Do you believe in God?

[türkbaba]

Haha, look at Philosophy 101 student go.

I wouldn't expect you to cry out for me, child. I wouldn't be listening. No one would, that's my point.

Since you are obviously more intelligent than the rest, but too arrogant for your own good, I'll give you some slack because I used to be terrible at telling people off when I was your age as well. I also sort of had the same idiot ideas about things like:

But has science answered any of the big questions, the ones that the primitives asked back then, and invented religion in an attempt to answer?

The questions I hear everyday when I stick out my immortal ear, such as:

"Why am I here?"

"What is our purpose in life?"

"What will happen to me when I die?"

You have no idea how profoundly stupid it is, not to mention how cliché, to ask questions like these. Basically I could answer with sex, sex, dirt.

Any one who can't live their lives without thinking they have some deeper meaning, are the dumb ones that struggle to find their place, and they fall easy prey to religion. Get a job, get some friends, get a girlfriend (or boyfriend if you're the fairer type of man), and get a life of your own, and live it.

Life is not complicated. I can cut it down to 5 simple steps, quoting one of the few great minds that the USA has to offer, George Carlin.

1. Get up
2. Get to work
3. Eat three hot meals
4. Take one good shit
5. Get back to bed

You can fill in hobbies and entertainment and goofing off where ever you have time left over. We're living to die, don't be primal and try to delude yourself into thinking humans are somehow different from animals in anything but cognition.

Humans are still Neanderthals at heart in this aspect, and no amount of scientific discovery is going to do anything to provide answers. And if it can't find answers to the real questions, the truly universal ones, then what purpose does it really serve to the average individual?

Average individual is the kind you see on Jerry Springer, so I'm not going to do pretty much anything that would be in their favor.


How ever. There are no facts, only interpretations. Truth is a myth.

Now THIS is something I've written a very long, very boring, very subjective and opinionated 19 page essay on. Well, 19 page fucking rambling, and this was from 2 years ago when I still took mind altering narcotics, but whatever. At least, even though it may have no relevance, it gives me an excuse to post shit.

Note that this is paraphrased because I didn't feel like making you jump off a bridge:

I believe, that every man, regardless his level of introspection, will seek an easy solution. I believe it's rational, it's logical, and it's human to do so. So, even a person who does not settle for fact as absolute truth will still, on some level, wish he had been able to, and supplement one easy solution with another deeper truth: a truth they believe fully to be absolute, at least for themselves, because they can't bring themselves to delving deeper still.

Only when a man cannot function without hope is he truly hopeless.

The sense of right and wrong that has been developed over the years has, as stated, grown beyond human comprehension. The truth of right and wrong has been substituted for a feeling of right and wrong. An interpretation. As the people who develop these feelings want them to be easily adoptable by a larger audience, they bend them to encompass that larger audience, so that everyone that joins the appropriate cult of righteousness will feel included and accepted as a working part of the machinery.

Of course, people will seek answers with the will or intent to spot a lie, and conform or adapt to a new mindset, but the variable degree in which people are willing to do this is so great it approaches the unfathomable. Furthermore, individuals that seek to discover absolute truth – beyond the preconceived notions developed by power-mongering peddlers of traditional belief-systems – are very few and far between indeed. People now are much more interested in attaching neon lights to the bottom of their Kia than they are in themselves, their life, and truth. Love, hate, and laughter all precede truth. And although all these things should have a firm place in our culture and lives, that should never precede the search for truth.

It is precisely because this truth, this one absolute universal omnipresent and ultimate truth – is so abrasive, so scary, so violently in opposition to the current developed beliefs, that we would just rather avoid it, giving the excuse that it is “more trouble than it is worth”. That puts things in perspective: When people can not see the infinite worth of absolute truth, that truly stands as a testament to the equally infinite human stupidity.

But everyone should dig as far as they can, or as far as they feel themselves able to, because then more and more will our descendants be strengthened in mind, and the more able they will be to cope with the truth. At least a truth closer to the ultimate, until gradually – generation by generation – we ultimately reach the goal of humanity: Transcendence. Elevation to a plane of all-knowing, and godliness.

