Exilian
Art, Writing, and Learning: The Clerisy Quarter => Discussion and Debate - The Philosopher's Plaza => Topic started by: Cuddly Khan on October 23, 2012, 12:15:49 PM
-
This guy made such an awesome point that I just had to post it here:
I don't know if I hate this kind of post or not. I am personally bothered by it, because it reminds me of people who believe in ghosts or god, or aliens, Bigfoot...on and on. without any real reason too other then it cramps their tiny brain and somehow gives them a retard hard on. If you are just trying to have some fun and be imaginative cool beans, other wise...Yawn. Admittedly it would be cool if there was some random hidden NPC dangers lurking in the zone untold.
There's no really substantial reason to believe in ghosts or Bigfoot (that I'm aware of) but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss God or aliens. It is speculated, that there are thousands of potential planets out there that can support life (though no proof exists). In the countless galaxies that exist, and within them the billions of stars/planets, don't you think it's a bit unreasonable to think that people don't have a good reason to believe aliens exist .
Similarly, there are many things that make a universe without a creator of some kind implausible. This is not to say that it's likely there is a creator, but I would say that we should all try to be a bit more open minded about such possibilities.
Besides, why should it bother you in the slightest what other people believe in? As long as they don't go around shoving it in your face, does it really matter that some people believe in ghosts? What automatically makes it so that anyone who thinks ghost exist, do so to get a "retard hard on"? Or have I misunderstood your statement?
Personally, this stuff is all really entertaining. I love the fact that some of it could be true -- if I made a game, it'd have loads of tiny cool stuff in it. I love Easter Eggs, or other hidden discoveries waiting to be found.
Why not? There's no evidence for him, so why are you not as quick to dismiss God as you are Bigfoot?
This is actually a very misleading statement, and I question whether you know what the definition of evidence is or not. Evidence does not mean solid proof, evidence means, "The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." Clearly, by that definition, we can determine that evidence only means something that suggests a certain proposition is true. You know how when you're watching all of those crime T.V. shows, and they're dealing with the law, evidence can be anything and everything that supports a proposition? Witness testimony is a form of evidence -- this is because evidence is a broad term that applies to a range of things.
The arguments that true infinities are implausible, and as such the universe did have a definitive beginning; the simple question of "why something, rather than nothing?"; the fundamental physical constants are set to such a narrow range that if they were changed in minor amounts the universe would be totally inhospitable to life; the list goes on and on and on (I have about 12 more by rough estimation in mind). There are many reasons to believe in a God, one shouldn't simply dismiss the possibility of any evidence existing.
Like what? If you say ANYTHING about the eye I'm going to punch you
"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin
If I were you, I would've used one with some substance and wit, such as, "In the beginning, man created God.". Of course, neither quote is relevant to discovering what the *truth* is, they're only used to insult the other side of the argument. There's plenty of evidence and reason to believe in a God, but there is also plenty of evidence and reason to not believe in a God. To have faith and absolute faith are two entirely different things. Faith on its own, is not an inherently negative or close-minded thing. It can be both, but only in the case of absolute faith (which many theists do have admittedly).
“Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system. I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance." -Sir Isaac Newton
Cute quotes, that they are, but both irrelevant. Plenty of theists, in spite of their faith, are open to reason. What I find really funny, is that many theists admit that they're close-minded... yet atheists who are obsessed with being open-minded are entirely close-minded to the idea of any God existing.
Tl;dr: Don't dismiss the possibility of evidence supporting a certain proposition. This is not the place to have a religious debate, so please, let's not try to insult other people's beliefs.
-
I feel he to some extend misunderstands atheism; it's very fashionable to portray atheists as people who believe there is no god, when this is in fact incorrect. Atheists - generally speaking - assume there is no god due to lack of evidence on the subject.
Why is this in contradiction to what he said? Well, it's less his points on God so much as his dismissal of Bigfoot. The evidential and logical basis for both God and Bigfoot is less dissimilar than you might think. Both have a strong body of cultural and mythological tales built up around their existence. Both have certain signs which people often contend are evidence for their existence. But evidence isn't a case of counting evidence-beans any more than it's a case of definite proof. We look at the evidence we have, then come up with the simplest explanation based on what we know.
