My view on...well, on a lot of things really.

[inanimate]

I just felt like sharing my view on random assorted philosophical questions.

First of all, my view on the meaning of life:

I believe that life is pointless. Now when I say that, you probably picture a manically depressed suicidal, but I'm not (I'll get back to that). Basically, when somebody says to me 'what is the meaning of life?', I take it VERY literally, as in if you were outside the universe and were to look upon life...and therefore I find there is no 'meaning' in life, for there is no reason for us to be here. Now, that doesn't mean I can't set myself goals in life. That doesn't mean I can't strive to be a better person. If I want to, then why not? Sure, it's pointless like all other things, but if I want to then I might as well. And personally I find that I want to be a 'good' person (yeah yeah there is no such thing as 'good' and 'bad') because I enjoy spreading a good influence on other people, and I enjoy improving myself both physically and mentally through anything from martial arts to education. I find that the reason why people want to have a meaning to life is to make some sort of sense out of this crazy universe :p

My view on religion:

Personally, I am not religious. My view is that religion came about as an alternative to science. As I mentioned before, I find people like to understand things so they don't go crazy, so for example in ancient times people would look up at the sky and see lightning, and think 'AAH! What the hell is that?! Um...jeez, must be some sign from some pretty damn powerful guy who's telling us that he's ANGRY! Let's pray for forgiveness!'. And that IMO is how religion came about (not through that particular example, lol). Now, usually I don't mind religion, and in fact I can quite like it sometimes since all the religious people I have met have also usually been very nice and caring people. But there are many different religions, and this will cause unnecessary conflict and death. It sickens me when I see people fighting 'holy wars', saying 'Don't worry, God is with us!'. I find if religion didn't exist it would prevent unnecessary conflict, but on the other hand there is so much conflict in this world other than religious ones, so would it really make that much of a difference?...

Now onto fate:

I believe in fate. Not fate as in 'when you are 69 years old you will be run over by a car', and I most certainly don't believe you can 'cheat' fate. I mean scientifically, to an ultimate level, as in the way that every single infinitely small piece of matter and all of its properties affects its surroundings. However I don't think you can use this to predict the future, since then you could predict it and then change it, which would make everything (including my brain) go mad. Hmm...admittedly my view on fate is a bit querky :D

Well that's my random opinions on various assorted philosophical questions. Feel free to insult my incredible lack of sense, or to worship me as some sort of almighty idol, if you so wish.

[MichaelV]

Well, you got the meaning of life and religion correct, but I can't figure out where you were going with the fate discussion.

[xubis]

I second MIchaelV, good post.. until the end :P

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Fate discussion, have a look into chaos theory. The simplest way to put the idea is this, that no matter how closely you look at something, and how much you know about it, you'll never know everything about it, because even the smallest change can have a massive effect.

If you want even more fun, take a look at some of the quantum theories as well, particularly the effects of the observer on experiments.

[aikiwolfie]

I think someone already made a changee to the future becuase you have aparently gone mad lol ...

[shipto]

My daughter (just turned 6 at the time) was watching the simpsons dont know if anyone remembers the one where homer stopped going to church? but at the end Homer asks God what the meaning of life is but it trails off before he answers, anyway my daughters pipes up "love" as the answer so its been answered you can all stop asking.

[CKava]

Your view on religion sounds like an enlightenment thinker- i.e. that as a people become more civilised/advanced they move first from a belief in magical type things (shamans and the like) then onto a belief in organised religion type things till finally they discover logic and then science (the final frontier) should gradually (but completely) replace the need for supernatural explanations... Sound about right?

[mani]

Your opinions look good to me. However I do not fully agree with you about religion. You say that wars are due to religious conflicts against each other. No religion says that you must fight against other religions, if all people followed their religions how they were suppose to, then their would be no such crazy thing as 'Holy wars'. It is just people who misuse their religions 'extremists' and create terror.

Again, this is only my view.