Acquiring, designing, or engineering a mentality that transcends a vulgar display of power. Where does that get you? According to general consensus, what it gives you is this: A quality of being pompous. A quality of being self-righteous. A quality of being conceited. So what then does that leave you? Asserting your own truth gets you labeled self-righteous and conceited by the masses. And you can't very well block them out, because on top of everything else that will make you ignorant.

Our emotions are running wild, but our minds have stopped (thank you Bill Hicks, R.I.P.). We are at the point now where people in any given situation and circumstance, will genuinely not know whether they should laugh or cry. Social norms are so conflicting at this stage, and so numerous, that both can be correct. Though one reaction makes for a more easily explicable outcome, and thus is the one people would rather choose, as dictated by logic. The only positive things they render, are things for people like me to contemplate.

Acquiring, designing, or engineering a mentality that transcends a vulgar display of power. A mindset, a notion, a personal truth. It sounds so beautiful, doesn't it? However it does of course collapse on its own banality. It's absurdly Utopian. A world where everybody goes around and blindly accepts and respects any other persons belief and/or prejudice knowing that he himself has a wildly opposing personal belief, because he knows that hey, it works for him. Why should not this other persons belief work for that other person? Acquiring, designing or engineering a mentality like that must be done intrepidly.

It's interesting to note that my own language has its own word for “savior” to use exclusively in a religious or spiritual context. Not as with English, where it can be someone who rescues you from pure physical harm as well, this word is only used in spiritual or religious context. It frightens me to think about how much it has literally saturated society, these medieval impulses, when no part of it is safe from impact.

No where does the “selfless” person say out right that he wishes for everyone to focus on his needs or desires. He just says that the “selfish” person should stop thinking only about himself, effectively opening for the entire human race to be open for consideration by the former “selfish” party. In other words, you have nothing on him. Is that not just mincing words?

Our very lives depend upon truth, upon directness, upon clarity. When we employ these tools of deception within our conversational logic, everything is thrown into darkness. Language itself of course does not make it easy for us to avoid these pitfalls of confusion, but never the less, we do not try hard enough to avoid them. Again, it can be done, it just takes too much effort to possibly be worth doing.

An empty spectacle, a kabuki ritual of power, a leader cloaked his impotence in the trappings of office. An oligarchy masking its seething content behind a facade of acceptance. This is how the world ends; not with a bang, not with a whimper. Merely the deafening roar of hollow applause.

 

[der Astronom]

No, science is not taking the right steps towards it. It cannot do so under its current format. Science deals only with objective, observable data. The answers to true, universal questions do not lie in objective, observable data. Science is not properly equipped to deal with these issues, it is confined by its limitations.

But there is a difference between making up a basis for the purpose of life based on evolution rather than creation, isn't there? If one believed in religion, they could as well believed that in the beginning, God created man and the universe, and heaven and hell, so if you do bad things, you're going to hell, and the purpose in life is to serve God. If one did not believe in religion, and accepted evolution and the big bang, then they could as well believed there was no inherent purpose in life, and that they would be free to make one up for themselves. If scientists use objective data to find that creation cannot be true because there is no substantial evidence for it, but plenty of evidence for evolution and the big bang, then it is no longer meaningful to believe that there was a God given purpose, unless you either choose to spontaneously, or believe in a redundant God, is it? Since there is much evidence that shows that supernatural intervention is not required to explain what we know exists, I could say that that points towards there being no evidence for inherent moral purpose, and thus it is more likely that moral purpose doesn't exist; you just make one up for yourself.

Religion takes one man's dreams and makes them the mythology of a culture. This is hardly a perfect system for finding the key to the universal, but THIS, not science, is taking the right step forward. At least, the one man is taking the right step forward, and the culture follows, for their own good or peril. In most cases, I would say peril.

They didn't have a good explanation of the world back then to base any kind of moral purpose around, so they made one up because they wanted it so badly. It's quite obvious, seeing as how a lot of mythology that exists is entirely fantasy, and in no way represents reality. Just a story made up to make believing in moral purpose more plausible. Once that falls apart (like the creation story, for instance), moral purpose becomes redundant unless you can find a real story to back it up.

