Guy Keeps Trying To Debate Me On Another Forum

[SilentLoner]

I'm on this other forum and out of the blue this guy sends me PM's on an opinion I posted:

Religious thinking has likely been one of, if the not the biggest source of damage to humanity.

 

Simple statement, yet he wants me to back it up. I have done so, but he sends these long-winded responses. I recently answered his PM that argued relgion makes people do good things (ex: religious couples adopting needy kids, preists who hid jews during the holocaust). I responded with pointing out that it was people who did the good things, and hopefully they did it because they believed it was right, not out of duty or fear of an invisible sky daddy or hope for a reward -quoted Einstein there.)

This is his most recent reply, and I honestly don't know what he's getting at. He seems sincere in his belief that religion is merely a vessel and not the source of evil but unfortunately narrow minded on the issue.

 

What do you guys think?

 

i would have to disagree with your last claim again. religion is never truly the root of any problem since it is just a form of expression, a tool used by the human mind to make sense of this existence.

 

for the young male who becomes a suicide bomber because a local imam told him so, there are other young men in his position who probably was told the same thing by the same imam but chose not to go through with it, most likely because something inside of them did not believe. whether it was because they feared for their life or whether they didn't want to kill another, it was still their own personality which ultimately made the choice to carry out that action. religion ultimately did not decide their action. it was themselves. no matter how much a religious figure can tell you something, until the individual agrees with it and believes it, that individual is still innocent from religious bigotry.

 

 

"If people are good only because they fear punishment and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."

-Albert Einstein

 

keep in mind that einstein did believe in a type of god, spinoza's god. of course the area he was talking about was more specified to the abrahamic religions, specifically christianity. the idea of reward and punishment, heaven and hell, is a major element in determining the human's actions who believes in one of the abrahamic religions.

 

HOWEVER, in eastern religions, the issue einstein brings up is negated. nagarjuna, mahavira, and guatama have all said upon the idea of altruistic actions and deed. mahavira himself gave his last garment to a beggar after leaving his palace leaving him completely bare out of his heart. nagarjuna has preached upon the idea of selfish deeds, where the ultimate achievement is in desiring to help others without wanting anything in return. milarepa, the tibetan lama has stated that one should strive to do what is right, even at the cost of one's own life.

 

For the eastern religions, remember that the ultimate goal is not to be in heaven or to with god perse, but to be enlightened. This is a fundamental difference between the two faith sectors. Jainism and even the buddha himself before he became enlightened speciifcally tortured himself close to death, NOT to reach heaven, but to become enlightened. They viewed suffering not as a bad things, but something you learn from.

 

ultimately, if we reject god and any form of afterlife, we reach the conclusion that we are just animals, creatures whose strongest emotions are our instincts. we are ruled by the same darwinistic laws as every other creature in existence. i don't think you can argue with the point that there are some people who are just not as mentally strong as others (we are included in that group). for some people, they need something to hold onto, an ideology to believe or they WILL be lost. for some people, they can be humanists, people who are good and positive without a need for an absolute moral code.

 

HOWEVER, if history is any indication, it would show that these humanists are often the small minority. for most people, they need something to believe in. without it, they can not find the reason to behave in accordance to morals and ethics. it used to be that humans acted out of the social viewpoint of tribes known as tribalism.

 

Wars and battles, massive genocides and rapes have been committed by every group of human kinds against other groups. if you look throughout history, ages where chaos and destruction were very common. people were always at war with each other. it give you a good indication of what humans are intrinsictly premeditated to do, if we lose all of our morals.

 

Thus, if our history is any indication, it shows that if we all adopt the ideology that we are just animals without guidance, most of the people in a society would become deliquents. Just look at some of the nations in africa and myanmar. chaos is rampant and only a purely brutal dictator can bring about peace in a realm of violence.

