "because comrade Marx, Trotsky, or Lenin said so."

As you said alot of people need that ethical framework and belive (taking from the article now) that what "God say" is right because he say so, not that it's right before he says so.. If a charismatic person rally people around the phrase (ofcourse, more advanced) "god told me so" and truely belive it, isn't that a sign of how fragile the ethical framework of "religion" is?

But let me say this. I am a relativist. Everything differs from another because they all have different perspectives. I could not assert that God exists or does not exists, only the affirmation of the rational point. If we break down religions framework, we at the same time are breaking down the anti-religion framework.

And for the "reign of terror", you listen to napoleon on what's right and wrong? Razz
Ofcourse I don't even know that much about the french revolution except that conditions in France before it where much worst then good for the average man.. When a few people exploid the masses, the masses can, will and should revolt and turn the exploiders into dust..."
"from my experience, Religion serves three main purposes, of which there are sub-types. These 3 main purposes are to explain and allay the fears of death; to explain the world around the believer in terms that aren't so difficult to believe at face value; and to keep human morals (or lack thereof) in check. The reason that religion lives on, besides humanity's constant need of it, is that the leaders of such religious institutions are able to evolve with the times and adapt to new changes, albeit a bit slowly. Churches become community centers; as such they are integral to neighborhoods around the world, and thus no one has any incentive to remove them.

That's my analysis anyway."


This is a good point... and further its actually "the" point exactly! Religion quells our existential fears, rationalizes the extended world in understandable terms, and keeps peoples natural instincts in check. I agree. People need it. It may not be the right answer, but it is fundamentally an answer none the less and a needed constant to arrive at higher truths. Too true.
 
Wizzy
 
Reply Sun 9 Mar, 2008 10:24 am
@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon wrote:

Ofcourse the idea of a single moral code is a little out there as it might seem as the better idea in theory, but I agree with you, in reality it probably wouldn't work due to the difference in oppinion between induviduals...
Now you're getting into whole political systems here and all I will say is this: best political systems are where one induvidual never have more power then the next (according to me), this includes the prez having more power then the crack adict... In a utopian world, "direct democracy" as I've come to call it is ideal, when everybody have to vote about every change, be it local, regional or national... Ofcourse, people in one region shouldn't have influence on the next region...

VideCorSpoon wrote:

We could say that only national leaders are truly free, but that might be streaching it too.. There are some crimelords out there that have developed systems for not having to answer to anybody...

VideCorSpoon wrote:

Ofcourse I'm not the first, nobody probably is in any of their thoughts I wasn't trying to say that it's wierd that you compare what I say to other people but that I haven't read anything from them, and if we function alike, I should enjoy their thoughts...

VideCorSpoon wrote:
So can the mob (the people) who oppose the politician and leader. They could say, "because comrade Marx, Trotsky, or Lenin said so."

Well yeah but few people pray to these people and see them as all-migthy, all-knowing and all-pure of heart...

VideCorSpoon wrote:
But let me say this. I am a relativist. Everything differs from another because they all have different perspectives. I could not assert that God exists or does not exists, only the affirmation of the rational point. If we break down religions framework, we at the same time are breaking down the anti-religion framework.

Ofcourse we are, once again: not saying that people should be athiests, I'm probably just as bad if not even more then religious fanatics, I just want people to doubt both sides, beliving in nothing while at the same time doubting that there isn't anything up among the clouds watching, guiding and protectiong you...

VideCorSpoon wrote:
Yup. All of us do. He created the framework for the modern civil code. Things were bad under the Bourbons, but were worse during the reign of terror. The French revolution should not be confused with Napoleons rise to power and quest for order. It was not that simple. Napoleon did not head the revolutionary armies against the king. This revolution is not the same as the British "glorious revolution." The French revolution was confused. People were in such a hurry to depose the king for his injustices that they forgot what to do after. They killed the catholic clergy and ransacked the churches not knowing that they were the basis of their own social system. But hungry people to crazy things.