If you do make one up for yourself, that is in itself a step forward, as long as you that solution works for you, and you truly believe in it, and are willing to make it your raison d'etre, so to speak. But it needs to be something personal, something that you have invested a part of yourself in, not something you read from a banal scientific manual, or a foolish religious text.

Moral purpose is entirely a subjective choice, but it can be based off of many things, whether it's objective like science or subjective like religion. But I see you're not limiting yourself to believing in an absolute moral purpose.

 

[Lucifer Morningstar]

Obviously I know how profoundly stupid and cliche those questions are, that's why I brought them up in the first place.

You think living in Hell is some kind of a punishment? It's not. It's a relief for the most part, for dealing with the masochistic souls of dead humans hellbent on torturing themselves for their imaginary sins is somewhat of an annoyance, but not even half-so of dealing with the Host and their insufferable Godhead. I can tune out the cries of the self-damned, or drown them out with my petty amusements, but I can't escape the prayers of the living.

You see, some humans are actually foolish enough to pray to me, as if I would listen. Be here's the catch, I have to listen. I can't drown out those prayers specifically addressed to me, no matter what I do. Am I arrogant? Of course, you've driven the nail right between the eyes, old chap, but I've been duly and eternally punished for my arrogance, be certain of that.

How is this relevant, you may ask? Well, I'll tell you, since you asked so nicely. You would think all these hardcore, card carrying pentagram wearing Satanists would pray for some pretty exotic things, wealth, power, women, wine, after all, I am the Lord of THIS World, as some have called me, and could bestow those things if I were so inclined.

But no, less than a percentage of the prayers forced into my ears bear those sentiments. I usually hear these same three questions, in various incarnations, echoing through my ears through the epochs:

"Why am I here?"

"What is my purpose in life?"

"What will become of me when I die?"

So yes, I do know how profoundly stupid and cliche it is to ask questions such as these, but these are the ones that your people seem to want answered so badly that they'd risk condemning themselves to the fire and brimstone in order to learn the answers.

I could tell them the answers too, but that wouldn't be very sporting now, would it? And most importantly, it still wouldn't make them shut up, because the answers would not please them in the slightest, in fact, they would be inclined not to believe them.

I like your answers just fine though. There are two basic routes a human can take that will prevent them from coming to live in this wonderful, magical place I call my home when they die, you for the most part have outlined one of them. I find that people that are truly isolated, and people who live in colder climates usually have enough bleakness in them to comprehend this route. Good to see that you Norwegians are no exception.

However, that path is not good enough for all mortals, so there exists another, which you have done your best to outline in your 19 page exogesis no doubt, but you fall to the same cliches and some of the stupidities that ensnare most would-be seekers. I suppose I can forgive this for now, and chalk it up to your youth and inexperience, or to the substances that often give glimpses into that world, but offer none of the understandings.

And now you find yourself at a dangerous crossroad - you understand the simple salvations of hedonism, but have sneaked a peek into the void as well. Having tasted the infinite, are you willing to give that world up, or will you subconsciously chase it with part of your mind until it grows beneath your vision like a shadow, and engulfs you? The choice is yours, young Norseman.

Or is it?

 

[türkbaba]

I won't argue someone who roleplays on a debate forum. That kind of low-level faggotry is best saved for GaiaOnline or DarkDate or some other equivalent refuge for "misunderstood" idiot emo goths.

Besides, it's hard to argue someone this stupid, but you've now made it fairly evident you're an idiot, so I don't really need to anyway.

By the way it's spelled exegesis, you illiterate half-wit.

Yes, I realize you don't like the kind of people you might be debating with, but please refrain from insulting them. Those comments are unnecessary, and do not contribute to the argument at hand. You can defeat your opponent just as easily by providing a meaningful argument, which you already have. You're not going to improve your argument much more by stating that someone is too stupid to debate with. Remember, everybody has the right to be stupid.

-Sephiroth

 

[Lucifer Morningstar]

I apologize for my typo, little one. I am not perfect, nor do I claim to be. but in response, we all play a role, whether we like it or not, and we find constantly find that role redefining itself.

As for his "insults", let him keep throwing them if he sees fit. They serve a variety of purposes. One, it's thoroughly amusing when one is reduced to a childish fit of rage when faced with a superior argument, and two, they really went to show how intelligent he could be. If this is all he can do, rather than offer a counter argument of any type, so be it. Is it your policy to judge one so harshly for their limitations?