So I know that the universal constants are in a slim range in which life could exist. I then look at theses, or ideas, to explain why this is the case:
1 - We are in the only universe, and it happened by pure chance
2 - There is a benevolent sentient being who organised it that way
This is the dichotomy theists tend to create. Due to the large probabilities involved if we assume physics could have taken any range of constants, the likelihood of 1 and 2 may seem similar. However, consider the following ideas:
3 - There may be an almost infinite number of universes with differing physics - as we are unable to observe the others we would naturally assume ours was in some way special.
4 - Life may be more resilient than we thing or may simply have evolved in different ways under different conditions: rather than pointing out that the way the universe works is fitted to life as we know it, it's equally true to say that the life in our universe is very neatly adapted to its physical conditions.
3 and 4, as brief ideas I've thrown in here, break up the idea that it's a choice between deity and improbability. We simply don't know enough to say that life is improbable (4) or that these conditions are (3).
But if we don't know enough, doesn't that leave the god idea (2) as perfectly sensible?
Well, not really. 2 requires that we put into the system a being of infinite power and complexity, and therefore practically by definition is the least simple answer to add into our understanding of the world. The question "well where did God come from" is a worn-out adage when it comes to the creation of the universe, but more pertinent is "how does God work?". That is the question which there is no evidence to answer. There are questions where God can be put in as a thesis of explanation. A thesis is meaningless without a mechanism though. If I want to prove that the Peasants' Revolt was caused by economic hardship, I not only need to observe that economic hardship could potentially be a reason for rebellion, I need to demonstrate how the chain of events worked. I need the mechanism by which economics affected politics. Similarly, when an atheist contends that there is no evidence for God, what they are saying is that there is no systematic evidence for the way God works or affects reality, and until that case changes atheists will continue to contend that due to God's infinite complexity there is literally no way of using Him as an explanation for a situation which is the simplest of the plausible theses that fits with the evidence.
(Incidentally, it's possible to argue quite well that Bigfoot is the more probable to exist of the two, and I would do; aliens are a different kettle of fish altogether, and have a pretty high likelihood of existing though probably in most cases only as single celled gloop).
-
There is plenty of evidence that God exists but proof seems to be lacking for some people. :P People say that the Bible is just Fiction but it's writing began over 2000 years ago, maybe over 4000 years ago. And it's not just something that someone would make into a 'fairytale', fairytales are for little kids. Not a 1000 page book written in old English. Is that evidence enough. 'Evidence does not mean solid proof, evidence means, "The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."' and that's why I say that there is plenty of evidence but not as much proof.
-
Factcheck: the bible was written in Hebrew, then Greek, then Latin. It wasn't translated into English until the 1510s or thereabouts. :P
As a query, I'd note that a lot of other books were written at a similar time to the Bible. Why should the Bible be more correct than, say, the epic of Gilgamesh, or Egil's Saga, or Beowulf, or the Odyssey? If we take no prior assumptions - in other words, if we just take the texts at face value - it doesn't seem that there's a huge or obvious difference between these different religious/cultural stories and texts in terms of why I should favour one over another.
I'm not saying evidence requires proof - indeed I firmly believe that nothing can be proved, only disproved. All I'm saying is that given the available evidence I can see no plausible circumstances in which the existence of God is the simplest thesis to fit to the available evidence. That doesn't mean I have a problem with people believing of course, but the point is that it ultimately comes down to a belief which is not, logically or scientifically or historically, the logical conclusion from the evidence available. It's a case of your personal convictions and belief, and people should treat it as such.
-
Until someday mankind will hopefully move beyond these ancient superstitions (likely arising from past alien visitations ;D) and reach potentials that we never knew existed. The human experience hasn't yet begun.
-
Those 'ancient superstitions' will always be there, why? Because it always has been, even when we can travel from here to Mars in a few seconds, people will still believe in a higher being. I'm not being all 'Christ will he there for us all ways!' but what I'm saying is that quite a larger percentage of Earth believes that a high being exists, so it's not likely to die down very fast a all.
-
The human experience hasn't yet begun.
If it is so bad here now,I don't want to know how will it be in 100 years... -_-
-
I'm inclined to believe it will be a great many lifetimes before religion in its current form disappears, and if it is replaced it will probably be replaced with some sort of cultural system providing some of the same things (sense of community, sense of awe). However, it's demonstrably incorrect to say that if something always has been the case it always will be.
The end of religion is certainly not on the cards at the moment anyway.
-
Star Trek FTW!
-
If there is a god, why do we see so many imperfections in our world? An omniscient designer would surely notice, for instance, that photosynthesis isn't as efficient as it could be. There is also the argument of evil and suffering - how could a benevolent god, assumed to be omnipotent, allow the moral and natural evils in the world around us. This brings to mind the great argument presented by Epicurus:
Is God both able and willing to prevent evil?
