Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Gorgo · Jul 13, 2004, 09:40 am

What you decide to make yourself sick or angry over is none of my business.

I have repeatedly stated that this has nothing to do with anyone being better than anyone, so this seems to be a difficulty of perception on your part, or a difficulty in delivery on my part. Either way, please be clear on this one point. I am not better than people who have mental illnesses or delusions.

Are you saying that you're better than people who disagree with you? Are you saying that you're better than people who have mental illness? Are you saying that you're better than alcoholics or obese people?

Gorgo · Jul 13, 2004, 10:16 am

This person is evidently here just to insult people.

Quote:

Originally posted by KSoDBartman,
Does this bulletin board program have an "Ignore" feature?

**Sean** · Jul 13, 2004, 06:46 pm

and he's been banned after a terrible response to a moderator pm, and one from me.

back on topic...

**Pooeypants** · Jul 13, 2004, 06:59 pm

Finally, he was getting on my nerves BIG time.

OberonDOtherseid · Jul 13, 2004, 10:31 pm

Replies from a PM are not bannable in a forum touting interest in views, even those which oppose ones ascribed by the mods. I think he should be re-instated.

Jeff · Jul 15, 2004, 02:25 pm

I, as a Christian, place a high value on this life. Christians believe that the creator of the universe sacrificed His Son to save man. I believe that shows that God highly values mankind. Matt 28:19 states Christians should spread the gospel. Effecting someone’s eternity certainly gives this life great value.

As to other theist based religions, almost all have supreme beings interacting with mankind. I do not know of any religion that has a creator ignoring mankind until he becomes worthy after death. Even religions that believe in an afterlife give value to this life.

Atheist and others whom do not believe in an afterlife must give value to this life. For them there is nothing else. Raising a family and helping others can give this life meaning that will last after our bodies join the wrong end of the food chain.

It seems Rusty is questioning the lasting meaning well beyond succeeding generations. I agree, I do not understand how an atheist can believe their life will affect anything 100 million years from now. That does not take away from the value of life at present. Anyone who does not believe in an afterlife must highly value this life. For them there is nothing else.

shunyadragon · Jul 15, 2004, 09:00 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Jeff,
I, as a Christian, place a high value on this life. Christians believe that the creator of the universe sacrificed His Son to save man. I believe that shows that God highly values mankind. Matt 28:19 states Christians should spread the gospel. Effecting someone’s eternity certainly gives this life great value.

As to other theist based religions, almost all have supreme beings interacting with mankind. I do not know of any religion that has a creator ignoring mankind until he becomes worthy after death. Even religions that believe in an afterlife give value to this life.

Atheist and others whom do not believe in an afterlife must give value to this life. For them there is nothing else. Raising a family and helping others can give this life meaning that will last after our bodies join the wrong end of the food chain.

It seems Rusty is questioning the lasting meaning well beyond succeeding generations. I agree, I do not understand how an atheist can believe their life will affect anything 100 million years from now. That does not take away from the value of life at present. Anyone who does not believe in an afterlife must highly value this life. For them there is nothing else.

This probably correct. Atheists do give value to their life, and see their immortality in their proginy and the advancment of society, not in a promise of an afterlife. What happens 100,000 years from probably is not important to an atheist.

kellbing · Jul 18, 2004, 05:14 pm

Why do you think atheists care any less about what happens 1,000 years from now than theists do?

Tell me, how are you concerned about the state of the world in 1,000 years?

shunyadragon · Jul 18, 2004, 08:48 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by kellbing,
Why do you think atheists care any less about what happens 1,000 years from now than theists do?

Tell me, how are you concerned about the state of the world in 1,000 years?

Good point. Many Christians feel the world will end long before that and all Christians will be taken up in the rapture.

chimere · Jul 19, 2004, 01:07 pm

okay but have to have a vision of life i say be ''libertin''

chimere · Jul 19, 2004, 01:09 pm

i respect religious it take's stamina and strenght to force logic
out of your head hi hi hi hi!

chimere · Jul 19, 2004, 01:11 pm

to be good it is harder than being evil,so to evolve is to be good!

m5lange1 · Jul 19, 2004, 03:04 pm

This whole thing seems a bit self contradictory to me. Trying to prove or disprove beliefs that is.

If you "know" something you hold it as a truth because there is (at least to you) tangible proof.

If you "believe" something you hold it as truth in the absence of tangible proof.

