How much further can you pull back?

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

I dont know much about Buddah but I have read that he was in a state of great suffering for many years also.

that was, i do believe, a conscious decision, however.


nobody was intentionally influencing him to make the decisions he made and go through with the suffering.


he made the decision on his own, it's what he strove for.

Stoner Shadow Wolf Reviewed by Stoner Shadow Wolf on 05-14-2007. How much further can you pull back? First God was in the sky. We explored the sky and learned what was really up there. Then God was in space, beyond the sky. We explored space and learned what was really out there. Now God is in another dimension? Come one. When we're able to explore other dimensions, where will your God run to hide from science? In other news, here's a fun video: YouTube - Rational Response Squad takes on Christians on ABC Rating: 5

[darth stoner]

Hehe, i get what ur trying to say, but the last sentence is false, people's egos need to feel threatened..im not trying to attack the "person" im just attacking thier ego.

What you fail to realize is that you're not attacking anyone's ego (at least successfully). This thread is not about egos, it's about reason and logic.

If you want people to even take you seriously, then you should be able to defend your beliefs, instead of just saying "it's true and you're an idiot". Doing that is considered a weak defense and is a really petty way to defend what you believe in.

So far the atheists have shown that while we cannot disprove god -- the same way nobody can disprove tooth fairies and unicorns -- that is not a good reason to believe. If it was so, then I would believe in unicorns too, just because you cannot disprove them. We've shown that the current scientific theories are more than enough to account for an universe without a god. We've provided links to sources where you can learn more about these theories. If science is good enough to build nuclear bombs and airplanes, spaceships, and pretty much everything you see around you, don't you think it's just a little bit arrogant to say it cannot be right about religion ?

Look back at your posts, how have you defended your point of view ? By insulting the people who have defended theirs with palpable evidence and saying "this is how things are. why ? because I say so. and you're an idiot for not thinking like me".

It's because of all the above that I actually feel sorry for you. You will NEVER change your mind, not even if all the evidence is piled in front of you. I would change mine, if I was given evidence. I don't say all the scientific theories are correct or that we know everything, that's the information we have to work with now. It's just like evolution, you need to be wrong most of the time in order to come up with something right.

The proof that science is in the good path ?



^^ earth as seen by Voyager 1, about 4 billion miles away, taken in 1990.



^^ sunset on mars, taken by the mars rovers

For me, the above is beautiful. Only through science have we been able to see how insignificant our home planet is (while some religious people STILL believe, amazingly, that the earth IS the center of the universe to this day), and only through science have we been able to see the sunset on alien planets.

Science has shown to people that want to see it things that are indeed beautiful. Religion is about believing something that cannot be seen is beautiful.

[Polymirize]

Could you point out the hypocrisy ?

I'd be happy too, although I do have to admit... :beatdeadhorse:

I've pointed out to you one example of how believing something because you were told to would have ended up negatively affecting you. I can do it with pretty much any other situation (getting in the middle of the road, jumping out of the window head first, get in the bear cage @ the local zoo, let yourself burn, you pick).

If I (or any1 else, even a "divine" voice in your head when you're high) asked you to do any of the above, do you think you're better off with faith or with rational thought ?

If you answered faith, then we have nothing else to discuss.

Glad to hear your openminded towards discussion. Let me provide you with a counter-example, when I was young my parents warned me not to touch the stove, they said it would burn, and even though I'd never seen the stove burn anything, I took their word for it. At 4 years old (younger?) I didn't have much in the way of critical reasoning skills, but I had some faith in my parents. So I guess you could say I took their word on faith, and remained unburned by stove.


But hey, if you need a bigger example, just ask yourself if the 9/11 hijackers would have had the balls to kill themselves if they seriously did not believe there was an eternal life of joy with i-dunno-how-many virgins waiting for them in heaven. Now you tell me that is not bad and is a fucking hypocrisy

Actually, I think this is a horrible example. You presume that any suicide attack or total commitment is impossible without belief of immortality. And that's clearly false. I don't think there are any virgins waiting for me, but that doesn't mean I can't think of some things that I think are worth dying for. Can't you?

All bold my own.

And in addition, I guess I have to explain... It's hypocritical to assert that people need evidence to believe things, but then provide none. We're all just supposed to take your word on the matter I suppose, but honestly you're not that convincing.

I suspect your definition of religion if very different from that of most religious people. And that's sad, because you think you're proving something, but actually you're completely missing the point...