Then from whence does evil come?
Is God able but not willing to prevent evil?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he willing but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he neither willing nor able?
Then why call him God?
Note that I was paraphrasing, I can't recall the exact wording of his argument, but that is very similar.
-
I BELIEVE in a thing called love. Just listen to the rhythm of my heart. I BELIEVE in thing called loooooove, ooooooooo-oooooo-ooo-oo geetar! reowneowneowneeoowneeowneoewreowneowneowneowneow.
-
If there is a god, why do we see so many imperfections in our world? An omniscient designer would surely notice, for instance, that photosynthesis isn't as efficient as it could be. There is also the argument of evil and suffering - how could a benevolent god, assumed to be omnipotent, allow the moral and natural evils in the world around us. This brings to mind the great argument presented by Epicurus:
Is God both able and willing to prevent evil?
Then from whence does evil come?
Is God able but not willing to prevent evil?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he willing but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he neither willing nor able?
Then why call him God?
Note that I was paraphrasing, I can't recall the exact wording of his argument, but that is very similar.
I myself am religious and when I see this argument (About God not stopping evil) I really have to just roll my eyes. I really don't want to go into to much detail otherwise you'd just think I'm filling you with 'all of that religious crap'. Basically, Earth is a test.
-
You should go into detail. Why would a kind and omnipotent God make such a cruel test?
-
So he can see who is worthy of Heaven. He's the one who ultimately created Satan. I mean, realy? Would god want people like... Hitler going to Heaven? So life is a test to see what people do with their lives, and if they do the right thing than they get to go to Heaven. I could go into more detail but...
-
Peter Griffin: [in Sunday School with several children during story time] And when you die, you go to a wonderful place called heaven
[children gasp in delight, Peter starts laughing]
Peter Griffin: Nah, I'm just jackin' ya, you'll all rot in the ground.
[children look horrified]
-
What are they being judged on in your eyes? Upholding Biblical values, not losing faith in God, doing the right thing in adverse situations or something else entirely?
-
So he can see who is worthy of Heaven. He's the one who ultimately created Satan. I mean, realy? Would god want people like... Hitler going to Heaven? So life is a test to see what people do with their lives, and if they do the right thing than they get to go to Heaven. I could go into more detail but...
Yes but god also created each and everyone of us so our faults are entirely his creation.
-
Peter Griffin: [in Sunday School with several children during story time] And when you die, you go to a wonderful place called heaven
[children gasp in delight, Peter starts laughing]
Peter Griffin: Nah, I'm just jackin' ya, you'll all rot in the ground.
[children look horrified]
I think I've seen that one. :P Have you seen the Simpsons episode when Bart goes to a Sunday school. :D
So he can see who is worthy of Heaven. He's the one who ultimately created Satan. I mean, realy? Would god want people like... Hitler going to Heaven? So life is a test to see what people do with their lives, and if they do the right thing than they get to go to Heaven. I could go into more detail but...
Yes but god also created each and everyone of us so our faults are entirely his creation.
So are you saying there that God controls each and everyone of our actions? Our choices are our own.
What are they being judged on in your eyes? Upholding Biblical values, not losing faith in God, doing the right thing in adverse situations or something else entirely?
We are being judge on all those things, yes. Every single thing we do really. Not really just the bad things but the good things too. We are also judged on things we don't do as well. So it isn't specific things, just how we live. Imagine a court room where God's the Jury, Judge and the Prosecutor all at once. Well, this is only my view on things. Other groups (Eg. Jehovah's Witness, etc.) Would probably have different views on things.
-
Ok, so either god created us from nothing or he simply gave bodies to our already existing souls. If the first one is the case then god made us what we are, so god is the creator of evil (unless of course god himself is partly evil?) as we are apparently the only beings capable of evil (apart from angels but I'm under the impression that god created them too so its the same dilemma.) If its the second one then why does god have any right to dictate how we act or what we are?
Edit:
Really not sure if I've got my point across here concisely. And I'd like to point out I'm simply asking this from curiosity, I generally have no problem with other peoples beliefs.
-
My query, as it always is, is why faith in God should be a prerequisite for this courtroom.
Essentially, the way I see it goes as follows: if there is no God, as I assume because it fits my previous simplest explanation clause, all good, I rot, fine.
Okay, now let's explore what happens if I'm wrong.
