spiritual life/god. - Page 7

treesuss · 06-09-2009, 10:38 AM

and let me briefly respond to "internal peace". I am very at peace even though I would not describe myself as the happiest of people. if ignorance is bliss, then knock the smile off my face. yeaaaaaa...

being able to understand and accept the world and to have real ideas about how to move it forward and real issues with how it is currently moving forward is my peace. i take solice in the fact that i know i am intellectually superior to just about everybody. i've accepted the world for how it is and understand why it is that way. wanting to change the world and to change people's perspectives and whom they give deference to should not be confused with not being at peace. unless you're trying to define peace as being happy and supportive of most peoples. why in the hell would i want to support people (most) that i know have been decieved and ultimately hurt by all those closest to them?? that's not peace, that's ignorant bliss. you can have it, i'll pass...

collegehopefull · 06-09-2009, 10:43 AM

Holy crap. On a mission much, treesuss?

chendrix · 06-09-2009, 12:14 PM

woah there, treesuss. Heil atheist hitler much?

I am not asking you to accept anyone, but you are just as ignorant as the people who blindly believe their faith in God, because you blindly believe your faith in Atheism.

Yes, science has disproven many of the "scientific" things in the Christian Bible, a.k.a. the age of the Earth. However, most people don't view the bible and their christian faith as a scientific textbook (disregarding fundamentalists). If you look at all religions and philosophies, be them Western or Eastern, old or new, all of them provide a framework of (mostly) agreed upon morals on which to live your life:

Don't kill, don't rape/steal/pillage/plunder, be a nice and loving person, extend helping hands, try to always strive to be better, do good things, make the world a better place.
These are noble things that the best of people have (be them believers or not). Some people can recognize and do these things without necessarily having to be told about them. Others have religion to provide these beliefs. Whether people have distorted these fundamental ideologies is a subject of a different debate, but religion can be useful if in moderation and as a guide. It is when people turn to all extremes (including you) that you lose perspective, and ultimately lose understanding.

I can get into an angry rant and say that I have always been and always will be smarter than most people, and then begin to spout out the "truth" and claim that anyone who doesn't believe me is obviously stupid, since I am smarter than they are. But that's what you did, and we all know how well that style of reason works.

hellojan · 06-09-2009, 12:33 PM

"Christian:
50% chance of a happy eternal life - Happy afterlife
50% chance of nothing after death - Unhappy afterlife

Athiest:
50% chance of burning in Hell for all eternity - Unhappy afterlife
50% chance of nothing after death - Unahppy afterlife

Conclusions:
1. It's mathmatically safer to believe in God. Think of it as an insurance policy.
2. Athiests have a 0% chance of a happy afterlife - no wonder they are always so cranky and arguementative."

This argument is based on the flawed Bayes Theorem - which, as Dawkins says, is usually considered the weakest of all arguments in favor of God's existence. If there is no evidence for something, as is the case with God, then we can conclude that the chance of God existing is mathematically zero.

No, you say? Okay, let's use your logic. Either something exists or it doesn't, right?

Okay, let's begin with unicorns. Mmmm, no evidence. So, we conclude that there is a 50/50 chance. That's pretty good! Tell your friends! Better yet, just organize a search party. Just, count me out!

Second, your logic suggests that God can be tricked or pacified by someone who is willing to "play the numbers." So, God doesn't care if you REALLY believe? He just wants you to hedge your bets, right? Pretty sad, dude.

hellojan · 06-09-2009, 12:46 PM

Soccer_Guy's Assumptions for believing in Evolution:

"1. The law that all things go from a state of organization to disorganization if left on their own was broken when "nothingness" exploded (Big Bang Theory) - forming perfectly aligned planets around a star."

Evolution doesn't speak to this topic at all. Evolution is concerned with how species evolve on earth. There's nothing extraterrestrial involved.

"2. Gases came together in a 'soup' and used the power of lightning from constant storms to become amino acids...perfect building blocks to make life, which came together and formed a living organism."

The first part is partially true. Nobody has even come close to a proper discussion of the second part.

"3. This organism decided it wasn't happy like that, and evolved repeatedly. At one point it kinda said 'self replication is too hard...I think I'll cut my neccesary sexual organs in half...give one to each new 'sex' and in order to reproduce we have to get together!'"

There's no biologist who is worth a hoot that would agree with what you've written here. Science isn't afraid of religion and it's not afraid of questions - the best science is that which holds up to criticism and investigation. But, a statement like this proves that you've forgone the requisite reading to actually critically analyze evolution and replaced it with fanciful conjecture. So, I won't validate this with a response.

"4. This organism and its offspring continued to grow and reproduce without ever being wiped out over a course of millions of years, finally forming everything from birds to monkeys."

All life shares common ancestry. Though, by the time you're mentioning here, there are many different organisms that grow into birds and monkeys.

"5. The monkeys kept going, eventually becoming primative humans...to the more modern humans we have today."

Mmmm, all primates share a common ancestor. The idea that concepts of primitive and modern exist are a bit silly. Usually, people using this argument assume that humans are fully-evolved beings. That we are, somehow, the endpoint of all of this work. The truth is that evolution doesn't stop.