 

In many ways, einstein is right. WE ARE a sorry lot. By your indication, we are just animals pretending to be civilized, acting like lab mice who respond only through reward and punishment. But here is the thing. Even if you are right, does that make you feel better about the world you currently reside in? Does your own mental hangups or difficulties become easier knowing that every guy you walk past on the street, if given the chance without the fear of punishment, will probably rape you? Can you make it through the week knowing that every person now has given up on religion and will start behaving more like what they "truly" are, just animals?

 

Religion in some ways is a comforting thought.

 

The famous John Von Neumann, a comtemporary to einstein was known to be a notoriously atheistic and hedonistic person. However, when he contracted cancer and was lying on his death bed, he made a conversion and asked for a priest. What he actually did was ease his mind. I would say that many people who expound to be atheists or agnostists in their lifetime turn religious right before death.

 

I don't know whether you have ever stared into the abyss of death but if you have, you would be shaken to your core. Intellectually, death is a logical step. INTELLECTUALLY, death is not scary since viewing anything through an intellectual lense is being distant, being objective.

 

It is only when you actually come face to face with your own certain demise, the realization of your self being extinguished, when you actually experience it is it so chilling.

 

For most people, religion is a form of soothing balm, a way to calm their minds. It may be false, only an illusion, but then again, can you handle being completely conscious of your animal savagery and eminent death so easily?

 

:sigh:

[Ouroboros]

The more I study the concept and problem with religion, the more I see it as a combination of mind and idea. The idea is made by us humans, and the idea is perpetuated by us, but the ideas in themselves also influence us to see things from a certain perspective. The idea is a framework with which we interpret our world. So we make and are made by the very same ideas. Self perpetuating and dualistic existence. Both and neither can be blamed for everything. It's the fact that we are a social animal that explains the conflict.

[Neon Genesis]

for the young male who becomes a suicide bomber because a local imam told him so, there are other young men in his position who probably was told the same thing by the same imam but chose not to go through with it, most likely because something inside of them did not believe. whether it was because they feared for their life or whether they didn't want to kill another, it was still their own personality which ultimately made the choice to carry out that action.

 

ultimately, if we reject god and any form of afterlife, we reach the conclusion that we are just animals, creatures whose strongest emotions are our instincts. we are ruled by the same darwinistic laws as every other creature in existence.

This person is clearly holding religion to a double standard. On the one hand, they want to wash the blood off of religion's hands by saying that immoral actions the religious believer chooses to do is ultimately the choice of the believer and has nothing to do with faith. On the other hand, he tries to argue that religion is what's responsible for people doing good things and that without it, we would all be evil people. If religion is not responsible for our evil actions, then it's not responsible for our good actions either. Either religion is relevant to morality or it isn't. They can't have their cake and eat it too. If he was commanded either by God or a priest to fly a plane into a building, would they do it? If they answer no, then obviously they must be a secret atheist just like atheists are secret believers. If he answers yes, then he must take back his claim about religion making people good.

 

Thus, if our history is any indication, it shows that if we all adopt the ideology that we are just animals without guidance, most of the people in a society would become deliquents. Just look at some of the nations in africa and myanmar. chaos is rampant and only a purely brutal dictator can bring about peace in a realm of violence.

And why is this a virtue that the only reason they're not going around raping and murdering people is because they believe in invisible sky fairies?

 

For most people, religion is a form of soothing balm, a way to calm their minds. It may be false, only an illusion, but then again, can you handle being completely conscious of your animal savagery and eminent death so easily?

And for some terminally ill cancer patients, it might be comforting to them if the doctor lies and tells them they're healed, but is that ethical?

[Skeptic]

for the young male who becomes a suicide bomber because a local imam told him so, there are other young men in his position who probably was told the same thing by the same imam but chose not to go through with it, most likely because something inside of them did not believe. whether it was because they feared for their life or whether they didn't want to kill another, it was still their own personality which ultimately made the choice to carry out that action. religion ultimately did not decide their action. it was themselves. no matter how much a religious figure can tell you something, until the individual agrees with it and believes it, that individual is still innocent from religious bigotry.