 

[der Astronom]

Well, it's part of the rules of debate on this forum as well. Besides, insults are not constructive, and while they might be amusing, I agree, they only serve to lead to drama. He did have somewhat of an argument, but since he at least had one, unlike certain other people who just come to insult other people without even providing an adequate argument, you should just give him some credit for it and respond to it. Treat the insults like red herrings for now.

 

[Lucifer Morningstar]

Well, in response to your argument then:

Science may find no evidence of god or a creation, but that does not mean that one did no occur. If science concludes that a creation could not have happened, and a god can not exist, then it does so only within its own parameters. This is one of the problems of science, those things which fall outside of its boundaries it chooses to divert at best, and ignore at worst.

Science cannot prove that god does not exist, and therefore his existence continues.

 

[der Astronom]

Just because science cannot prove something does not mean the converse does exist. It may or may not. The only parameters that science is concerned with is observations of the natural universe, so if you mean to exist that God can exist within the mind or in an alternate dimension or alternate reality that has nothing to do with true reality, then you're just redefining what is meant by "God exists". That would be the same with math. Infinity exists in a mathematical, purely abstract world, but it does not necessarily correlate with reality as we know it.

 

[Lucifer Morningstar]

God's existence cannot be proven or disproven, that's the whole point. How else can he test the faithful, right?

He does continue to exist within the mind, I am pleased you have grasped my meaning.

In response to your comment on infinity, I would recommend a book. It's called Infinity and the Mind: The Science and Philosophy of the Infinite by Rudy Rucker. I found it thoroughly entertaining and enlightening, and it does mention God a few times within its pages as well. It's probably one of my favourite books.

 

[der Astronom]

Just make sure you can distinguish what exists in the mind and in reality and what doesn't. Not everything that exists in the mind can exist in reality. For example, we have many fictional characters that we make up in our minds, but they are not biologically physical in real life existence. We have pictorial presentations, and can even make them move and live and breathe on a screen, but that's as far as translating a mental concept into reality goes--there is no evidence for a living breathing God that creates hurricanes or whirlwinds at the snap of the fingers that we can see and interact with. If you want to believe just about anything exists, it could in your mind. However, this could make whatever we do in reality in accordance to that concept in the mind just about meaningless.

 

[Lucifer Morningstar]

I of all people obviously can distinguish between what exists in the mind and what exists in reality. I myself am only an idea that exists in minds when you get right down to it.

However, an idea that exists in the mind becomes moreso when people choose to place their beliefs in it, and it begins to motivate their actions. That's when a mental concept is translated in reality. No wars have been fought to this date based on a pictoral representation, or a moving image on a screen. Wars these days are still fought over god, and the influence of god continues

 

[der Astronom]

I suppose I can agree with that, but it sounds similar to what another member who used to be a part of this forum is doing with "Sephyism". I think you can kind of guess what that's turning into. The only difference is that we know that Sephiroth is an entirely fictional character that doesn't exist in reality; we just discuss particular aspects of that character as if they were real, but we don't treat that character like he really existed. But I suppose there was a good reason why man felt it necessary to invent God. I know what it is, but it's just that I don't particularly agree with it is all.

 

[Lucifer Morningstar]

I suppose I can agree with that, but it sounds similar to what another member who used to be a part of this forum is doing with "Sephyism". I think you can kind of guess what that's turning into. The only difference is that we know that Sephiroth is an entirely fictional character that doesn't exist in reality; we just discuss particular aspects of that character as if they were real, but we don't treat that character like he really existed. But I suppose there was a good reason why man felt it necessary to invent God. I know what it is, but it's just that I don't particularly agree with it is all.

See, that's the real problem. It doesn't matter whether you particularly agree with it or not, God is here to stay. At least for the foreseeable future, as much as I truly hate to make predictions.

Perhaps there is a good reason that man created the idea of God, or perhaps a good reason that God created man if that truly is how it all happened. For the time being, we won't really know, it's outside of the realm of science, and outside of the normal scope of reality as well. You may claim to know why man invented god, but look at the ways we know things and reconsider.