Helvetica · 06-09-2009, 01:19 PM

On a slightly different tangent, sorry I have no input on the evolution debate. I was wondering, is there a sizable crowd of atheists and agnostics @ Cornell as well. Christians are great and all, but growing up in rural Arkansas, I have Jesus shoved down my throat everrrrryday. I just want a little refuge.

treesuss · 06-09-2009, 01:39 PM

I am not debating the merits of nor am I saying that the 'moral' and ethical codes espoused by most religions are not positive things. I am saying that we have enough knowledge about the world today to move forward and implement them without the BS framework surrounding them. Of course there are fundamental human rights and a level of decency and respect that all peoples should share with each other. Anything violating these rights and 'norms' (if you will) is deemed a criminal offense in most countries and is dealt with accordingly. What you do to you're own body, however, should not be included in these criminal offenses and thus one of the major problems religions have left us is restriction of personal freedom in the name of their God. My body is my temple, not you're God's. So gtfo and don't tell me what to do. This includes anything from abortion to drugs to suicide and assisted suicide all the way straight through to restriction of freedoms because of any behavior whether its being gay, bestiality, polygamy, and even 'marrying' you're relatives.

Of course there are complex questions regarding children and these rights but these are things that we can work out and debate in an intelligent society. The child abuse that occurs today across the 6+ billion who are indoctrinated by their elders is FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR worse than anything that would happen in a truly enlightened and accepting society. Try and tell a child over the age of 8 who has not been indoctrinated about religion and you'll be LOLed at. That one fact alone is enough to disprove the utter crap that you aid and abet by conceding that "its actually crazy, but its not that crazy because it says some good things and billions believe it so it CANT be totally ridiculous, right? right? right? right?". Just because you get cheerful and enthusiastic responses to you're repeated "right?"s does not mean that you have a sounder viewpoint than me or anyone that thinks like me. It just means that you're playing into exactly what I'm saying you're playing into - their hands.

wjhsxc · 06-09-2009, 02:04 PM

^ I wasn't going to comment on any of this, but I question how the most intellectually superior person here has managed to consistently use the wrong "you're"?
Is that something not taught at Cornell, or did it just slip past you?

chendrix · 06-09-2009, 02:21 PM

It must be treesuss, we definitely learn proper grammar at Cornell.

He must have been trying to do his intellectually superior physics homework instead of actually listening in writing seminar.

treesuss · 06-09-2009, 02:29 PM

im glad this has turned into a debate about whether or not i am using correct grammar when i've neglected apostrophes and capital Is all over the place. i'm glad that that is what you'd like this to turn into. really shows your true colors. in 15 years you won't write anything it'll all be transcribed for you based on voice recognition. and i'll be able to write and understand the software that decides your vs. you're. i bet you won't.

treesuss · 06-09-2009, 02:35 PM

also my writing seminars were on Science and Pseudoscience and then Horror films. they didn't spend any time trying to tell me about basic, elementary school grammar. because they assumed that in any formal paper, i was fully capable, being a Cornell student and all. and its not like i was in the remedial classes for the people who should have never been allowed to come to this school in the first place. just because i neglect to type 100% properly on a message board where what i'm trying to say is infinitely more important than how i say it does not mean that I don't know how to do it. its ridiculously simple minded to think so. also i find it funny how you comment on my yours when my lack of aposotrophes and capitalizations are even more glaringly obvious...

wjhsxc · 06-09-2009, 02:42 PM

Oh I see. Then continue. It's just something I find annoying.
By all means. Enlighten us all!

treesuss · 06-09-2009, 03:36 PM

lol just reread most of my stuff and i couldn't find more than 2 places in which i messed up your/you're with over like 15 uses. to quote the profit marshall mathers - if you don't like it, you can suck my ****ing ****.

anybody care to take another jab at what i've written? care to tell me how religion is not a dark dark vestige of our past that, in the last 70 years, we've completely outgrown?

oh and i'll let another fun fact out there! I went to church most sundays except during football season and was an alter boy until I was 14 y/o. I didn't get so much as treated poorly by anybody involved so I wouldn't want you to think that. It was not a fundamentalist church in any way and was in the northeast. I just quickly came to realize that all my of questions were legitimate and most of them had simple, concrete answers...especially once I started to actually learn math and science and how to use a computer and accumulate knowledge. The hypocrisy of 'adherents' as well as the complete and utter baselessness of their claims drove me away very fast. Not to mention praying, heaven and hell, yada yada yada...

So I wouldn't want you to think that I believe the things I do because anybody told me to. I have a brain, and I use it to come to the most reasonable conclusion - even when that conclusion is ridden with extremely dark critiques of our (and my!) past and present and the overwhelming truth that most everything is meaningless, futile and will have no lasting impact. The only things that fall outside this category are those which advance the human race and the human condition such that at some point in the future we will actually be able to escape this planet, explore the cosmos, assemble wormholes, become a type II civilization and harness the power of our dying homestar, and see if anything else is out there. If we hear vast echos of nothingness, then so be it. Highly unlikely, but so be it. At the very least we'll be able to get a better understanding of dark matter and hopefully quantum mechanics. On the human condition side, I'm talking about personal freedom and human rights. So don't get me wrong in that I'm not saying that EVERYTHING is useless, just that most things are given acceptance of some of the most basic truths about our past, present and the road we took to get here. And when you die, thats it, unless you happened to invent an idea or tangible thing that is perputated by future generations. And within a few generations your impact is exponentially decreased until it asymptotically goes to zero within at most 500 years.

Also let me briefly give you a reason as to why religion is still good, depsite all of the negative aspects that I've brought up. I don't know what to tell somebody either thats a crackhead or a dopefiend or is just plain poor and hopeless. I don't know how to tell them that its partially their fault but partially their society's but nobody is going to do anything about it. I don't know how to do these things without in conclusion telling them to trust nobody and take responsibility for themselves. I don't know how to tell them these things at the same time as telling them that when they die, there's nothing for them. Sometimes the truth is sad. If people weren't lied to all of their lives, maybe it'd be easier to get to. Oh well.

treesuss · 06-09-2009, 03:51 PM

also, anybody else know why it says "Moved:" in front of the topic?

wjhsxc · 06-09-2009, 04:18 PM

...because it's been moved.

This has nothing to do with Cornell.