God? Don't be silly!

[nath]

To return to your example; It wouldn't matter it you littered if there was no reprocautions, you don't do it because you think there might be.

So you're basically you're calling me a liar or suggesting that I'm kidding myself?

I'm not saying this for offence, though I don't see any way of avoiding it, but you've got a pretty child like attitude here. The only reason not to do bad things is because of the potential repercussions? If that was the case, I'd be a total shit. There's tonnes of bad things I could do that would have no repercussions - hell, I could quite easily litter with no comeuppance so why don't I? Because I understand that it's a shitty thing to do, I understand the consequences of my actions whether the affect me or not.

 

[Calaen]

I don't have to try and spin it, i can de-spin it thought for you;

Why use effort in making a positive effect on people instead of having AS MUCH fun as possible.

Now drop it.

No because you are saying that you cannot have a positive effect on people and have as much fun as possible. You believe that having a good effect on someone relates to you not having fun.

 

[Calaen]

Not really. It all comes down to that.

You can do nice things now, but afte death, it has no meaning on a personal level.

To return to your example; It wouldn't matter it you littered if there was no reprocautions, you don't do it because you think there might be.

You're not that good a person because you're still human.

Everything we do in life has Repocussions, whether it is good or bad. I am human and I am a good person. Maybe it's because you never change you mind about things?

 

[old.Tohtori]

No because you are saying that you cannot have a positive effect on people and have as much fun as possible. You believe that having a good effect on someone relates to you not having fun.

I suggest both to read again and maybe, MAYBE do what you preach so much and look at it from a different angle then the one idea you got out of it on one quick read and sticking to it with tooth and nail.

So you're basically you're calling me a liar or suggesting that I'm kidding myself?

I'm not saying this for offence, though I don't see any way of avoiding it, but you've got a pretty child like attitude here. The only reason not to do bad things is because of the potential repercussions? If that was the case, I'd be a total shit. There's tonnes of bad things I could do that would have no repercussions - hell, I could quite easily litter with no comeuppance so why don't I? Because I understand that it's a shitty thing to do, I understand the consequences of my actions whether the affect me or not.

Nath, it's simple, you odn't do shitty things due to reprocussions. If you could take money out of the bank with zero consequence, you would.

It's hard coded in your head. Growing up, taught, there.

Not calling you a liar either.

Maybe other people need to drop the anger angle on things.

But hey, don't worry, you can always say i derailed it into petty argumet about what reprocussions are.

 

[nath]

Nath, it's simple, you odn't do shitty things due to reprocussions. If you could take money out of the bank with zero consequence, you would.

You're wrong. The taxman recently made an error and sent me a rebate of £100 more than they owed me. I could have cashed this and waited to see if they asked me to pay it back but instead contacted them and sorted it out sooner. As it turns out, given the nature of the mistake they'd never have caught it and I'd have been able to keep the money.

So your bank example is wrong - there would be no consequences to *me* but there would be to others, whether I knew them or not. This is why I wouldn't.

 

[Calaen]

I suggest both to read again and maybe, MAYBE do what you preach so much and look at it from a different angle then the one idea you got out of it on one quick read and sticking to it with tooth and nail.

I can't view it any other way, or read it any other way. Talk about tooth and nail, you said earlier you lived for the now, yet you have told me that you will never have your own child because you have made up your mind. I suspect you are talking arse

 

[Turamber]

Original sin is targeted at women thanks to St. Paul.

Sin is inherent in all humans, not limited to women. I'm not aware of any passages where he targetted women in the way you are suggesting. You get very het up about the Catholic church but they really aren't representative of all Christians.

Heck their priests aren't allowed to marry, something which Jesus said (in the Gospels) was a teaching of demons. In their desire to make tradition the equal of Biblical canon they've got some very strange ideas, many of which are rooted in Roman paganism.

 

[old.Tohtori]

You're wrong. The taxman recently made an error and sent me a rebate of £100 more than they owed me. I could have cashed this and waited to see if they asked me to pay it back but instead contacted them and sorted it out sooner. As it turns out, given the nature of the mistake they'd never have caught it and I'd have been able to keep the money.

So your bank example is wrong - there would be no consequences to *me* but there would be to others, whether I knew them or not. This is why I wouldn't.

