If there is no God

[wise acre]

So you can swallow all powerful gods that nobody can find, but proposing that such things are stupid is beyond your capacity?

So when you look at the OP, you see a logical argument?

Or is it because he is on your team that you think pointing out the absurdity of his argument is wrong.

 

[wise acre]

The main tentative statement in the 1st place is that there might be gods. Then there's the tentative statement that 1 or more are good. Then there's the tentative statement that there is life for us after death.
And so on & on & on & on ... ... ... ...

IOW theism is silly and illogical
so no one should point out how silly and illogical Michael's OP is.

 

[wise acre]

Two questions
1) You do agree if there are no Gods then that the so-called Prophets were all liars and the Philosophers were just people who enjoy pontificating?

And again 1) this does not necessarily make them liars 2) it has no effect on what the philosophers were doing and 3) notice the way you mind read the philosophers.

 

[S.A.M.]

and when you get sick of that (or more likely, your partner does) perhaps you might be inclined to begin seriously investigating buddhism

More likely to look for another partner. And hence the failure of Buddhism except for those few who are ascetically inclined.

So when you look at the OP, you see a logical argument?

Or is it because he is on your team that you think pointing out the absurdity of his argument is wrong.

What makes you think they can see the absurdity of his arguments?

The only appropriate response to Michaels ruminations:

Am I the only one who doesn't have a clue what you're trying to communicate here?

 

[wise acre]

What makes you think they can see the absurdity of his arguments?

I like that you are referring to swarm as a 'they'. In any case...I have seen swarm be quite sharp and incisive. I would shift the verb to 'could'. I think he could if he was willing.

 

[wynn]

What makes you think they can see the absurdity of his arguments?

"Are the atheists willing to see the absurdity of Michael's arguments, but not able?
Then they are not omnipotent.
Are they able, but not willing?
Then they are malevolent.
Are they both able and willing?
Then whence cometh the proliferation of absurd arguments against theism?
Are they neither neither able nor willing?
Then why take them seriously?"

- Epicurus II

 

[Michael]

Which do you think is more spiritually fulfilling: LG's incoherent babbling or good sex?

Sex!!!

And while I'm not a Buddhist I'm sure those that have "ascended" have good sex too or maybe not? I didn't know Buddhism was about not haveing sex - f*ck that.

Also, there's nothing morally wrong with having many different sex partners.

Amazing. If one says something that turns out not to be true one is a liar. How simple the issue is. Thank God.

Again, lets go back to the religion of Scientology as an example. Lets "pretend" that Ron Hubbard made up the whole space opera and Xenu doesn't really exist.
Now, do you feel comfortable suggesting that in regards to Xenu, Ron Hubbard was a blatant liar?

Again, I know you can not "read minds" but knowing what little we know of humans and of reality, is it all THAT far fetched to suggest that IF Ron was not mad THEN the stories about Xenu (Ron's supposed religious experience) were ALL LIES.

and THUS Ron was a Liar.

Well?

(note: I use Scientology as an example here as most people probably agree yeah, the man was a con and no Xenu is no real).

And again 1) this does not necessarily make them liars 2) it has no effect on what the philosophers were doing and 3) notice the way you mind read the philosophers.

Buddha sure could have been a liar. Or may not have existed at all . etc....

That said, a sane Mohammad was a liar. This goes to a Mohammad as a literary character as well. I don't think it's unfair to suggest fictional characters are liars. Again, someone somewhere wrote a book.
Regardless, no sane person "hears" revelations from Allah (or Xenu) that just happen to be the exact copied stories from other peoples myths. They obviously read the myths at one time and now are presenting this as their very own "revelations". I fail to see what's so difficult to understand here?

M
Geesh, even the Romans were good enough to admit they took the Greeks Gods to make their stories.

 

[lightgigantic]

Which do you think is more spiritually fulfilling: Scientology or Islam?

Why?

Islam of course.