 

One young man who blows himself up because the local Imam told him to do so is enough. Who cares if there are others who didn't? There was one who did, with the intent of taking others out with him. One is one too many.

[Guest Davka]

Looks to me like he's saying "religion doesn't kill people, people kill people!" Which is true, to some degree, just like guns don't kill people without someone to pull the trigger.

 

But guns and religion both make killing a whole lot easier.

[♦ nivek ♦]

SL,

 

fuckingbunchoflongwindedhorsecrap......

 

Why is it folks such as this take 500 words where a few carefully crafted sentences will do same thing?

 

Peckerhead needs to learn to trim his editorialization, learn to condense, summarize, and in turn make his points with *power*.

 

Looks like the asshead is trying to wear you out with BORING bullshit rather than presenting anything worthwhile.

 

Just fucking mush presented with lotsandlotsandlotsandlotsandlotsandlots more useless fillage..

 

Arguing shit with him is shovelling sand again' the tide..

 

kL

[Outback Jack]

This person is clearly holding religion to a double standard. On the one hand, they want to wash the blood off of religion's hands by saying that immoral actions the religious believer chooses to do is ultimately the choice of the believer and has nothing to do with faith. On the other hand, he tries to argue that religion is what's responsible for people doing good things and that without it, we would all be evil people. If religion is not responsible for our evil actions, then it's not responsible for our good actions either. Either religion is relevant to morality or it isn't. They can't have their cake and eat it too. If he was commanded either by God or a priest to fly a plane into a building, would they do it? If they answer no, then obviously they must be a secret atheist just like atheists are secret believers. If he answers yes, then he must take back his claim about religion making people good.

That's about the same thing I was going to point out. Thanks for stating our point so well.

[mwc]

ultimately, if we reject god and any form of afterlife, we reach the conclusion that we are just animals, creatures whose strongest emotions are our instincts. we are ruled by the same darwinistic laws as every other creature in existence. i don't think you can argue with the point that there are some people who are just not as mentally strong as others (we are included in that group). for some people, they need something to hold onto, an ideology to believe or they WILL be lost. for some people, they can be humanists, people who are good and positive without a need for an absolute moral code.

 

HOWEVER, if history is any indication, it would show that these humanists are often the small minority. for most people, they need something to believe in. without it, they can not find the reason to behave in accordance to morals and ethics. it used to be that humans acted out of the social viewpoint of tribes known as tribalism.

Is he arguing "opiate of the masses?"

 

Wars and battles, massive genocides and rapes have been committed by every group of human kinds against other groups. if you look throughout history, ages where chaos and destruction were very common. people were always at war with each other. it give you a good indication of what humans are intrinsictly premeditated to do, if we lose all of our morals.

"Lose all of our morals?" How so? Many of these things were done in the name of morals. Not just "gods" per se but that a culture was better than another. Really it was about money and/power (money) but as one of my history profs put it "god/glory/gold" are the 3 g's of all wars. And looking on it myself it's mostly "gold" (though to motivate the mob you may need to invoke some other reason). If you could find all the reasons YHWH went to war I'm willing to bet it was because whoever was speaking for him wanted to line their pockets...the moronic mob wouldn't get rolling without some divine motivations and maybe an appeal to how great their stupid backwater country was (so there's your 3 g's).

 

Thus, if our history is any indication, it shows that if we all adopt the ideology that we are just animals without guidance, most of the people in a society would become deliquents. Just look at some of the nations in africa and myanmar. chaos is rampant and only a purely brutal dictator can bring about peace in a realm of violence.

Dictators rarely bring about peace. Especially the "brutal" variety. Africa has a high rate of "turnover" in the dictator department and it's far from peaceful or stable. This is all being pulled out of his ass. This is like saying that you need to brutally whip a lion to make it behave. It might or it might just kill you. Try it and find out. New methods of "lion taming," with far better results, use positive reinforcement techniques. Not shit from 19th century circuses. This seems to be the parallel in the mindset going on here.