When it is said that you do or do not believe in God by definition you hold your "belief" without tangible proof.

When it is said that you "know" there is or is not a God it implies that you have some tangible proof.

Since neither the believers nor the athiests are likely to come up with any proof, this thread seems to have turned into some of the old arguments about morality without religion or whether religion is good or bad.

Okay my two cents:
Religion is good (whether it is truth or a falsehood) when it gives people hope, when it comforts people, when it organizes to help those in need, when it supplies a moral pattern for those who need it.

Religion is bad (whether it is truth or a falsehood) when it becomes a justification for otherwise imoral actions, when it tries to impose its restrictions on non-believers, when it is a cause for the "us vs. them" mentality.

M5

Gorgo · Jul 19, 2004, 03:09 pm

Religion does not give hope, it gives false hope. Religion does not give comfort. What people tell themselves about themselves and their world gives them comfort. If people tell themselves that they'd better make up a fantasy because reality is not a good thing, or they are not good people, or they are not people that are capable of dealing with reality, then that gives neither hope nor comfort.

Morality of course differs depending on how people interpret their religion.

PatrickHenry · Jul 19, 2004, 05:34 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Gorgo,
Religion does not give hope, it gives false hope.

In Your Humble Opinion.

Gorgo · Jul 19, 2004, 06:17 pm

That's your opinion.

Quote:

Originally posted by PatrickHenry,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PatrickHenry,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Gorgo,
Religion does not give hope, it gives false hope.

In Your Humble Opinion.[/b][/quote]

m5lange1 · Jul 20, 2004, 11:28 am

Gorgo,

Hope can be hope whether it is false or not.

Let us assume (for the sake of this example) that there is no truth to any religion.

An idividual is dying of some fatal desease or is miserable and alone in their old age. The reading of their scripture gives them hope and makes them feel better believeing heaven awaits them and they will be rejoined soon with the ones they love.

Then they die and there is no consciousness. They just cease to be. Did that make the comfort of hope from their religion any less valid while they were still alive?

Is the cold truth always better than the warm falsehood?

If so, if someone does something for you such as gives you a gift or cooks you a special dinner, and the gift is embarrisingly bad or the food not all that great do you throw the cold truth in their face or allow the warm falsehood?

M5

Gorgo · Jul 20, 2004, 11:38 pm

Is it better to gain some false hope and lose a love of reality than to lose some false hope and lose a love of reality? I think never.

Cold truth? From where does this characterization come? Why is reality cold and a lie warm?

Should someone learn that their life was worth every minute, or would it be better to learn their life was worth very little?

m5lange1 · Jul 21, 2004, 09:28 am

Okay I will pass on the warm vs. cold since it was analogy.

Because someone believes something that is untrue does not cause them to lose their love of reality.

Do you honestly believe that everything you hold as true right now really is true? Everything?

I imagine there are faults in our current science. Things we all believe right now that will be proven wrong later. I don't think that diminishes anyone's love of reality.

I bet someone at sometime told you they appriciated a deed or gift from you that did not mean squat to them.

And I really am curious. If a child would make something for you that is pretty ugly and unrecognizable would you tell them so in the cause of truth and reality or would you spare their feelings?

PS If your response is truth at all costs..... If a significant female other ever asks "Does this make me look fat?"..... Run. Run as far and fast as you can. :)

Gorgo · Jul 21, 2004, 10:32 am

If someone believes something that is untrue, then they do not lose their love of reality. If they need it to be true, as in the case of religion, in order to gain or maintain self-worth, then they have lost some of their love of reality. People think their life is not worth anything if they don't add these falsehoods to their life.

I think that it is custom in our society to tell little white lies about a lot of things. That doesn't make it right, but it happens and I've done it and probably will in the future. I am not perfect. However, I do not hold that as an ideal, and I strive for ways to say things differently. I also understand that my view of things are based on my self-perception as well. I found out that if I don't see all of life as beautiful, then I'm seeing something wrong. That doesn't mean that I don't see things wrong, and it doesn't mean that I don't want to change things. It's more on the level of preference now than it used to be for me.

That's sort of getting off topic, though. The point is that yes, if I can't think of a different way to word something, I will tell a little white lie. That is the custom, and I'm not smart enough to pull completely out of that. However, that is not the ideal.

