Discuss Christianity

I've never had much use for religion or philosophy, so I really don't get why anyone would want to study them.

Seems to me that much effort would be better put towards curing cancer or something.

 

Eh, different strokes for different folks, I guess.

That logic is pretty awkward since it can be applied so broadly; shouldn't you be working on more important things as opposed to doing whatever it is that you do for fun (video games, posting here, whatever)? If you aren't curing cancer or doing something similarly important, what good are you?

See what I mean?

 

I actually believe that once something is created in the physical world as we know it, or created by thought or imagination, that it automatically exists in another world somewhere else.

And that the only reason we can't access it is because those worlds aren’t connected. I believe that thought is the real culprit behind creation and that our world, is just something someone or some creature imagined in their head and now we exist because of that one thought. And that thought itself, i.e., creating things in our heads actually bring them to life in one big multiverse of worlds. I tend to believe that no matter what or who you believe in, that its all the same entity, and the entity you choose to believe in that power itself, if it chooses to speak to you does so in that way because "it" knows you will understand it better since you created or believe in that particular image in your head.


I know I'm probably being incredibly contradictory here, but I believe that Man, created Gods and not the other way around.


They only reason they have any power is because we dared to imagine - to create them in our heads, and thus giving them power in a pararell universe.


(Edit) I also believe that you don't need a religion to move on to a better place. That if you are a good person, and pure of heart then you will be rewarded with the choice of your ideal paradise.

For me it'd be Equestria - no doubt.


For example the whole universe could simply be the creation of a floating thought without a body. Isn't that wonderous?

PS: Who invited the 4-Chan reject? Haha! Guess he's off to Canterlot Dungeon now anyway now that he's banned

 

That's an interesting commitment for all kinds of reasons, but I'd like to raise the issue of ethics. Your belief would imply that if you make up a story where someone dies or have some similar sort of thought, then congratulations, you're actually a real murderer and have breached some serious ethical values. You had the thought, and so under your system it must have happened in some other inaccessible realm. That's makes both you and I pretty terrible people, considering we had to have that thought in order to even have this discussion. By even reading this and understanding it, you're committing murder.

I dunno, man, but that seems like an awkward thing to believe.

 

What I meant though was that once something is created by thought, it lives independently and is subject to the fate that is created by the world around it.
I did say the worlds are not connected, so although initial though creates; it cannot interfere with worlds that aren’t connected. Or that's my theory at least.

There's also the theory that in pararel universes the same creature can die, but still be alive in another. But that's an unrelated theory for another time

I also said that humans although able to create many marvellous things, they still haven't learned to unlock the magical power that may reside inside them secretly.

Perhaps it is part of our sub-conscious hat prevents us from unlocking it because we know how dangerous it could be.

 

Oh, I understood what you meant. But there are moral implications -- that I believe we should all find troubling -- inherent in what you meant.

You did say that, but the ability of one thing to affect another implies a causal connection from the action taken by Thing A to the state of Thing B. Thus, saying that two things "aren't connected" yet somehow have a causal relationship is incoherent.

 

Reviewing it I can see where you coming from. But let me give an example.
If a person creates say a new world. It is viewed online by millions of people.
If one person kills it in their mind but several others don't, then the conflicting interest would negate both ideas.
Allowing the status quo to continue.

I would much rather take the view though that once something is created, the "umbilical" cord if you will is severed,
and the connection between created and creator are severed. Allowing the new life to live independently of its maker. But like you said, there are flaws in my theory. But it's just a nice thought in my mind.

 

In your example, if each person chooses whether or not to "kill" something, whatever it is, in their mind, then under your initial premise a number of universes where the thing is either killed or not killed are created, existing parallel to the universe where these people had these thoughts (presumably our own). That doesn't necessarily equate to the negation of those ideas. There could just be a bunch of different universes created separately, not conflicting with each other.

The umbilical cord analogy is a nice one.

 

I spent today helping build a school.
What did you do that was important?

The point I was trying to make is that people who aren't an asset to society more often than not end up being a burden to society.
I could be wrong, and feel free to correct me if I am, but I've never heard of a modern philosopher making a useful contribution to the world.

 

Since you tried to make this personal, I'll add that I spent most of today working on schoolwork... so obviously I must be a terrible person. Oh, how I wish we could all be as good and great as you. I will add that the sort of person who goes around and asserts that others are a "burden" is probably adding to detrimental rhetoric in our society, compounding problems that, while invisible to him, are quite real.

I doubt any one person can deign to elucidate exactly what is and is not a superior contribution to society. Your arrogance is astounding and your assertion that today you helped build a school does not change the fact that you did not cure cancer, and the reasoning behind you "you all could be curing cancer but instead you ____" means that now you are only slightly less terrible of a person. You might be better (by some imaginary metric you yourself have invented) than some other people, but by your own assertions you will never be good enough. That was what I referred to when I mentioned your assertions could be awkward.

You are absolutely wrong on your point about philosophers. People such as John Locke built the theoretical foundation for our government (USA), all points of which are the building blocks for our society. Similar philosophers have done similar things around the world, and they are remembered for it. Your ignorance on this issue does nothing to shake those objective facts.

 

This is why a sarcasm font needs to exist.

I wasn't actually trying to insult you. That was supposed to be a joke.
I'm not actually arrogant enough to believe that what I do for a living is important.

The point I was trying to make is that philosophers spend a lot of time thinking, but aren't actually doing anything.
My personal belief is that actions, not words, are what define a person.
People talk all the time about making the world a better place, but how many of them are willing to make the effort to do so?

Also, John Locke was a physician. People would never have taken him seriously if he weren't already known as an intelligent and respectable man.
That's the problem with modern "philosophers."
Someone who studied philosophy in a classroom probably isn't going to have the real world experience necessary to reach rational and realistic conclusions.

 

Dios mio. I have become error.



My apologies to you, Ridley.

A call for sincerity among philosophers is definitely a practical concern; it does, however, seem to draw us towards a near-inevitable some-but-not-all-philosophers-are-bad-at-this kind of conclusion.

 

Eh, *squee!* happens. We good?

 

We're good.

 

O.O The Crazy turn of events that has happened since I left Thursday is astounding... I wish I had something substantial to add but I just wanted to state my awe at the change of mood in here in the past few days.....

 

I can't believe in any one organized religion simply because they all contradict each other, and there's no empirical evidence supporting any of them.

 

Straight out of the gate, no one can use anything that is written in the bible and say it's the word of YHWH, nobody can provide or even conceive of evidence to say otherwise given YHWH's supposed abilities. Omnipotence trumps anything put forward to falsify it. The majority of this thread is not following this principle, Instead it is filled with unfalsifiable opinions based on the words in the bible being put forward, and then discussed as if they are fact, then wrongfully held above criticism because they are opinions, which again, those particular opinions went against the principle of falsfiability, a requirement of this thread set by the OP, who unfortunately didn't adhere to this himself. I am surprised this is what passes for "serious discussion"
Dilly, you were set up to fail from the start.

 

Strawman, though really it's more of an ad hominem as you are attempting to attack my character here Legion, and not what is being discussed.

You can't just make up your own fabricated statment and put your words into my mouth. Well I mean you can you just did, what you're saying I'm saying has nothing to do with what I posted however. Instead you decided to make unsubstantiated claims about what I apparently believe when my post doesn't even touch the subject.

OP asked this thread to follow the principle of falsifiabilty, that has not happened and that's all I've pointed out, I have not weighed in with my take on anything beyond that.

 

That's really not what Berry said. Not even a little bit.