 

In many ways, einstein is right. WE ARE a sorry lot. By your indication, we are just animals pretending to be civilized, acting like lab mice who respond only through reward and punishment. But here is the thing. Even if you are right, does that make you feel better about the world you currently reside in? Does your own mental hangups or difficulties become easier knowing that every guy you walk past on the street, if given the chance without the fear of punishment, will probably rape you? Can you make it through the week knowing that every person now has given up on religion and will start behaving more like what they "truly" are, just animals?

This person is also, apparently, engaging in massive projection. I, personally, do NOT walk by ANYONE and refrain from raping them only because I am afraid of being punished. It is a sad that this person projects this onto society as a whole. Animals only do this because of hormones and a complex reproductive system. Animals that aren't part of that cycle, by and large, do NOT force themselves on any other animals. They just don't. If they do it is for some other reason that can be determined (like they have to establish dominance or something and that can be solved in some other fashion...and since humans have speech and reasoning ability beyond animals we can resolve "dominance" issues sans "mounting" randomly on the streets).

 

I don't know whether you have ever stared into the abyss of death but if you have, you would be shaken to your core. Intellectually, death is a logical step. INTELLECTUALLY, death is not scary since viewing anything through an intellectual lense is being distant, being objective.

 

It is only when you actually come face to face with your own certain demise, the realization of your self being extinguished, when you actually experience it is it so chilling.

 

For most people, religion is a form of soothing balm, a way to calm their minds. It may be false, only an illusion, but then again, can you handle being completely conscious of your animal savagery and eminent death so easily?

Yes. Faced with death we will all suddenly turn to "magic" to save ourselves from the unknown. Fine. If that happens...it happens. But many an atheist has went to the grave without this. Many a Jew, who only believed in this being the one and only life they'd have (like the Sadducees...no magic do-overs for them), went to the grave without switching sides. So, faced with death, many people, both atheist and those of even the Jewish faith, have managed to accept their fate. Not to mention all those of all the other religions who have varying "promises" of what lies "beyond." This is a stupid "argument." An appeal to the unknown.

 

I'm glad that he's managed to come face-to-face with his own "self being extinguished" and discovering that he needed a "soothing balm" to deal with his "animal savagery" and "eminent death." For someone who projects his wanton desires of brutal dictatorships over a savage population and possibility of rape at every turn if it wasn't for punishment I can't imagine why dying without religion would present such a problem to them?

 

mwc

[Deva]

HOWEVER, in eastern religions, the issue einstein brings up is negated. nagarjuna, mahavira, and guatama have all said upon the idea of altruistic actions and deed. mahavira himself gave his last garment to a beggar after leaving his palace leaving him completely bare out of his heart. nagarjuna has preached upon the idea of selfish deeds, where the ultimate achievement is in desiring to help others without wanting anything in return. milarepa, the tibetan lama has stated that one should strive to do what is right, even at the cost of one's own life.

 

For the eastern religions, remember that the ultimate goal is not to be in heaven or to with god perse, but to be enlightened. This is a fundamental difference between the two faith sectors. Jainism and even the buddha himself before he became enlightened speciifcally tortured himself close to death, NOT to reach heaven, but to become enlightened. They viewed suffering not as a bad things, but something you learn from.

 

Grammatical errors abound. I can't make much sense of this portion of the argument and how it relates to the rest of what was written. It is very simplistic and innacurate.

 

Strange to mention only the Jains and Buddhists. What about Hinduism? There is a tremendous variety in the philosophy of eastern religions alone. I note there is nothing in this about Nagarjuna's philosophy, probably because they don't have a clue what it is about. I wonder if they have even heard of the term "dependent origination."

 

The word enlightenment is a pretty word to throw around. That is all. Buddhism is a non-dualistic religion, the core of which is emptiness. Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. Eastern religions and Buddhism are mostly about being aware of who you are and WHAT IS.

 

IMO it would be useless to try to educate someone who writes this way.