It's the same with science, or any other imperfect system. The ideal is to learn. Certainly, false beliefs slow down the attainment of that ideal sometimes. Falsehoods generally do. It is not the ideal of religion to grow in knowledge, it is the ideal to prove what is already known. In science, it is recognized that there are these impediments to knowledge, but the impediments are not the ideal.

If my wife asks me about her clothes, which she doesn't, and I didn't think it did her beauty justice, I would tell her that, rather than tell her that it made her ass look too big.

Jul 13, 2004, 06:46 pm	#63 (permalink) (top)
Sean former overlord Location: New York Posts: 2,383	and he's been banned after a terrible response to a moderator pm, and one from me. back on topic... So it goes

Jul 13, 2004, 06:59 pm	#64 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,609	Finally, he was getting on my nerves BIG time. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Jul 13, 2004, 10:31 pm	#65 (permalink) (top)
OberonDOtherseid Logic Via Reality Posts: 653	Replies from a PM are not bannable in a forum touting interest in views, even those which oppose ones ascribed by the mods. I think he should be re-instated. George Bush kicks ass and takes names in 2005!!

Jul 18, 2004, 05:14 pm	#68 (permalink) (top)
kellbing Molten Ash Posts: 69	Why do you think atheists care any less about what happens 1,000 years from now than theists do? Tell me, how are you concerned about the state of the world in 1,000 years? I don't need illusions. I live in the real world.

Jul 19, 2004, 03:04 pm	#73 (permalink) (top)
m5lange1 Igneous Magma Posts: 667	This whole thing seems a bit self contradictory to me. Trying to prove or disprove beliefs that is. If you "know" something you hold it as a truth because there is (at least to you) tangible proof. If you "believe" something you hold it as truth in the absence of tangible proof. When it is said that you do or do not believe in God by definition you hold your "belief" without tangible proof. When it is said that you "know" there is or is not a God it implies that you have some tangible proof. Since neither the believers nor the athiests are likely to come up with any proof, this thread seems to have turned into some of the old arguments about morality without religion or whether religion is good or bad. Okay my two cents: Religion is good (whether it is truth or a falsehood) when it gives people hope, when it comforts people, when it organizes to help those in need, when it supplies a moral pattern for those who need it. Religion is bad (whether it is truth or a falsehood) when it becomes a justification for otherwise imoral actions, when it tries to impose its restrictions on non-believers, when it is a cause for the "us vs. them" mentality. M5 Protester against the culture war!!!!

Jul 13, 2004, 09:40 am	#61 (permalink) (top)
Gorgo BANNED-Warned multiple times about instigating. User then reported topics multiple times to mess with staff. Posts: 4,412	What you decide to make yourself sick or angry over is none of my business. I have repeatedly stated that this has nothing to do with anyone being better than anyone, so this seems to be a difficulty of perception on your part, or a difficulty in delivery on my part. Either way, please be clear on this one point. I am not better than people who have mental illnesses or delusions. Are you saying that you're better than people who disagree with you? Are you saying that you're better than people who have mental illness? Are you saying that you're better than alcoholics or obese people?

Jul 15, 2004, 02:25 pm	#66 (permalink) (top)
Jeff Molten Ash Location: Texas Posts: 101	I, as a Christian, place a high value on this life. Christians believe that the creator of the universe sacrificed His Son to save man. I believe that shows that God highly values mankind. Matt 28:19 states Christians should spread the gospel. Effecting someone’s eternity certainly gives this life great value. As to other theist based religions, almost all have supreme beings interacting with mankind. I do not know of any religion that has a creator ignoring mankind until he becomes worthy after death. Even religions that believe in an afterlife give value to this life. Atheist and others whom do not believe in an afterlife must give value to this life. For them there is nothing else. Raising a family and helping others can give this life meaning that will last after our bodies join the wrong end of the food chain. It seems Rusty is questioning the lasting meaning well beyond succeeding generations. I agree, I do not understand how an atheist can believe their life will affect anything 100 million years from now. That does not take away from the value of life at present. Anyone who does not believe in an afterlife must highly value this life. For them there is nothing else.

Jul 19, 2004, 01:07 pm	#70 (permalink) (top)
chimere Sedimentary Rock Posts: 4	okay but have to have a vision of life i say be ''libertin''

Jul 19, 2004, 01:09 pm	#71 (permalink) (top)
chimere Sedimentary Rock Posts: 4	i respect religious it take's stamina and strenght to force logic out of your head hi hi hi hi!

