If there is no God

[swarm]

i'm sure i'll understand more of what you and bishadi are talking about..as till now you're both confusing me..

Different madness.

You seek the ultimate master to be a sub for.

They want ultimate personal power.

 

[swarm]

sub-religious principles and enrich their otherwise spiritually bleak lifestyles ....

You theists are so funny with your spiritual snobbery.

People can be spiritual with or without your fantasy of gods.

 

[swarm]

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.

Stop you are making me blush :shy:

 

[swarm]

I'm sure those that have "ascended" have good sex too or maybe not?

The Buddhist I've tested is great in the sack!

I didn't know Buddhism was about not haveing sex

People confuse Buddhism with monasticism. Buddhists can f*ck like bunnies if they care to and the Buddha was married and had kids. Its just recommended that you not misuse sex or try to hurt your partner.

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

Indubitably the mythic embelishments are just that. Also it would not be surprising that he was a conglomeration of early Buddhist leaders. "Buddha" just means "awakened" and could be anyone. But there could have been a guy that kicked it all off to begin with too.

If there was, he was a person like any other and doubtless told some whoppers and he was a dead beat dad.

 

[swarm]

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

Its so cool you can put words which ought to mean something together into complete non sense.

 

[swarm]

?

I guessing you would be happier first establishing reasonable parameters for his use of terms like "false," "liar," and "mad," and then doing a bit of textual analysis of the documents and people in question before concluding that the people in question were liars or mad?

so maybe false = contrary to known facts, liar = intentionally deceiving and mad being delusional, paranoid or schizophrenic to the point of being unable to distinguish fact from fiction?

L Ron would be the easiest here. Being the most modern his life is far better documented and his actions once his cult got going are pretty obviously those of a mad man. Before he went mad though I would say as a science fiction writer, he knew "Xenu" was fiction along with his fleet of DC-9 space craft. Its not only fiction, its rather poor fiction. As if he was trying to see just how stupid religious people really are.

Given how he presented scientology, I would say its pretty clear he was a liar.

Joe Smith was a con man and plagiarized a work of religious fiction to work a con. Again it looks like he was trying to see just how stupid religious people are and the answer is pretty darn stupid. Without a doubt he was a liar and it got him killed.

There are tons of sites dedicated to going over the plagiarism in the book of "mormon." "Manuscript Found," written by a retired Congregational (Protestant) minister named Solomon Spalding, for example, is a prime contender but there are others.

Mohammad is a more complex situation. He seems to have started with "visions" in a cave and moved on to being a successful warlord. Analysis of the text shows it starting out like it was written by a mad man or liar and ending like it is being written by a theocrat trying to cement his hold on power. Given that most folks have trouble coming back from madness, I would guess he was an opprotunist liar who then graduate to petty tyrant and founded a dynasty which haunts us to this day.

Saul seems like another opprotunist liar who saw a bunch of weakly lead gullible fools, made up a big lie, changed his name to "Paul," seized control and the rest is history. The irony of him starting by making his living as a persecuter of xtianity is just too much.

So in short yes there are liars and madmen at the top, but its the gullible fools who flock to them which are the real issue.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

What's the difference between delusion & madness?

 

[swarm]

What's the difference between delusion & madness?

Delusion is a form of madness, but madness can encompass things other than delusion.

Oh, its no longer PC to use terms like "mad" in a clinical context and early on psycholgy took a hands off approach to relgion because there are jsut too many of them. But yes religion technically constitutes at least a delusion as defined.

 

[wise acre]

wise acre,

I agree that we can not be mind-readers and we will never truly know what the hell Ron Hubbard or the literary character "Mohammad" were truly thinking.

Again, I never said people can't be mind readers. I just knew you wouldn't want to make the claim.

That said, I think it's fair enough to formally hypothesize: IF a person plagiarizes a peace of work, pretends it's theirs, THEN said person is being dishonest.

SAM takes on this issue well below, but again, we are not talking about a student copying another students paper. We are talking about ideas in the milieu, all around these people.

The way you are using the term, it would mean that pretty much everything you have said is plagiarism. We all have filters, part of Mohammed's filters were those coming from within the Abrahamic tradition. For all you know he had experiences precisely as he said and he wrote them down in good faith. For all you know God spoke to him and he did his best to interpret what he was told and this was through cultural and psychological filters that ended up having much in common with religious texts that had come before.

 

[wise acre]

Seems like one to me.

Really?
You think opening is logical....

If there is no God ...

Buddha was still a philosopher

But, Mohammad was then a liar.

Are you convinced?

If I find out something you asserted is false, I can conclude you are a liar?

If you concede this was illogical, after all, are you a liar?

 

[wise acre]

What's the difference between delusion & madness?

Delusion is specific to a belief. Madness is a general state.

You are deluded for thinking she is going to break up with her boyfriend.

He's mad. He cannot work. He is convinced that his feet are trying to kill him and that no one else exists.