[SilentLoner]

Update-

 

I wasn't going to continue on this post but the guy has managed to outdo himself. I borrowed some argument points posted here (thank you everyone and kudos to you) and replied to the guy. He's done a predictable reason-jumping and gone straight to personal attacks.

 

Rather interesting is he's taken the fact that I have an anime avatar and interpreted it to mean i'm a stereotypical antisocial obsessed fan. Wow.

 

Thought I'd share:

 

i'll give you credit for giving such a detailed response to my long message.

 

it is interesting that a person like you can talk about being so gungho about life and being humanistic and trying to make this world into a heaven (let's sing kumbaya) when the picture of your avatar is sesshomaru and you seem to be sort of a daydreamer. i used to be into anime as well and we could have some good discussions about such things but you should realize now that anime is like all cartoons, something to keep kids and adults who don't grow up in a fantasy world.

 

if you said that the prospect of death doesn't scare you, i will then say you are either 1) insane, 2) in denial, 3) intellectually rationalizing through it thus giving you objectivity and distance which allows you to keep the fear away or 4) lying. i am going to guess 3 or 4. if you were to walk outside right now and a robber puts a gun to your head and says you are going to die only because they want to kill you, you will be scared.

 

during the 1997 school shooting at little rock colorado, one of the gunman had pointed a gun at a girl and asked her if she believed in god. the fact she said yes was at least enough to give her the courage and be less afraid of death at that moment before she died. i am guessing that for someone who doesn't believe in a afterlife to be put in that situation, they would be far, FAR more scared. of course the result, death, would be the same but the person who is about to die will have at least some form of comfort.

 

your claim of projection has been said before by others before you so i sort of expected that accusation. in a way, we are all a micro scale model of what society is like. to counter your whole "mount" claim, here is a link which should be sufficient.

 

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...1112155AACHtcZ

 

if i was commanded by a priest, probably not. if by god, i would. one of the basic tenets in every single faith is that the supernatural being we humans worship is inherently good and just. (if i am not crazy and not just hearing voices) if i was absolutely sure that it was god (who is good from the most basic axiom) who tells me to fly a plane into a building, then the act itself in the end is for a purpose which is good. it may not be clear at the moment of destruction what good can come from it, but for a believer, it is still predicated on the idea that in the end, it was for the better.

 

in the army, soldiers are often told to do things which probably makes little sense to them in their own small personal world. they take orders from higher ranking officials, generals who can see the war or conflict in a more general term, who can see the forest for the trees. for the subordinate, one HAS TO have faith in their superiors and believe that what they are doing is right. if they don't, they go AWOL and in EVERY nation in the world, when a soldier goes AWOL, they are severely punished, for a very good reason.

 

in the days before the modern age, there was battles and war that occurred all the time and soldier loyalty was critical to staying alive. often, entire tribes would fight other tribes and the lose of a battle means complete annihilation or subjugation. subordinates have to follow their generals or there would be chaos in the military system which means losing these tribal wars.

 

as for your statements about buddhism, you are wrong. the central point behind buddhism is about suffering. buddhism just teaches a way out of this suffering. emptiness is a characteristic of what we are, but that doesn't help take away that suffering. you can realize that you are just food for the worms until you are blue in the face but that still doesn't solve your problems.

 

I'll reply to the rest of his argument later since I've got work to do, but I sent a quick message about the urban-legend of the girl who was reported to say "yes" at columbine.

[Guest Davka]

It's a waste of time trying to reason with this guy, but if you want some lunatics to help pile on, post a link to the forum here. Maybe I'll hop over and troll some flamebait across his path, see how "Christian" his response is.

[SilentLoner]

It's a waste of time trying to reason with this guy, but if you want some lunatics to help pile on, post a link to the forum here. Maybe I'll hop over and troll some flamebait across his path, see how "Christian" his response is.

 

I'd love that but this isn't taking place on the forum threads, its a PM battle.

[Guest Davka]

It's a waste of time trying to reason with this guy, but if you want some lunatics to help pile on, post a link to the forum here. Maybe I'll hop over and troll some flamebait across his path, see how "Christian" his response is.