If God exists, and he is just and purely compassionate, then it stands to reason he will judge people based on their compassion. As I endeavour to lead a compassionate life but accept that I am a flawed person, I think this seems a fair criterion to be judged upon.
However, if God exists but requires both compassion AND belief, then he is implicitly raising belief to the same level as compassion, which I cannot accept. Either he is a good God and exists to ensure kindness, or he is sufficiently self-centred to believe himself and his worship (which are not in themselves requirements for his happiness or existence or anyone else's) to be as important as the questions of empathy, friendship, not causing pain to others, etc, which I empirically know cause genuine pain and problems to people. If this is the case, I would not consider such a God a suitable arbiter of merit anyway as compared to our most important instincts to do what is right and help those around us.
-
Besides the topic of belief, did you know that the Bible is the only religious scripture that is backed up by science.
-
The only thing in that list which humanity should be judged on, at least in my eyes, is doing the right thing. Consider the spread of the globe, and now the wide spread of cultures. Now remember that there are places where word of God and Christianity have not reached. These people cannot have read the Bible, or ever had faith in this god, as they have never heard of him, yet God would still send them to hell (according to the Bible) for not believing in him, which is actually one of the 10 Commandments.
Speaking of the 10 Commandments, which are supposedly the moral code for all people to live by, I refuse to accept a fair few as moral values. In my opinion the first 4 commandments are for no purpose other than God's vanity (or at least a purpose without any moral backing and not really too important in society) and commandment 7 (You shall not commit adultery) is redundant, as it is effectively covered in commandment 10, on coveting - why would you adulter with someone you did not covet?
Besides the topic of belief, did you know that the Bible is the only religious scripture that is backed up by science.
Please explain?
-
There is evidence of scientific theories mentioned in the bible that haven't been discovered until the 1900's. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Scientific-Proof-of-Bible.php
There is also historic proof and archaeological proof.
-
That is all quite ridiculous.
-
Okay, a randomised selection of refutations for you:
"Lightning and thunder are related" - 19th Century
Is this actually a claim that nobody realised that lightning and thunder happened at the same time until the VICTORIANS? Because if so I have Thor and Zeus on the line and they're kind of angry at being ignored here.
"Water Cycle" - 17th Century
Actually, this doesn't describe the water cycle as found in the C17th because it doesn't describe the important stages (evaporation, precipitation, etc). This just points out that the sea doesn't overflow, which was pretty common knowledge since people noticed water goes into the sea.
"The earth is round"
Specifically this talks of the earth being a circle. The earth is in fact a sphere. Furthermore, it is entirely historically false to say that nobody knew the earth was spherical until the C15th. Greek scholars had worked this out by 330 BC (at which time the Hebrews still believed the earth was a circular disk with the skies like a tent over the top).
"Earth is held in place by invisible forces"
The quote here shows an entire lack of understanding of said forces, and furthermore backs up my previous point. The earth cannot "hang", as we know, because gravity works inwards towards the centre of mass of an object. The only way the earth could be considered hanging was if there was one main direction, external to earth, in which gravity worked, which was the same regardless of where you were on the planet. And that can't be the case if the earth is spherical, so implicitly this is talking about a disk-shaped world again.
"Man was the last animal created"
...news to me. Scientific source for this ground-breaking discovery?
If you want, I'm happy to try the reverse; pick a mythology of your choice and I'll happily come up with a load of tenuous links to modern science. Epic of Gilgamesh, the Viking legends, Greek myths, Lord of the Rings, you name it. :P
-
Also if god is omniscient why does he bother to test us when he must know how we will react to the test anyway?
-
I've seen that site before, I was quite shocked at how bad the "proofs" are. First of all, many claiming to have been found in the Bible before the science are just plain wrong, as for example the idea of atoms as invisible particles making everything up has been around since ancient Greece, which was long before the Bible was written in the first place, and the edition being quoted was printed in the 1600s anyway, so some of the earlier discoveries were probably already discovered at the time of printing. Then, most of the rest are either untrue in itself, have a completely nonsensical quote, have a quote which doesn't indicate the actual scientific theory or finally have a quote which somehow is relatable, but show a lack of understanding on the knowledge. I'd also like to point out that as a good half are in the Old testament, Judaism also shares these "proofs" (and I think Islam also will, I'm unsure on this though).
Obvious/Already Known:
Lightning and Thunder are related - This is like saying that fish live in the sea. It doesn't take a genius to figure that the light and noise which consistently follows it are related.