Note that this last belief will entail a vast number of other beliefs, each of which many but not all philosophers and probably every psychiatrist will say is a delusion.

 

[lightgigantic]

Its so cool you can put words which ought to mean something together into complete non sense.

I thought it was quite simple.

Kind of like taking a bunch of criminals and asking "who is the most civil?"

"Well this guy is the most civil since he only engages in a bit of theft and fraud whereas the others are involved in genocide."

:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

You theists are so funny with your spiritual snobbery.

meh

as if your atheist world view is synonymous with values of equity

People can be spiritual with or without your fantasy of gods.

sure

aka upadharma or sub religious principles

 

[iceaura]

Mohammad is a more complex situation. He seems to have started with "visions" in a cave and moved on to being a successful warlord. Analysis of the text shows it starting out like it was written by a mad man or liar and ending like it is being written by a theocrat trying to cement his hold on power.

You give a great deal of credence to the traditional accounts of the writing of the Quran.

There is no particular reason to believe that Mohammed dictated all of it, that the current most common compilation reflects the order in which he dictated whatever part of it he did compose, that the ascriptions of his inspiration to "angels" and so forth were by him at the time or, if by him, inventions rather than interpretations of his actual experiences, and so forth.

It's like assuming John Frum was a megalomaniacal liar - first show he existed as described by his followers, said what he said, etc, before even beginning to question his motives.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

early on psycholgy took a hands off approach to relgion because there are jsut too many of them.

Ain't that the sad truth.

 

[scifes]

Uhm, could you perhaps try to answer the question ?

hey i don't dodge questions..i don't mind answering any question..

The bold part makes no sense. It should be: "if I think that god doesn't exist i wouldn't live happily till 90."
So.. the only reason you are happy in your life is the prospect of an afterlife ? Seems like a pretty miserable life to me..

yes you corrected it right..
if you don't believe in the after life then why live? what difference does anything make?if the world was engulfed in plague or if it was a utopia..when you're dead you're dead..
so 1-, it's aimless..
2- life isn't fair if there isn't an after life..some people seem to be getting all the good parts and some people are miserable like hell..afterlife is a balancing act..
3-life has no justice if there is no god who will make justice in the after life..some people are too strong for you to defend yourself against in this world..that alone should drive you to suicide..again..afterlife is a balance..payed good for good..paid bad for bad..justice..
4- because of 2&3..quite super duper utmostly frankly..morals are the stupidest things in life..they're simply illogical..i mean..if i'm going to live once..i should make the most out of it for me..true..you should be good and everything for others so they be good for you..but why pay them back? a 100 years and i'm naught..what does it matter to me if the world got to hell? what does it matter for me if my children lived happily or puked their insides out? i'm dead..i know nothing..feel nothing..i AM nothing..life is a one way shot..if ANYTHING..i should make the best of it for ME.. not anybody else..if everybody else is doing the best for me then that's their stupidity's problem..

the truth is..this thing is too big and vast..really worth of some deep thinking..because there is still a lot of parts i don't want to include now..like how most people are actually living their best by living to help others..if he lived for himself he wouldn't be happy..if he sacrificed himself he would feel the utmost levels of happiness in the few seconds when he die(the expenation to why that is also stupid is also too long..i'll post it all in detail in a seperate thread inshallah)..so he takes those few seconds of rapture instead of experiencing utmost torture and guilt for the rest of his life..it SEEMS a logical choice to make..the "right" choice....

any way i can keep going on and on..living as atheist is lose-lose situation no matter how i look at it..and when i say look at it..i mean real consideration as if it's my way of life..not as if it's something i predetermined is wrong and is just looking for reasons to justify it..of course i'm sure you all think i'm a liar and i'm just babbling incoherently..or that my previous islamic "brainwashing" has affected my judgment..well here's news for you..it has..but in a good way..it was a better choice than atheism..so whenever compared to it..it loses VEARY badly..you people are smart..being atheists who reject what everyone says because it isn't sound enough..it is fishy..it's unsupported.. well you're right..as i said before..if i haven't heard of islam i would've been an atheist..you guys don't know islam as it is and hence decided not to choose it..you just don't have enough knowledge about it to reach the conclusion that it is the right thing..that is lso why i hate preaching..as preaching is telling someone that something is right and you expect him to just take your word for it and follow you blindly..are there many scenarios in which a person can know all there is about islam and yet not follow it? yes..mostly the reasons are arrogance..and that's understandable..also spite, and tat is also understandable..you guys on the other hand aren't any of those(at least as far as i have observed i don't think you are..)..so to be frank..at this point..following islam with all the misconceptions you have in your head about it is stupid..:scratchin: although following any theism because of atheism's fallacys is also a choice..i mean..you can say all the religions i know are wrong at a point..that's good..and you can say well, heck..i've got nothing to lose so i might as well just risk it..it'll at least keep me occupied in this life with something than just living..that's also good..mmm, i think that's better than the first..i'm contradicting myself??..oh well, i'm just thinking out "loud"..i have this and many other topics and stuff covered in a bit more organized threads..i'll post them when i get the time..

and sooo sorry for writing all this..