The short answer is because it displays the requirements for actual religiosity (ie notions of service to god, the understanding of the relationship between god and his name, recognition that the relationship between the living entity and this world is ephemeral and paltry, etc etc)

(this is partly because I don't understand why you don't think Scientology is spiritually fulfilling).

scientology seems to be more preoccupied with calling upon introspective analysis of the mind to provide a more inflated platform for the ego - of course even standard religions tends to get manipulated in the same way, but scientology seems to be specifically designed for those who simply want that experience in the name of religiousity.

 

[lightgigantic]

Sex!

And while I'm not a Buddhist I'm sure those that have "ascended" have good sex too or maybe not? I didn't know Buddhism was about not haveing sex - f*ck that.

Also, there's nothing morally wrong with having many different sex partners.

hehe

you might actually be better suited to scientology than you think

 

[Gustav]

Buddha sure could have been a liar.

elaborate
whence the deception?

 

[Michael]

hehe

you might actually be better suited to scientology than you think

Actually, as you know, Cris joined a Scientology Church for a number of months and said they were family value based.

elaborate
whence the deception?

I'm saying the possibility exists. I'm sure there were ever a Buddha he'd agree!

 

[Michael]

Islam of course.

The short answer is because it displays the requirements for actual religiosity (ie notions of service to god, the understanding of the relationship between god and his name, recognition that the relationship between the living entity and this world is ephemeral and paltry, etc etc)



scientology seems to be more preoccupied with calling upon introspective analysis of the mind to provide a more inflated platform for the ego - of course even standard religions tends to get manipulated in the same way, but scientology seems to be specifically designed for those who simply want that experience in the name of religiousity.

Well, I wouldn't really know to tell you the truth.

Do you agree that some people receive more spiritual experience in Scientology than some people in Islam?

Is it POSSIBLE to worship an Alien and receive more spiritualism THAN worshiping a God?

 

[lightgigantic]

Actually, as you know, Cris joined a Scientology Church for a number of months and said they were family value based.

I still think watered down scientology suits your purposes more than watered down buddhism

 

[lightgigantic]

Well, I wouldn't really know to tell you the truth.

Do you agree that some people receive more spiritual experience in Scientology than some people in Islam?

Is it POSSIBLE to worship an Alien and receive more spiritualism THAN worshiping a God?

Generally an object is recognized by qualities.

For instance one could say that a hammer has less occupational work safety issues than a jack hammer. However a hammer hooked up to 50 000 volts poses more than a jack hammer.

IOW if you take a beneficial thing in an incorrect fashion, you can always draw a worse scenario..

For instance a scientologist family could easily be outdoing a person who takes a slant that god gives the big thumbs up for genocide.

Its not so much about the merit of their spiritual achievements, but rather the quantity of their misdemeanors in the name of spirituality.

 

[Gustav]

I'm saying the possibility exists. I'm sure there were ever a Buddha he'd agree!

you fail to distinguish b/w fallacious assumptions and outright falsehoods

self incrimination? there are laws against that

 

[lightgigantic]

Which do you think is more spiritually fulfilling: LG's incoherent babbling or good sex?

hehe

you do seem to have a preoccupation with my posts ....

 

[Gustav]

what is this "spiritual"?
something unquantifiable and devoid of any logical consistency?

 

[lightgigantic]

what is this "spiritual"?
something unquantifiable and devoid of any logical consistency?

quick call the mods!!

We could have a breach of ethos here on sci!

(edit - perhaps we're waiting for the quantifiable peer reviewed analysis of "ethos")

 

[KennyJC]

with god you can live forever..without you'll die someday and......zero..

of course for the unbelievers of the god who might exist they could get tortured forever..in which zero is a lot much better..

Since when does god and the afterlife go hand-in-hand? Because you want it to? If there's a god then that doesn't mean there is an afterlife.

God and the afterlife are two equally farfetched things based on nothing but wishful thinking.

 

[jmpet]

If there is no God ...

Buddha was still a philosopher.

But, Mohammad was then a liar.

And Paul was a liar (or more likely pure nuts) too.

Joseph Smith Jr. was also liar.

Ron Hubbard still might not be a liar (I mean Xenu is an Alien not one of the Gods)

Seems to be that there are no Gods.

I fail to see what's so hard about connecting the dots?

What a waste of brain power this entire thread is.