Yeah that much I do know, that part about them forgetting about asking themselves "what's going to happen after we kill the king?"... Yet I'm wouldn't want to said that the revolution in its own was a bad action... Just that, that whole "angry mob" thing usually doesn't work out for the better...
 
Candide phil
 
Reply Mon 10 Mar, 2008 09:57 am
@benjamin90,
"Ofcourse the idea of a single moral code is a little out there as it might seem as the better idea in theory, but I agree with you, in reality it probably wouldn't work due to the difference in oppinion between induviduals...
Now you're getting into whole political systems here and all I will say is this: best political systems are where one induvidual never have more power then the next (according to me), this includes the prez having more power then the crack adict... In a utopian world, "direct democracy" as I've come to call it is ideal, when everybody have to vote about every change, be it local, regional or national... Ofcourse, people in one region shouldn't have influence on the next region...
"



Neither is a full on democracy a solution either. With so many individuals having their say, they begin to argue, and as the arguing becomes more intense, nothing is done. Also, true democracies have the tendency to vote themselves out of power. Furthermore, historical democracies still had people who were much more powerful than your average joe. The politicians of the day had a tendency to keep their power within their family, as well.

The folly of human thought is that we seek finality; that is, we want a permanent solution to our problems. This is naught to occur though, as human nature does not allow for such solutions. The best man can do is make a society that lasts for a couple thousand years. Past that nigh unattainable goal, all modern societies are doomed to failure some day. Sometime from now, the United States will be anarchy. The UK may be Communist, and so on and so forth. My point is that things change, so we build plans for durability, not forever.
 
Wizzy
 
Reply Mon 10 Mar, 2008 12:38 pm
@Candide phil,
Candide wrote:
Neither is a full on democracy a solution either. With so many individuals having their say, they begin to argue, and as the arguing becomes more intense, nothing is done. Also, true democracies have the tendency to vote themselves out of power. Furthermore, historical democracies still had people who were much more powerful than your average joe. The politicians of the day had a tendency to keep their power within their family, as well.

The folly of human thought is that we seek finality; that is, we want a permanent solution to our problems. This is naught to occur though, as human nature does not allow for such solutions. The best man can do is make a society that lasts for a couple thousand years. Past that nigh unattainable goal, all modern societies are doomed to failure some day. Sometime from now, the United States will be anarchy. The UK may be Communist, and so on and so forth. My point is that things change, so we build plans for durability, not forever.

Well said and: ofcourse
Democracy is a fragile system as it allows people to corrupt it, but also to throw over a system by revolt or a military coup isn't as hard as one might think, especially not when people get angry about a certain subject like war or unjustice.. If egnouth people join together for a single goal, odds are that they'll more then they gain...

But also the ideas and oppinions change, in a system where people have it good, they want the country to do good and where the country's doing good, the people want to have it good (democracy/communism as a example), but what the hell? Are we going to stop this? ofcourse not, it's our nature, we want what we don't have... What I was saying was that a "direct democracy" is probably the best system when it comes to making the most people happy, as it's the majority that decides... Ofcourse, this could also lead to discrimination but you should have laws that protects minorities from that, ofcourse, laws have to be decided by voting and the masses have to want that law right? So there's a bit of a paradox here but say that you where to create it from a allready exsisting government, then it should function shouldn't it? Utopian ofcourse, but still it might work out in reality too Wink
 
Wizzy
 
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2008 03:09 am
aureliano wrote:
For years I thought I am an atheist but I realized I was wrong. Although I couldn't find myself in any of religions known to me, I realized I wasn't an atheist as well...

God is a part of an atheist's life, weather we like it or not. An atheist may exclude God from him/herself but cannot exclude people he or she lives with. And they, or some of them, bring God with them...

Atheists are dear to me, they do not accept things for granted, they search for answers, and most of the atheists I knew were very intelligent people.

But do the real atheists exist?

Isn't the fear there equal for believers and atheists?

Fear reminded me of how small I am and how great everything in nature, on this Earth is. Did I believe ever or was I confused?