Why ? Your life will still be the same..
What if you're ninety years old, and are happy with your life and with how you lived it, when it is discovered beyond any doubt that there is no god ?
Would you then say "My life sucks and it always sucked !" ?
Seems a bit strange to me..

you mean live 90 years in theism belief then when it is proven wrong then what'll i do?
no sarcasm:i'll be sure the world is pretty messed up..
the thought that god exists is reasonable if you start looking at it that way..
the thought that god doesn't exist is also reasonable if you look at it that way..
that's why some scientists are theists and some are atheists(to remove the education factor), even though they know the "same"
.
.
so like,:bugeye: which one of them is right??
.
that's for you to find out..
i took them both..applied parallel conditions and tests to them both..most can be argued both way(loool like what's always happening in sciforums)..but if you play both sides by yourself..you can't keep arguing forever..(in may cases you can, like when my mom divided the cheesy omelet and told me to pick my share..i wondered whether to choose the big one or the small one..big is better..but wouldn't that make me fatter? but i'm not really caring on how fat i get..it's just freaking eggs..hey, the smaller one seems to have more cheese in it..so, big one less cheese or small one more cheese..i'm hungry, so i'll just take the big one, but wait..-going a few seconds into the future- i might choke on the big one..well hey i might choke on the small one too..well when i have a big one then i'll be taking bigger bites meaning higher possibility of choking..so i'll just go with the small one, but don't getting smaller bites mean higher possibility of biting my tongue?..the omelet was getting cold..so i just took the one closest to me..and that's not the full conversation mind you)..so that's a forever going argument..the argument of religion and life and a/theism is bigger than that..even choices like which collage to choose are finite self arguments..with practice or experience..you'll be getting the hang of which terms or conditions which are infinite, but apply to either side..so eliminated..infinite discussions which aren't that important..eliminated.. things that are based on chance BY THE SAME PERCENTAGE..no matter how important they are..also eliminated..and so on and so forth..after doing it a couple of time..tasting the sweet taste of your successful analysis or suffering the wrath of the failures..it gives you experience.....the worst part in all this is that many times you analyze and choose, and it turns great..BUT not for the reasons you thought of..OR turned great but soo different than how you contemplated..but still great..which lol..many times make me think if there was any good in thinking much..as strangerinstrangela always says..but i do it anyway..

We will not be 'resurrected' like Jesus. Instead, a wispy and hitherto unapparent part of us will float away to an invisible kingdom for judgement, reward and punishment. And as we don't have nerves anymore, how exactly are we meant to experience pleasure or pain?

that's why i though you did.."floating away"..

By the way, you are clearly not 18.

you're scaring the shit out of me..why shouldn't i be 18??

Was this to this:
2) IF there was a God, and It wanted you to worship It, BUT you still died and Zero - would you still worship It?

It's a straightforward question. Suppose a God, for whatever asinine reasons, WANTED you to worship It, but, it was not going to give you the carrot - ever lasting life.

Would you still do it?

I mean, is the ONLY real reason you worship a God, for the carrot?



Come to think about it, maybe that's exactly why you are promised ever lasting life? Maybe Allah is lying to you? Maybe you will never enjoy ever lasting life, as that's the providence of the Gods. You could be a sucker for wasting your time worshiping this God your whole life - - all for naught. No one really knows as it's all just a promise anyway. It seems if there was a God, oh, I don't know, maybe It bother coming down and saying hello or something? You know, show you around heaven, see what you're going to get in return for a lifetime of worship. But, alas, you don't even know if the f*cker exists or not!

the carrot is a carrot because you are promised to be given it..
if you were told you weren't getting it then it wouldn't be a carrot..
whether you et the carrot or not is absolutly undifferent..
either gods are bad..=we're doomed anyway..
god's are good= yummy carrot..
gods don't exist= i'm nothing when the time to worry about it comes..

if god's are bad and are tricking us with the carrot..we just have to assume they're good..it's better to take a shot than give up from the bigenning and seal your doom(in case they did exist)

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Cutting thru the BS :
Assuming there are gods is giving up. Assuming they're good is further giving up. Assuming you can figure out what they want, you can pacify them & they are reliable is even further giving up.
Assuming you must live on your knees & doing so is not living. Being a foolishly fearful faithful supplicating sycophantic muddled mindslave is no life.

 

[S.A.M.]

Cutting thru the BS :
Assuming there are gods is giving up.

By whose definition? If survival is the criteria here, theism wins hands down. Ironically giving up = lack of faith

 

[iceaura]

By whose definition? If survival is the criteria here, theism wins hands down.

Tell that to the Chinese.

Survival of what, btw?

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

If survival is the criteria here, theism does not win.
Survival is not the criteria.
Faith is giving up. Faith is giving up on finding the truth & being unable to handle the truth.