[darth stoner]

And in addition, I guess I have to explain... It's hypocritical to assert that people need evidence to believe things, but then provide none. We're all just supposed to take your word on the matter I suppose, but honestly you're not that convincing.

I didn't say you should believe my sentence, I simple said believing without evidence is bad. You have a mind to decide on your own, if you think I was trying to force that down on you, then you've misinterpreted my words and failed to understand the point I was making.

If you believe without evidence, then:

- Unicorns exist.
- Fairies exist.
- Angels exist.
- Mars has complex life hiding from us.
- The cookie monster is also hiding, but he certainly exists.
- Zeus is the real god and is having a really nice laugh at the whole western religion thing.

Are all valid examples. If you say believing without evidence is good, then the only possible logical outcome is to say the above sentences are not ridiculous. Do you agree they are not ?


Your stove example demonstrates an interesting point tho, ironically there's also a scientific explanation for that.

As childs, we're programmed to believe whatever our parents tell us. That's how we manage to stay alive during these years where we'd otherwise jump off a cliff to see what happens. You can override this programming (curiosity), but if you think back, you had a strange feeling that it would be better to trust what your parents told you.

Sadly, that's why religion still thrives after so much time. Children are indocrinated at an early age and the genetic programming tells them to believe whatever their parents are telling them.

I suspect your definition of religion if very different from that of most religious people.

define:religion - Google Search

And that's sad, because you think you're proving something, but actually you're completely missing the point...

"Hypocrisy is the act of condemning another person, where the stated basis for the criticism is the breach of a rule which also applies to the critic. A person engaged in hypocrisy is called a hypocrite."

How can you be so sure of what I'm thinking I'm proving ?

Actually, I think this is a horrible example. You presume that any suicide attack or total commitment is impossible without belief of immortality. And that's clearly false. I don't think there are any virgins waiting for me, but that doesn't mean I can't think of some things that I think are worth dying for. Can't you?

I didn't presume anything, you're taking my words out of context.

Now reflect and think why you've never seen a buddhist or a christian guy taking two planes and stuffing them on two towers. No, religion isn't the only possible answer, but why do we only see such things coming from islam?

Because they really believe what their magic book says, and in their twisted minds, there are really virgins and eternal joy waiting.

[krazy chino]

well i believe in God for the simple that its impossible for us to NOT have a creator......we have a creator period.

[darth stoner]

If your reasoning is "everything has a creator", then you must agree that the creator has a creator. And the creator of the creator also has a creator. And the creator of the creator of the creator has a creator. etc.

That is not a good reason, chino.

Evolution by natural selection provides a good and concise explanation about the evolution of species, without the need for the supernatural/divine.

Natural selection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Polymirize]

If you say believing without evidence is good, then the only possible logical outcome is to say the above sentences are not ridiculous. Do you agree they are not ?

Interesting. If I don't care about evidence though, why would I care about your "logical" outcomes?


Your stove example demonstrates an interesting point tho, ironically there's also a scientific explanation for that.

As childs, we're programmed to believe whatever our parents tell us. That's how we manage to stay alive during these years where we'd otherwise jump off a cliff to see what happens. You can override this programming (curiosity), but if you think back, you had a strange feeling that it would be better to trust what your parents told you.

Wow. We definately have different definitions going on. I didn't feel that was a very scientific example at all. Despite all your rather condescending cookie monster examples, we can construct imaginary scenarios to prove things all day long, and still not prove anything.
My point was, I had some faith in my parents, and it paid off. In this particular case, inquiry would have burned me.

It's not that I disagree with you, not necessarily. I just think your vision is remarkably polarized and dualistic for someone not of a fundamentally religious bent. Were you raised catholic or something out of curiousity?


Now reflect and think why you've never seen a buddhist or a christian guy taking two planes and stuffing them on two towers. No, religion isn't the only possible answer, but why do we only see such things coming from islam?

Because they really believe what their magic book says, and in their twisted minds, there are really virgins and eternal joy waiting.


That's an interpretation. Sure. I think its an incredible simplification, necessitated by a rather simple mind. Terrorists are motivated by the appeal of metaphysical pussy. My own hypothesis would be that they view the world differently, through a vastly different subjective lens, and feel that their actions are justified. That its a sacrifice worth their lives.
Are you aware of the buddhist monks who set themselves on fire in protest of the Vietnam war?
One of these viewpoints makes the adversary out to be a crazed lunatic, which is very comforting when you have to fight them. The other viewpoint shows that they might very well be a human being, and that the problem lies elsewhere.
It's really hard to have dialogue with people who you condescend towards. Maybe if you dropped the "us vs them" attitude you could actually create some change rather than just insulting people.