Matter is made of invisible particles - I already pointed this out
Both man and woman possess the seed of life - Considering that both genders were at the time required for procreation, this isn't a staggering revelation
Quarantine of Diseases - This was done with sufferers of leprosy even in very ancient times.
Wrong/Non-existent Theories:
Blood is necessary for life - Tell that to a single celled organism
There is a place void of stars in the North - The Hubble Deep-field seems to disagree with this
The oceans have natural paths in them - What?
Infinite number of stars - Due to entropy, there is not actually an unlimited number of stars
Snow has material value - What does this even mean? Igloos?
Dust is necessary to survive - What? Admittedly, it builds the immune system, but the quote just talks about God measuring how much dust there is.
Most Shipworthy ship - This seems to be entirely made up, google offers no hints as to this theory being around. If it is real, then I would put this down to a coincidence.
Nonsensical Quotes/Quotes which don't back up theory:
Certain Animals carry diseases deadly to man - The quote goes on about not eating certain animals for cleanliness, not disease.
Blood of animals carries diseases - As above
Earth was in nebular form to begin with - It says all was dark, if you can name a nebula which is made of darkness, I commend you.
Light is a particle and has mass - Nowhere in the quote does it state light having mass, it just asks where light lives.
Radio Astronomy - it talks about stars singing, not emitting radiation. To be quite honest, quotes saying the stars shine is nearer the mark.
Hubert Spencer's Survival of the Fittest - Genesis 1 talks about God making everything, not survival of the fittest in any way.
Light can be split into colours - Rainbows? Also, the quote simply says parted, not parted into the individual colours.
Plants use sunlight to manufacture food - The quote actually splits up the speaking of sun and a branch. This to me indicates the lack of evidence in the Bible.
Life originated in the sea - God made the sea creatures first, which is apparently the same as evolution starting in the sea?
Taxonomic Classification - Nowhere in this quote is anything resembling taxonomy mentioned.
Misinterpretations:
While arguably most the evidence could go here, this was made specifically for one. This was a blatant misinterpretation:
Arcturus and other stars move through space - The quote is fairly obviously talking about how stars appear to move across the sky, not how they genuinely move through space
Air has weight - Although this one I'm not sure on, I'm pretty sure the quote is referring to the force the wind seems to have.
The ocean containing freshwater springs is the only proof which I can say passes my test, however this is also probably wrong due to a lack of subject knowledge. My criticism would be it doesn't specifically state freshwater, the Bible could be referring to salllamaer springs, and there could have been such a freshwater spring near the authors of the Bible, not really predicting as such.
I'd also like to say I am no way trying to alter your beliefs, I'm merely questioning the evidence apparently found supporting the Bible, as one should following the scientific method.
-
LOL, I do admit, some of them are really far fetched. :P
-
You're correct by the way, Othko; most Jewish religious texts are considered to be holy in Islam, though if there's a conflict between them and the Qu'ran the latter wins.
-
Saw someone online looking at this. Didn't know we had one of these threads. I guess in an ironic way, I'm resurrecting a thread about belief :P
I think that there's a lot of misconception about modern religious views (not saying here specifically, just in general) in both America and Europe because of the bad press that the former gets constantly. Yes there are a lot of extremely religious people that take their texts too literally but that's not what the majority of theists do.
I used to go to church a bit and a fair amount of my friends are religious of some sort of denomination. Modern theists don't believe a God/s created a world, it's recognised that those creation stories were for a time when it was impossible to know and as such it was thought of as comforting to know that you (in a general sense) are here on purpose. Religion nowadays is used for the same thing, I personally would love to believe that there's a God that is looking out for me and that can hear me when I'm talking to myself about whatever the hell's going wrong. Not even to do things for me (which I think what this thread is stuck on imo) but just to believe that someone else knows that life kinda hurts and when it does, someone else knows about it.
Religion doesn't make people stupid or weak, it's a tool to help them get through life, much like anti-depressants, finding a partner, having children, smoking, drinking, sports or whatever it is that makes you feel like you can do the day-to-day bs to be able to get to the good and great stuff in between.
Just my 2c.
-
Yeah I would like to believe in some form of God or spirituality or anything that gives a point to life. Unfortunately I can't just make myself believe.
-
Religious belief first: I don't have any, to put it bluntly.