Today, I am an (a)gnostic/believer. I am God's creature, God's person. Although I cannot accept any known religion to be mine, I accept all people. Atheists, Christians, Buddhists, Jewish, Muslims, Zoroastrians... all. I wish we all have one church together and we were not wolves to others...

No I don't belive the fear is the same for everybody... Atleast not for me..

I used to fear death, I was terrified of the fact that one day I would die, and everything would go dark and nothing more... That scared me sleepless..

Then one day I realized that if I can't do anything to stop it, why should I be afraid of it? So now I have accepted my mortality, that one day I will die... Just as terminally ill people, i went trough the five stages, only that in the bargening one where a beliver would offer god this and that to get to live, I begged him to be real... After I had reached "acceptence", I realized that I don't belive in god, as I did before...

And today I frequently show that I truely isn't afraid of death or what comes afterwards as I'm the one that will stop a drug addict while robbing someone or something like that, when normal people just keep walking in fear of their own lives, I'm the one that steps up the the plate...

So I don't know, it could just be somekind of deathwish or something from my part or maybe the fact of the matter is that I'm not a belive, because I'm not afraid of what I don't know.. yet...
 
SantaMonica1369
 
Reply Thu 27 Mar, 2008 07:10 pm
@benjamin90,
I'm an athiest...and have huge problems with keeping motivated. I'm really into horseback riding, and I can honestly say that's the only thing that keeps me bothering to go to school every day. A lot of life is just...despair. If there's nothing after this then nothing matters, right? I'd find something and use it as a reason to gain motivation...and if that fails...well, I'm not a good one to ask.

People use religion to answer their questions with a simple one size fits all answer...and it gives them something to hope for. As previously said, a lot of it stems from fear. I have yet to see valid proof of a God or supreme being existing though...
 
Wizzy
 
Reply Fri 28 Mar, 2008 05:24 am
@SantaMonica1369,
SantaMonica1369 wrote:
I'm an athiest...and have huge problems with keeping motivated. I'm really into horseback riding, and I can honestly say that's the only thing that keeps me bothering to go to school every day. A lot of life is just...despair. If there's nothing after this then nothing matters, right? I'd find something and use it as a reason to gain motivation...and if that fails...well, I'm not a good one to ask.

People use religion to answer their questions with a simple one size fits all answer...and it gives them something to hope for. As previously said, a lot of it stems from fear. I have yet to see valid proof of a God or supreme being existing though...

Well said Monica and I loved the "one size fits all answer" line, cracked me up a little!

Anyway you seem to be fairly depressed due to the fact that you realize that there's no afterlife. And I can understand how you can feel that way.

But as a fellow Athiest, I feel that it's my duty to share in what keeps me motivated because maybe, knowing how other people with the same dissbelieves keeps themselves motivated can help you stay motivated to live in this world.

My motivation is simply that I refuse to go out like a sucker, to simplify it. As Jack Nicholson says in The Departed "I don't want to be a product of my enviorment, I want my enviorment to be a product of me", that's the motivation I have and the goal I seek. Simply to thouch the world, by good or by evil is less important, and how I effect it doesn't matter to me atleast. If it can be by the means of Sokrates, great! If it will be by the means of Shakespear, fine! If it have to be by the means of Hitler, so be it. I don't know how much this helps you but my point is: set up a goal for your self and let nothing stand in your way to get there. You only have one life as an athiest, make it worth remembering for the comming generations.

Hope I helped a little atleast Smile
 
SantaMonica1369
 
Reply Sat 29 Mar, 2008 05:51 pm
@Wizzy,
Wizzy wrote:
Well said Monica and I loved the "one size fits all answer" line, cracked me up a little!

Anyway you seem to be fairly depressed due to the fact that you realize that there's no afterlife. And I can understand how you can feel that way.

But as a fellow Athiest, I feel that it's my duty to share in what keeps me motivated because maybe, knowing how other people with the same dissbelieves keeps themselves motivated can help you stay motivated to live in this world.