Yeah, that bank example nitpicking is just how to go about it *claps*

Glad you actually consider all points and discuss them as they are instead of nitpick on some line.

I can't view it any other way, or read it any other way. Talk about tooth and nail, you said earlier you lived for the now, yet you have told me that you will never have your own child because you have made up your mind. I suspect you are talking arse

Ofcourse, that's the same thing. Mhm. Living here and now, and knowing what you want. Same thing. I applaude you too.

Even if it's pointless to say, read back, both of you. Try to see where you might have a problem in discussions.

But nevermind, not today, maybe try tomorrow with more patience.

 

[nath]

OK Toht, I think if you're going to be obnoxious and argumentative then either this thread should be closed or you should take yourself out of it. Though you won't admit it it's fairly clear to see that you're being quite rude. This thread has only lasted this long due to people being able to discuss things civilly but it seems you've only been able to do that so long.

Yeah, that bank example nitpicking is just how to go about it *claps*

Glad you actually consider all points and discuss them as they are instead of nitpick on some line.

The reason I don't do bad things is not because of the consequences to me, but because of an understanding of the consequences to others. I feel that the tax example highlighted that fairly well, would you like to explain while you feel it's nitpicking?

 

[Scouse]

Nath, it's simple, you odn't do shitty things due to reprocussions. If you could take money out of the bank with zero consequence, you would.

It's hard coded in your head. Growing up, taught, there.

Not calling you a liar either.

Maybe other people need to drop the anger angle on things.

But hey, don't worry, you can always say i derailed it into petty argumet about what reprocussions are.

Disagree totally there Toht. I'd say you don't do some things because of possible repercussions but to try to say that's the only reason people don't do shitty things is going too far IMHO.

 

[TdC]

please keep stuff ongoing guys. if this thing bogs down, please agree to disagree or present an arguement that people can work with.

or it gets closed with complete disregard of the consequences to others

 

[Cemeterygates]

Nath: you say it is ignorant to believe something without 100% factual proof?...not that you said that word for word, but that is the idea i get, if i'm wrong say so...but is it not ignorant to rely fully on science? when science can only provide so much...science is wrong at times as a lot of it can just be theories based on very limited knowledge. (i'm not defending blind faith here...but there are 2 sides to a coin, ya know?) We know a rather fucking small percentage of this worlds inhabitants (new species being discovered etc etc) so how can anyone really say for or against either side of the arguement? we barely know our own planet as it is now, nevermind how it came to being.

I'm no religous type at all...i do not believe in gods but there is one question i think neither science or religion will ever answer....where did we come from? I honestly think we will never know, only have ideas, be they based on blind faith or scientific evidence.

And with regards to Toht. and the atheist + UFO thing....i consider myself atheist...and i believe there are many intelligent life forms on other planets. Just look into the sky on a clear night...how can anyone be so ignorant as to think we are the only ones, as all those stars are suns,moons and planets? as for them being advanced enough to visit us, i think that is very hard to say, but in all honesty i can't dismiss it. I have had an experience that does make me believe there are some rather advanced things flying around in our skies, but if they are from other planets or just top secret government/military craft who is to know?

Religion is blind and has a lot of blood on it's hands, and ofc is very irrational. It has advantages and disadvantages as does science....just look at some of the horrors science has created (Hiroshima....nuclear warheads etc.).....neither is better than the other in my honest opinion.

 

[old.Tohtori]

OK Toht, I think if you're going to be obnoxious and argumentative then either this thread should be closed or you should take yourself out of it. Though you won't admit it it's fairly clear to see that you're being quite rude. This thread has only lasted this long due to people being able to discuss things civilly but it seems you've only been able to do that so long.

I've been able to do so, but today is a bad day to do so. Like i said, i'll leave it for tomorrow(or better day) because i notice i'm letting real life effect all around discussions.

In short, bad day, not good day to talk, continue later.

 

[nath]

I've been able to do so, but today is a bad day to do so. Like i said, i'll leave it for tomorrow(or better day) because i notice i'm letting real life effect all around discussions.

In short, bad day, not good day to talk, continue later.

Fair enough.

 

[rynnor]

Religion is blind and has a lot of blood on it's hands, and ofc is very irrational. It has advantages and disadvantages as does science....just look at some of the horrors science has created (Hiroshima....nuclear warheads etc.).....neither is better than the other in my honest opinion.