Though I admit, it can be quite fun at times...

As always, all bold my own.

[darth stoner]

Interesting. If I don't care about evidence though, why would I care about your "logical" outcomes?

You're free to care about what you want.

My point was, I had some faith in my parents, and it paid off. In this particular case, inquiry would have burned me.

If you got burned, you would have learned not to touch the stove anyway. Humans, like other animals, also learn by trial and error.

Despite all your rather condescending cookie monster examples, we can construct imaginary scenarios to prove things all day long, and still not prove anything.

Please, do invalidate what I said from a logical standpoint, instead of attempting to nullify it through subjective words.

That's an interpretation. Sure. I think its an incredible simplification, necessitated by a rather simple mind. Terrorists are motivated by the appeal of metaphysical pussy. My own hypothesis would be that they view the world differently, through a vastly different subjective lens, and feel that their actions are justified. That its a sacrifice worth their lives.
Are you aware of the buddhist monks who set themselves on fire in protest of the Vietnam war?
One of these viewpoints makes the adversary out to be a crazed lunatic, which is very comforting when you have to fight them. The other viewpoint shows that they might very well be a human being, and that the problem lies elsewhere.
It's really hard to have dialogue with people who you condescend towards. Maybe if you dropped the "us vs them" attitude you could actually create some change rather than just insulting people.

Though I admit, it can be quite fun at times...

By saying they think it's a sacrifice worth their lives, you're agreeing with what I said. Would they think that way if they didn't believe in Islam ?

As for the monks, the keywords are burned themselves. You're also agreeing with me there, as you've again pointed out the differences in actions caused by the difference in beliefs. (burn themselves as a remarkable act of protest // explode two airplanes on another country, killing thousands).

I don't view Islam as an adversary. I only feel sorry for them, because hopefully western civilization will reach scientific enlightenment this century, and I can't possibly see Islam doing the same (if you don't believe in islam and you are in islam, you'll get killed).

Be very aware that they see the Qu'ran as the word of god, and the qu'ran says they should kill infidels (unbelievers, you and me included).

I didn't understand the "us vs them", perhaps you expected that from me instead and thought about it like that? I can denote this pattern on your earlier texts too. Apparently you expect me to be some kind of person I am not, your answers look a bit premeditated. (this is an observation, not an attack)

[PureEvil760]

I'm going to have to agree with Stoner Shadow Wolf on this one...

Not only can you not make a horse drink, if you try to force him to he'll be even more reluctant to do so. A friendly approach can do just as much damage to someone's ego, IMO, and probably more. If you can persuade someone to reevaluate their own beliefs, the rest of the barriers will come down with time. But I'm afraid you're not going to persuade anyone by calling them an unenlightened idiot. In fact, you're likely to drive them away from even considering what you might have to say.

At the same time I dont really give a shit about what other people do.

[Polymirize]

If you got burned, you would have learned not to touch the stove anyway. Humans, like other animals, also learn by trial and error.

Yeah, and? The whole point is that I learned without requiring that particular painful experience. I'd never consider saying you can't learn by trial and error, but you don't seem to want to grant the point at all that one might learn another way.



Please, do invalidate what I said from a logical standpoint, instead of attempting to nullify it through subjective words.

That's the just the thing. This is a completely subjective matter. You're throwing out a lot of "what if" scenarios, but don't seem to think mine hold water. Maybe they don't. But the flaws of logic you see in my reasoning exist also within your own. You're just not acknowledging them at all. It's very confusing.

By saying they think it's a sacrifice worth their lives, you're agreeing with what I said. Would they think that way if they didn't believe in Islam ?

I'm sorry. You worded it earlier so that it seemed your point was that only people who believed in the virgins of the afterlife would be willing to sacrifice themselves for that cause. I just think sacrifice has a similar mindset regardless of the cause itself. Hence, I see dedication of the monk and the terrorist on a very similar level, even though I disagree with the actions. But I think it's a mistake to confuse the two.

And no, I'm not agreeing with you. That's just something else you're not understanding...

your answers look a bit premeditated. (this is an observation, not an attack)

I would never feel attacked by the suggestion that there might be some actual thought behind what I say. I look forward to a well meditated response.

bold mine.