My motivation is simply that I refuse to go out like a sucker, to simplify it. As Jack Nicholson says in The Departed "I don't want to be a product of my enviorment, I want my enviorment to be a product of me", that's the motivation I have and the goal I seek. Simply to thouch the world, by good or by evil is less important, and how I effect it doesn't matter to me atleast. If it can be by the means of Sokrates, great! If it will be by the means of Shakespear, fine! If it have to be by the means of Hitler, so be it. I don't know how much this helps you but my point is: set up a goal for your self and let nothing stand in your way to get there. You only have one life as an athiest, make it worth remembering for the comming generations.

Hope I helped a little atleast Smile




That did help...and it's a good point. It certainly put me in a less...despairing? mood. Smile
 
Dustin phil
 
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2008 09:18 am
@Wizzy,
Wizzy wrote:
Well said Monica and I loved the "one size fits all answer" line, cracked me up a little!

Anyway you seem to be fairly depressed due to the fact that you realize that there's no afterlife. And I can understand how you can feel that way.

But as a fellow Athiest, I feel that it's my duty to share in what keeps me motivated because maybe, knowing how other people with the same dissbelieves keeps themselves motivated can help you stay motivated to live in this world.

My motivation is simply that I refuse to go out like a sucker, to simplify it. As Jack Nicholson says in The Departed "I don't want to be a product of my enviorment, I want my enviorment to be a product of me", that's the motivation I have and the goal I seek. Simply to thouch the world, by good or by evil is less important, and how I effect it doesn't matter to me atleast. If it can be by the means of Sokrates, great! If it will be by the means of Shakespear, fine! If it have to be by the means of Hitler, so be it. I don't know how much this helps you but my point is: set up a goal for your self and let nothing stand in your way to get there. You only have one life as an athiest, make it worth remembering for the comming generations.

Hope I helped a little atleast Smile


SantaMonica1369 wrote:
I'm an athiest...and have huge problems with keeping motivated. I'm really into horseback riding, and I can honestly say that's the only thing that keeps me bothering to go to school every day. A lot of life is just...despair. If there's nothing after this then nothing matters, right? I'd find something and use it as a reason to gain motivation...and if that fails...well, I'm not a good one to ask.

People use religion to answer their questions with a simple one size fits all answer...and it gives them something to hope for. As previously said, a lot of it stems from fear. I have yet to see valid proof of a God or supreme being existing though...


Why are you both atheists, and what kind of proof are you looking for?
 
Wizzy
 
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2008 11:23 am
@Dustin phil,
Dustin wrote:
Why are you both atheists, and what kind of proof are you looking for?

Well, I'm an atheist because I have yet to see any proof of why there should be a god or higher power.. You have to doubt everything until you see some proof don't you? And what proof is there really? A old book? That's it?

What kind of evidence doesn't matter, a lightning bolt acctually striking down somebody who have just killed, raped, robber etc. somebody would do fine for me, especially if it came out of a clear sky.. Or even something smaller like acctually seeing "karma" work in real life, outside of [My name is Earl]... Or maybe hearing him speak?
ANYTHING that points towards a all-mighty creature will convince me, but as there's no such evidence known, why does even the idea exsist really? It's not a theory unless it's based on evidence, thus any religion known to man can't be called a theory and the inteligentdesign or creationism "theorys" isn't really theorys as there's no known PROOF to back them up. Thus I'm just saying, why should ANYBODY belive in a god?

In the words of Woody Allen:
My Lord, my Lord! What hast Thou done, lately?
 
SantaMonica1369
 
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2008 04:34 pm
@Dustin phil,
Dustin wrote:
Why are you both atheists, and what kind of proof are you looking for?



I just don't see any proof in God. Basically what everyone else says. I don't see evidence of it, so I don't believe in it. I also in a way can't believe anyone like "God" would let the world be in this sorry state of affairs. And when I was little and was quite a christian, God didn't help me then.
 