I agree with you to a certain degree but science and religion are both products of humanity so are doomed to be linked to violence.

I would say the key difference between them is their way of looking at the world - your either religious and just believe certain things are so or you favour science and seek proof of your theories.

On the other hand I dont think any scientists have ever had positions of great power - its not something they tend to seek whereas there have been many religious leaders who lead their followers into wars over the last few millenia.

Science is not in and of itself a religion but it does foster an openness to new ideas where religions try to tell you they have all the answers.

 

[Calaen]

Stuff

Yes Science can be wrong but people are always working on proving it wrong based on experimentation. As for Religion well aint no one other than God himself going to convince me of his existence.

 

[Cemeterygates]

On the other hand I dont think any scientists have ever had positions of great power - its not something they tend to seek whereas there have been many religious leaders who lead their followers into wars over the last few millenia.

Well if ya take the Illuminati into account that isn't entirely true.
But with religion yes...look at what christianity did to the pagans..look at the crusades...

 

[Wij]

Well if ya take the Illuminati into account that isn't entirely true.
But with religion yes...look at what christianity did to the pagans..look at the crusades...

I'd hardly call the Illuminati, real or fictonal, scientists. For one science must be done in the open where it can be scrutinised. Not ideal for a secret society

 

[Turamber]

look at the crusades...

More about politics and power than religion. The Byzantines wanted the Turks out of Asia Minor - not because they were Muslims but because they didn't submit to Imperial authority.

The Byzantines actually thought more of the Muslims than they did of Western Christendom who they discounted as barbarians. That bit them on the bum, though, when the Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople.

And although religious schism was used as a casus beli for that Crusade it had far more to do with Venice's jealousy over Byzantium's international trading pre-eminence.

 

[Scouse]

More about politics and power than religion

That's all the same thing Turamber. The Pope sits a the top of a tree designed to enforce (through social discomfort) a very specific morality on as many people as possible.

That's the truth of Religion.

 

[Cemeterygates]

I'd hardly call the Illuminati, real or fictonal, scientists. For one science must be done in the open where it can be scrutinised. Not ideal for a secret society

To my knowledge of the Illuminati, it was founded by scientists and supposedly consisted of many of the great scientists of the time.

 

[DaGaffer]

To my knowledge of the Illuminati, it was founded by scientists and supposedly consisted of many of the great scientists of the time.

Yeah...you really should stop reading Dan Brown, that shit'll make you go blind.

 

[Chilly]

So what's the answer then? Does God exist? Its been 400+ posts already, you cant tell me that you havnt solved it yet! Its such a simple problem!

 

[Wij]

Just make it a poll. The winner is true !

 

[Turamber]

That's the truth of Religion.

Nah. Way too simple, sorry.

 

[rynnor]

To my knowledge of the Illuminati, it was founded by scientists and supposedly consisted of many of the great scientists of the time.

I'm sorry but the illuminati is an x files style conspiracy rather than historical fact - there was a guy found with some crazy stuff about an illuminati society but it may have been a silly gentlemens club.

 

[Vintersorg]

I'm sorry but the illuminati is an x files style conspiracy rather than historical fact - there was a guy found with some crazy stuff about an illuminati society but it may have been a silly gentlemens club.

Actually, there has been a real Illuminati society in the 18th century.
Even though they didn't call themselves this way (they called themselves perfectibilists or something like that, I forgot which one exactly), but the people called them Illuminati.
But the actual organisation existed for less than ten years...even though conspiracy theories want to make us believe they still exist and try to take over the world.

 

[Scouse]

Nah. Way too simple, sorry.

Just because it's simple and easy?

The catholic church, for example, has a very specific rule set you have to follow. They are "moral" commandments. The rest of the bible shows you how to live your life morally.

Any deviation from this is greeted with derision, preaching and, when they give up, excommunication.


How is that not exactly what I described?

 

[Turamber]

How is that not exactly what I described?

You are suggesting, if not implicitly stating, that all religions wish to control their members lives and their members simply wish for their lives to be controlled. It is simply not the case.

There are also growing numbers of Christians who do not associate with any particular Church or denomination. Pray tell who is controlling them?

 

[Scouse]

There are also growing numbers of Christians who do not associate with any particular Church or denomination. Pray tell who is controlling them?

The ruleset that defines their Christianity.