We do know that Sephiroth is an entirely fictional character, but he is based on feelings, desires, and ideas that are alive in most of us. He is in a sense, a universal adversary, much like Satan. In that sense, he COULD rise above and become a reality in the minds of men, but I don't see this happening anytime soon.

 

[der Astronom]

See, that's the real problem. It doesn't matter whether you particularly agree with it or not, God is here to stay. At least for the foreseeable future, as much as I truly hate to make predictions.

What I meant is that I don't need God to get me through the day. Some people find it easier to get through the day or find it comforting to know that there's a being out there that knows everything about the universe so their fears of the unknown are supressed. I don't require a God in order to remove myself from their fears; I just don't have the same fears they do. I can acknowledge that God exists in other people's minds, but it doesn't exist in mine, or I don't acknowledge his existence in my mind.

Perhaps there is a good reason that man created the idea of God, or perhaps a good reason that God created man if that truly is how it all happened. For the time being, we won't really know, it's outside of the realm of science, and outside of the normal scope of reality as well. You may claim to know why man invented god, but look at the ways we know things and reconsider.

If you had any suggestions of why or how God exists, I'd like to hear them. It just seems plausible with what I know in science and life that man could easily have invented God. Remember, there was a time when humanity existed without God. I realize it might not be the only possibility, but what I'm suggesting is entirely possible, and I guess I'm not really concerned with whether or not the possibility I'm thinking of is significantly better than any other one.

We do know that Sephiroth is an entirely fictional character, but he is based on feelings, desires, and ideas that are alive in most of us. He is in a sense, a universal adversary, much like Satan. In that sense, he COULD rise above and become a reality in the minds of men, but I don't see this happening anytime soon.

Well, there is a group called Sephyism that some guy called Tethar is organizing, but he based it off of a fan club of the same name on another forum. He's really treating it like a religion though, but I was using that as an example. If both Sephiroth and God are not external to the mind, I fail to see the difference.

 

[Tifa AC]

You are right there is no proof that God real exists,but i believe strongly we will know some day.

 

[Howl]

I believe in a higher power. But I don't think that it's a conscious dictator.
I also have the mentality that "God" is a surname for physics.

I don't approve of following specific belief groups, but I do agree that some religions, like christianity do have good moral values.

 

[Crash]

I believe in a higher power. But I don't think that it's a conscious dictator.
I also have the mentality that "God" is a surname for physics.

I don't approve of following specific belief groups, but I do agree that some religions, like christianity do have good moral values.

I should like you to enunciate those "moral values," because I can't think of a single value christianity prescribes that can be rationally defined as moral. Nor any other religion for that matter. The act of faith is contrary to the mental effort required to uncover and apply moral values to your life. Telling people their sexual needs are disgusting and evil is not a moral value.

 

[Lucifer Morningstar]

I should like you to enunciate those "moral values," because I can't think of a single value christianity prescribes that can be rationally defined as moral. Nor any other religion for that matter. The act of faith is contrary to the mental effort required to uncover and apply moral values to your life. Telling people their sexual needs are disgusting and evil is not a moral value.

"Love one another as I have loved you."

"Thou shalt not kill"

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour"

Et cetera. These moral teachings are all well and good, except that Christians seem to have a difficult time abiding by what their good book says.


In the New Testament, there is actually a warning not to engage in sexual ascetism, as that could lead to mischief and sexual misconduct, and it's really too bad that The Catholic Church in particular has chosen to ignore this section. It's almost like prophesy, in a way.

Of course, if your sexual needs sway more into the homosexual realm, that's disgusting and evil, biblically speaking.

 

[der Astronom]

You might also be interested to know that some of these morals from the bible are not original. They've existed before the bible was written, in different civilizations. In some cases, morals like "Do unto others as you would do to yourself" were expressed in several civilizations that predated the bible.

However, I think that if you can somehow show that either God doesn't exist or heaven and hell don't exist, then the meaning of these morals in the biblical context are no longer meaningful. They may be meaningful, but in a different context.

Did you also know that slavery is allowed in the bible?

 

[Mega Girl]

or that same Bible recommended killing women wearing clothes made from two types of cloth, endorsed incest and rape?

Just saying