Justin
 
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2008 06:52 pm
@SantaMonica1369,
SantaMonica1369 wrote:
I'm an athiest...and have huge problems with keeping motivated. I'm really into horseback riding, and I can honestly say that's the only thing that keeps me bothering to go to school every day. A lot of life is just...despair. If there's nothing after this then nothing matters, right? I'd find something and use it as a reason to gain motivation...and if that fails...well, I'm not a good one to ask.

People use religion to answer their questions with a simple one size fits all answer...and it gives them something to hope for. As previously said, a lot of it stems from fear. I have yet to see valid proof of a God or supreme being existing though...

One way to look at it is not in despair. Your life will be that which you create it to be. The God described in Christianity is a superbeing separate from yourself. The truth is, you are a creating being. In that you will create your life during this time. You will create despair or love or many other things. That is solely on you. There is no being out there that is going to step in and do it for you.

So make up your mind to get out of despair... and guess what! Every single day, the sun will rise in the east and set in the west. No matter how cloudy it may seem, the sun is always shinning brightly. It's a matter of how you look at it. Your day and your life will only become that of which you make of it and nothing else.

Just like a machine, they can only produce the power that is put into them and nothing else. Likewise with your life. You will only get what you put in.

So rise above the clouds dear friend and you'll see that no matter how bad it looks right here and right now, the sun still shines... all you have to do is look rise above the despairs you encounter here. Life is worthwhile and meaningful and YOU WILL NEVER DIE because you are not your body, you are a spiritual being living within a body. Your body will wear out in due time but your spirit will not and that's really who you are.

Peace!
 
vajrasattva
 
Reply Sun 6 Apr, 2008 10:34 am
@benjamin90,
the whole deal with religion is that people need friends who think like they do ,so they have church. And a way to get through hard times, thats why they have god. So they have religion to make it so people can have that and as far as gods concerned i dont know but it seems alright to me so...

the essence of belief is in personal experience. If you don't believe in god then its you who makes your beliefs. If you believe in god the he (she it) who chose them for you, so no need to be aggressive. I'd say be open to change. Kierkegaard said " the more a man is able to forget the more transformations his life can undergo, the more he can remember the more divine his life becomes." so either way your good but he didn't say attack people about it
 
SantaMonica1369
 
Reply Tue 8 Apr, 2008 09:04 am
@Justin,
Justin wrote:
One way to look at it is not in despair. Your life will be that which you create it to be. The God described in Christianity is a superbeing separate from yourself. The truth is, you are a creating being. In that you will create your life during this time. You will create despair or love or many other things. That is solely on you. There is no being out there that is going to step in and do it for you.

So make up your mind to get out of despair... and guess what! Every single day, the sun will rise in the east and set in the west. No matter how cloudy it may seem, the sun is always shinning brightly. It's a matter of how you look at it. Your day and your life will only become that of which you make of it and nothing else.

Just like a machine, they can only produce the power that is put into them and nothing else. Likewise with your life. You will only get what you put in.

So rise above the clouds dear friend and you'll see that no matter how bad it looks right here and right now, the sun still shines... all you have to do is look rise above the despairs you encounter here. Life is worthwhile and meaningful and YOU WILL NEVER DIE because you are not your body, you are a spiritual being living within a body. Your body will wear out in due time but your spirit will not and that's really who you are.

Peace!



Thanks, it's good advice...I always feel a bit odd when I just read something and agree with it and change how I live, it seems to me like it should take longer and be harder, but I did and that really helped a lot.Smile
 
the thinker
 
Reply Tue 8 Apr, 2008 11:20 pm
@SantaMonica1369,
I think that people need something to have faith, and that's why religion exists. I don't agree that organized religion is necessairily good. I mean, it can be, but by no means always is. Sadly, it rarely is, and often is used to control people, which sucks.

That's why I'm an agnostic and why I choose to believe in philosohy to keep me going rather than religion. With religion, it seems more like you're accepting someone else's ideas (not that this is always bad, of course!), and with philosophy, it's like you're taking old questions and applying your own beliefs to them, not someone else's. That's just my opinion, though!
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 10/20/2021 at 09:01:34