 

I'd love that but this isn't taking place on the forum threads, its a PM battle.

Well call him out! Tell him he's too chicken to bring his beef to the forum because he knows he'd get his head handed to him.

 

And then put his PMs on ignore.

[mwc]

i used to be into anime as well and we could have some good discussions about such things but you should realize now that anime is like all cartoons, something to keep kids and adults who don't grow up in a fantasy world.

So he was into it...but he's not now. He's all grown up. Good for him. He has probably done lots and lots of other things that he "judges" others for nowadays.

 

if you said that the prospect of death doesn't scare you, i will then say you are either 1) insane, 2) in denial, 3) intellectually rationalizing through it thus giving you objectivity and distance which allows you to keep the fear away or 4) lying. i am going to guess 3 or 4. if you were to walk outside right now and a robber puts a gun to your head and says you are going to die only because they want to kill you, you will be scared.

Are you afraid of death or getting shot in the head? What if the "robber" ran up to you and pricked you with an unknown substance and you quietly fell asleep and died? Would you be shaking in your boots then Mr. Tough Guy? What if your car just slammed into a fucking wall at 100mph while you happened to glance away and so you didn't notice shit during that split second it took for the accident to actually occur? Scared now? Boo! Bet that got you, right? What if a team of some elite "kill squad" came over and raped you repeatedly while slowly peeling your skin away until you died in a bloody mass? Oh? So now that scares you? So you ARE afraid of death after all you lying pussy. I knew it. I knew that deep down you were afraid. You lying liar.

 

How about I am afraid of dying in some grisly fashion. The actual concept of death, meaning not being alive any longer, isn't the problem but the method of "transition" still might have an affect on me. Dying peacefully? Not a problem. Dying horrifically? Problem. It's like getting medicine. There are "better" ways than others to get said medicine. A tiny pill? Super. A HUGE suppository? Not so super.

 

All things being equal I think we'd all live as long as possible. It only makes sense. The question is when it comes time to die, for whatever reason, are you afraid to die because you want to keep on living or that you are afraid of what comes next? For now I want to keep on living. I'm not done yet. When I'm done living I'll be ready to die. Unlike many I'm not afraid to die because of what might come next. Of what "lies beyond." A "judgment" or "punishment." They don't await me after death.

 

during the 1997 school shooting at little rock colorado, one of the gunman had pointed a gun at a girl and asked her if she believed in god. the fact she said yes was at least enough to give her the courage and be less afraid of death at that moment before she died. i am guessing that for someone who doesn't believe in a afterlife to be put in that situation, they would be far, FAR more scared. of course the result, death, would be the same but the person who is about to die will have at least some form of comfort.

Why would you assume that? I won't be judged. I won't be punished. I will simply have my life cut short. It's not my death I am afraid of but the premature loss of my life. Your perspective is wrong.

 

your claim of projection has been said before by others before you so i sort of expected that accusation. in a way, we are all a micro scale model of what society is like. to counter your whole "mount" claim, here is a link which should be sufficient.

 

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...1112155AACHtcZ

Linky no worky. But if "projection" has been brought up before it's well worth considering as valid.

 

if i was commanded by a priest, probably not. if by god, i would. one of the basic tenets in every single faith is that the supernatural being we humans worship is inherently good and just. (if i am not crazy and not just hearing voices) if i was absolutely sure that it was god (who is good from the most basic axiom) who tells me to fly a plane into a building, then the act itself in the end is for a purpose which is good. it may not be clear at the moment of destruction what good can come from it, but for a believer, it is still predicated on the idea that in the end, it was for the better.

 

in the army, soldiers are often told to do things which probably makes little sense to them in their own small personal world. they take orders from higher ranking officials, generals who can see the war or conflict in a more general term, who can see the forest for the trees. for the subordinate, one HAS TO have faith in their superiors and believe that what they are doing is right. if they don't, they go AWOL and in EVERY nation in the world, when a soldier goes AWOL, they are severely punished, for a very good reason.