I was brought up in a rather woolly Christian way, and as a child I guess I was a Christian by default. Very early in my teens, I must have started thinking about religion, because I'm fairly sure that I concluded I had no evidence for the existence of God (but no evidence for the definite non-existence of God either), and therefore described myself as agnostic. This was enough for me not to be confirmed - I can't remember now whether that came as active refusal, or more indirectly through not taking any action to make it happen. Rather more recently, I've shifted again, to definite atheism: quite suddenly it became obvious that I could not reconcile the state of the world, with all its suffering and pain, with the existence of the Christian God, omnipotent and loving. If there is a deity, it is either omnipotent but not loving, or else loving but not omnipotent. In theology, this is described as the "problem of pain" or "problem of evil"; it seems to be one that theologians have struggled with for centuries.
So, on to a purpose in life, or a point to life. For me, it's quite simple: trying to make the world a better place. This seems to happen in little bits, as I see helpful things I can do for other people, and I go and do them.
-
It's all fairy tales and superstition.
-
Nice response G, and Penty though you seem to align with my own. Cg... Yeah I know...I wish I didn't but yeah, I know ;)
This is going to be portugaling morbid. Feel free to ignore the hell out of this penty, I wouldn't blame you, I'd probably do the same.
Penty, I'm curious as to if you'd like to believe in God purely because you think that it gives life meaning or if, more like myself that it gives death meaning? I ask not to pry but because it's something I've been really struggling with as suicide feels right around the corner for me about now. As some of the members here will attest (G and cg in particular but others who've looked at various things I've posted), I've been hugely unhappy for a long time, I've got mental illness in some sort of form though classifying it is difficult which is fine by me as I don't like 'boxes' anyway. I really started to look at belief when I got the feeling that these will be my last weeks and I'm frankly terrified of death. Which is why I've changed my stance from 'atheist' to 'I goddamn hope there's a god'.
Not trying to provoke anything here because I know both belief and non-belief is very much personal but I have a question for you G, if you'll permit (and of course you can say no).
Why does a God have to be anything more than one who set everything in motion? And I'd really love it if you could expand on both your personal reason why God has to be either unloving or omnipotent and why 'he' isn't both anyway. Explanation: From what you've written I take it that you see God as *having* to be involved with day to day or even century to century life. In contrast: my personal belief is that God, if there is such a being, lets everything unravel at whatever pace it happens at and that 'he' is playing an impossibly long game where humankind is on course for something we at our current level of knowledge can't imagine yet. Whether that be 'true' immortality, 'true' peace or something else we don't have a name for.
As for my other thing - Loving someone or something takes so many forms wouldn't you agree? Paraphrasing here from quotes I've heard in the mists of time somewhere: to love something you have to set it free; you have to make it your own; you have to give it everything you have; you have to let it make it's own way.... You get my point, it's all pretty contradictory what love means. And to get overly personal, I've had one experience I'd call love and that was between myself and someone who didn't care for anything or anyone Love and omnipotence doesn't necessarily mean doing everything to help them, as far as I can see, though you can argue otherwise of course.
As an aside: this is a subject I am hugely open to discourse (unlike a lot of political stuff (for instance), despite my best efforts: I really do try to look at it from every angle but I'm jaded by my experience and whathaveyou, I know). Probably because I have no real opinions on the matter, the only being: I'd *love* to have full confidence in a God having a master plan for us but I don't quite believe it yet.
This was a really lengthy post, much more than I meant it. I'll stop for now but I'd love it if at least someone would continue this discussion :)
-
No suicides, C. I forbid it.
-
Fair. No plural, just the one ;)
Jokes aside. I'm still fairly stable, don't worry :)
-
as stable as a horse, right?
-
Good question, I haven't really thought about it. I think it's life, death just seems like nothing but and end to me, which I don't think I find particularly worrying. I mean I guess it would be nice to have some sort of afterlife/the chance to see lost loved ones again but the idea of just ceasing to exist doesn't seem too bad. My problem in that this then makes life inherently pointless, which sometimes does bother me. I think it just depends on my current mood as to how much it bothers me. I generally just don't think about it though, because it's not particularly cheery.
I've found Jean Paul Sartre's writings on philosophy feel very relatable for me, although I haven't read that much of it because it's a bit bleak. As far as religions go, from what I know of it, Sikhism is probably the only organised religion I could get behind, although tbh I'm not really sure on how Sikhs view God. Sometimes it seems like a form of spiritualism rather than the "traditional" (or my idea of what's traditional) sense of a deity, but I don't think Sikhs see it that way.
Oh and also please don't suicide, I hear it's very bad for your health.