Jul 19, 2004, 01:11 pm	#72 (permalink) (top)
chimere Sedimentary Rock Posts: 4	to be good it is harder than being evil,so to evolve is to be good!

Jul 19, 2004, 03:09 pm	#74 (permalink) (top)
Gorgo BANNED-Warned multiple times about instigating. User then reported topics multiple times to mess with staff. Posts: 4,412	Religion does not give hope, it gives false hope. Religion does not give comfort. What people tell themselves about themselves and their world gives them comfort. If people tell themselves that they'd better make up a fantasy because reality is not a good thing, or they are not good people, or they are not people that are capable of dealing with reality, then that gives neither hope nor comfort. Morality of course differs depending on how people interpret their religion.

Jul 20, 2004, 11:28 am	#77 (permalink) (top)
m5lange1 Igneous Magma Posts: 667	Gorgo, Hope can be hope whether it is false or not. Let us assume (for the sake of this example) that there is no truth to any religion. An idividual is dying of some fatal desease or is miserable and alone in their old age. The reading of their scripture gives them hope and makes them feel better believeing heaven awaits them and they will be rejoined soon with the ones they love. Then they die and there is no consciousness. They just cease to be. Did that make the comfort of hope from their religion any less valid while they were still alive? Is the cold truth always better than the warm falsehood? If so, if someone does something for you such as gives you a gift or cooks you a special dinner, and the gift is embarrisingly bad or the food not all that great do you throw the cold truth in their face or allow the warm falsehood? M5 Protester against the culture war!!!!

Jul 20, 2004, 11:38 pm	#78 (permalink) (top)
Gorgo BANNED-Warned multiple times about instigating. User then reported topics multiple times to mess with staff. Posts: 4,412	Is it better to gain some false hope and lose a love of reality than to lose some false hope and lose a love of reality? I think never. Cold truth? From where does this characterization come? Why is reality cold and a lie warm? Should someone learn that their life was worth every minute, or would it be better to learn their life was worth very little?

Jul 21, 2004, 09:28 am	#79 (permalink) (top)
m5lange1 Igneous Magma Posts: 667	Okay I will pass on the warm vs. cold since it was analogy. Because someone believes something that is untrue does not cause them to lose their love of reality. Do you honestly believe that everything you hold as true right now really is true? Everything? I imagine there are faults in our current science. Things we all believe right now that will be proven wrong later. I don't think that diminishes anyone's love of reality. I bet someone at sometime told you they appriciated a deed or gift from you that did not mean squat to them. And I really am curious. If a child would make something for you that is pretty ugly and unrecognizable would you tell them so in the cause of truth and reality or would you spare their feelings? PS If your response is truth at all costs..... If a significant female other ever asks "Does this make me look fat?"..... Run. Run as far and fast as you can. :) Protester against the culture war!!!!

Jul 21, 2004, 10:32 am	#80 (permalink) (top)
Gorgo BANNED-Warned multiple times about instigating. User then reported topics multiple times to mess with staff. Posts: 4,412	If someone believes something that is untrue, then they do not lose their love of reality. If they need it to be true, as in the case of religion, in order to gain or maintain self-worth, then they have lost some of their love of reality. People think their life is not worth anything if they don't add these falsehoods to their life. I think that it is custom in our society to tell little white lies about a lot of things. That doesn't make it right, but it happens and I've done it and probably will in the future. I am not perfect. However, I do not hold that as an ideal, and I strive for ways to say things differently. I also understand that my view of things are based on my self-perception as well. I found out that if I don't see all of life as beautiful, then I'm seeing something wrong. That doesn't mean that I don't see things wrong, and it doesn't mean that I don't want to change things. It's more on the level of preference now than it used to be for me. That's sort of getting off topic, though. The point is that yes, if I can't think of a different way to word something, I will tell a little white lie. That is the custom, and I'm not smart enough to pull completely out of that. However, that is not the ideal. It's the same with science, or any other imperfect system. The ideal is to learn. Certainly, false beliefs slow down the attainment of that ideal sometimes. Falsehoods generally do. It is not the ideal of religion to grow in knowledge, it is the ideal to prove what is already known. In science, it is recognized that there are these impediments to knowledge, but the impediments are not the ideal. If my wife asks me about her clothes, which she doesn't, and I didn't think it did her beauty justice, I would tell her that, rather than tell her that it made her ass look too big.