Generally speaking we no longer accept "Because I was ordered to" as a reason to commit atrocities. I understand that recent administrations are working very hard to alter that policy but it's still not something that has been entirely abolished. So, sorry, this is no excuse. Maybe if you had the guts to take the bullet then you could save thousands instead of being the one to kill them? Just think, since you brought up the Columbine killings, if those two had simply taken the bullets themselves? *bang* *bang* Two shots. Two kills. How many lives would have been saved? But that's not what happened. Just imagined what might have happened if all those 9/11 terrorists hadn't gone along with the plan? If just one would have decided to just kill his friends? Could have taken them up in a rental for a "dry run" and oops, into the ground they went. How many lives saved?

 

Following orders? Please. You make it sound like that's always the "right" thing to do and yet you qualify it by saying "If I was absolutely sure that it was god (who is good <blah blah blah>)." How would you know? How would know it was "god?" How would you know it was your "god?" The one you presuppose is "good?" So that when you do its bidding you're do, by default, "good?" So that when you are killing in its name you can't possibly be doing "evil" because you've already ruled that out as a possibility? You can't verify the "goodness" of your "god" except via assertion. You can't verify the existance of your "god" except via assertion. Your actions rest on you and you alone and you justify them by saying they're from a "god" and therefore they are "good." Do us all a favor and *bang*. One bullet. How many lives saved?

 

in the days before the modern age, there was battles and war that occurred all the time and soldier loyalty was critical to staying alive. often, entire tribes would fight other tribes and the lose of a battle means complete annihilation or subjugation. subordinates have to follow their generals or there would be chaos in the military system which means losing these tribal wars.

I've heard of these wars. They're called "The wars you just pulled out of your ass." Now go "Google," "Yahoo" or even "Bing!" some sort of an example just to show me that you didn't and watch me not care. We're not in any tribal armies. "God" is not some commander in chief. There is no holy war going on. No battles. This is all irrelevant.

 

as for your statements about buddhism, you are wrong. the central point behind buddhism is about suffering. buddhism just teaches a way out of this suffering. emptiness is a characteristic of what we are, but that doesn't help take away that suffering. you can realize that you are just food for the worms until you are blue in the face but that still doesn't solve your problems.

Solve what problems? Worm food? Worms need food. Looks like I'm solving problems. Though I'm looking into cremation so I'm more topsoil.

 

Why'd I even respond to all this? I think I'm bored? This guy is just lame.

 

mwc

[Jedah]

it is interesting that a person like you can talk about being so gungho about life and being humanistic and trying to make this world into a heaven (let's sing kumbaya) when the picture of your avatar is sesshomaru and you seem to be sort of a daydreamer. i used to be into anime as well and we could have some good discussions about such things but you should realize now that anime is like all cartoons, something to keep kids and adults who don't grow up in a fantasy world.

 

if you said that the prospect of death doesn't scare you, i will then say you are either 1) insane, 2) in denial, 3) intellectually rationalizing through it thus giving you objectivity and distance which allows you to keep the fear away or 4) lying. i am going to guess 3 or 4. if you were to walk outside right now and a robber puts a gun to your head and says you are going to die only because they want to kill you, you will be scared.

 

Trying to prove a point with fear and stereotypes? Wow, sad. I wouldn't even respond to this kind of gaiafag crap.

 

People from Theologyweb and Philosophy-forums eat assclowns like this for breakfast.

 

Unfortunately, someone who tries so hard to make points which mean so little probably cannot be reached with words alone. It's obvious that his beliefs are firmly rooted in fear, emotional need, and ignorance - which is why he can't admit it.

 

My only real advice I can give when dealing with guys on this low of a level in terms of "philosophical enlightenment" ( if you know what I mean. ) is to keep your responses as small and condensed, but as powerful as possible. If you give long and detailed replies debunking his banter, he will counter with a long and detailed reply containing even more irrational banter. If you condense, it will force him to eventually condense...and once he does the flaws will become all the more apparent. Ever hear the net saying "Don't argue with idiot's, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."? Well, it's true.

[Deva]

as for your statements about buddhism, you are wrong. the central point behind buddhism is about suffering. buddhism just teaches a way out of this suffering. emptiness is a characteristic of what we are, but that doesn't help take away that suffering. you can realize that you are just food for the worms until you are blue in the face but that still doesn't solve your problems.

 

The central point is not about suffering, its about seeing reality as it is. Its a whole lot more radical than "just a way out of suffering." Actually that would be pretty great in itself but anyone who says "emptiness is a characteristic of what we are, but that doesn't help..." has no idea of what emptiness is. What it really means is that there is no "I," there is no separate, individual self. "You" can never be food for worms, for there is no such thing as "you".

 

However, there is no use in trying to teach someone who already knows it all.

[Ouroboros]

However, there is no use in trying to teach someone who already knows it all.

So true, and it's because they're full of it, and not empty. They're so full that nothing else fits.

[Neon Genesis]

i used to be into anime as well and we could have some good discussions about such things but you should realize now that anime is like all cartoons, something to keep kids and adults who don't grow up in a fantasy world.

I used to believe in talking snakes too, but they should realize that xtianity is like all fundamentalism, something to keep kids and adults who don't grow up in a fantasy world. At least anime has coherent storylines and decent moral values.

 

if you said that the prospect of death doesn't scare you, i will then say you are either 1) insane, 2) in denial, 3) intellectually rationalizing through it thus giving you objectivity and distance which allows you to keep the fear away or 4) lying. i am going to guess 3 or 4. if you were to walk outside right now and a robber puts a gun to your head and says you are going to die only because they want to kill you, you will be scared.

As Bill Maher asks in Religulous, why doesn't he kill himself if he's so certain heaven is real and that Jesus is going to save him? Why are xtians the ones who fear death the most according to recent surveys?

 

if i was commanded by a priest, probably not. if by god, i would. one of the basic tenets in every single faith is that the supernatural being we humans worship is inherently good and just. (if i am not crazy and not just hearing voices) if i was absolutely sure that it was god (who is good from the most basic axiom) who tells me to fly a plane into a building, then the act itself in the end is for a purpose which is good. it may not be clear at the moment of destruction what good can come from it, but for a believer, it is still predicated on the idea that in the end, it was for the better.

But now he's contradicting what he said earlier. Earlier he said that religion doesn't make people fly planes into buildings, it's people who do that. Yet if he would murder people if believes God told him to, then is this not a contradiction to his claim that religion doesn't make people kill others? Or does he have a relationship, not a religion?

[SilentLoner]

Okay the guy sent me a two-part "irrational banter" rant. Jumped the ship on rationality and went for underhanded atheist insults. Won't bother posting what he wrote, but basically the second part of it was a cocky proclamation that only conservatives and religious people (he made a point to inlcude hispanics - and I'm part hispanic) are breeding and atheists and liberals who only have dogs will die out in the minority. It was more funny than anyhting serious.

 

I answered back, starting with a little hint: we don't need to breed. Conversions work great! Look at most of us here

 

Put him on PM ignore and called it a day.

[mwc]

Put him on PM ignore and called it a day.

At which point he put you on ignore and declared victory.

 

mwc

[Robbobrob]

Put him on PM ignore and called it a day.

At which point he put you on ignore and declared victory.

 

mwc

 

reminds me of the scene in Waiting where the guy quits and his boss gets so out of shape about it he tells him he didn't quit because the boss fired him, and that was how the boss would tell the story to everyone.

[SilentLoner]

Put him on PM ignore and called it a day.

At which point he put you on ignore and declared victory.

 

mwc

 

reminds me of the scene in Waiting where the guy quits and his boss gets so out of shape about it he tells him he didn't quit because the boss fired him, and that was how the boss would tell the story to everyone.

 

Meh. I was bored with him. Could care less at this point.