[inanimate]

yes I think I need to revise my view on fate...mani, that is true what you said about the 'holy wars', I mentioned that (probably not that clearly) when I said how most people I know who are religious are very nice people, since religion teaches them 'love thy neighbour' etc etc, but with religion you are bound to get people who will misuse it, and the thing about it is that once somebody can convince people to join his 'cult' he has such tremendous power over them, often the people would die before they betrayed him...that is what I don't like about religion. Admittedly, it is not the people's fault, it is the one who misuses his power.
But as I said, other than religion we have science, and science has created wars too terrible to imagine - so who's to say which one is better?

[inanimate]

Originally posted by aikiwolfie
I think someone already made a changee to the future becuase you have aparently gone mad lol ...

Mad? Me? Your the one with a herd of elephants in your room! *flies away on a pink rabbit*

[Hannibal]

With religion though, the misuse must be fall within set parameters. Even the most evil/misguided of zealots must be able to find a moral justification from within their religion.

Wars and atrocities from a "non-religious" perspective need have no such boundaries and are potentially much worse.

[totality]

hmm...your theories on...wait, i don't care. i didn't even read it.

EDIT-oops...sorry, i was joking.

[inanimate]

Originally posted by Hannibal
With religion though, the misuse must be fall within set parameters. Even the most evil/misguided of zealots must be able to find a moral justification from within their religion.

Wars and atrocities from a "non-religious" perspective need have no such boundaries and are potentially much worse.

That is true to an extent, but surely there are those who take advantage of the undoubtable faith of their 'followers'? imo religion means that people really have something to fight for and will defend at all costs, and this can be deadly when misused. I do not think that Saddam's regime has many set parameters when it comes to fighting their enemies.
What do you think?

[inanimate]

I agree on your point about the non-religious conflicts btw, I think I mentioned religious vs. non-religious conflicts in one of my earlier posts...

[mani]

This may be a bit out of topic but it is again only my view.

Before the actaul invasion of Iraq, Saddam was shown on television surrounded by hissupporters. At this time Saddam had his beard cut, and only had a small amount of facial hair.

However,

In the period of approximately 6 months later a person approximately 60 years old (Saddam) had a full grown beard, pretty long for me to believe that it is Saddam.

[Mwabukabuti]

Media and government messes with everything. It could be Bush's mother dressed up as Saddam so people will like Bush...

[Mufty]

Yep!

[Maverick]

Well I agree with all 3 of your points.

You might find this interesting;

http://coscorrosa.com/writing/rants/freewill.php

[gt3]

to quote from the book "The Power of Now" by Eckhart Tolle (read the last line at the bottom if nothing else):

Q: According to Einstein, space and time are not separate. I don't really understand it, but I think he is saying that time is the fourth dimension of space. He calls it the "space-time continuum."

A: Yes. What you perceive externally as space and time are ultimately illusory, but they contain a core of truth. They are the two essential attributes of God, infinity and eternity, perceived as if they had an external existence outside you. Within you, both space and time have an inner equivalent that reveals their true nature, as well as your own. Whereas space is the still, infinitely deep realm of no-mind, the inner equivalent of time is presence, awareness of the eternal Now. Remember that there is no distinction between them. When space and time are realized within as the Unmanifested - no-mind and presence - external space and time continue to exist for you, but they become much less important. The world, too, continues to exist for you, but it will not bind you anymore. Hence, the ultimate purpose of the world lies not within the world but in transcendence of the world. Just as you would not be conscious of space if there were no objects in space, the world is needed for the Unmanifested to be realized. You may have heard the Buddhist saying: "If there were no illusion, there would be no enlightenment." It is through the world and ultimately through you that the Unmanifested knows itself. You are here to enable the divine purpose of the universe to unfold. That is how important you are!

[tekkengod]

hmm. that a nice little site there maverick. I loved that bit on "god and athletes" and the one about Gods miracles.....oh now that was the funniest thing i've seen all day. i like that site.

I think you'll like this one too.

http://home.inu.net/skeptic/

[gt3]

Today science has provided, and continues to provide, more plausible answers to religious questions thereby eliminating the need for God to supply the answers. As knowledge advances God retreats.


I find that more and more scientists believe in god, the real god theistically speaking. I understand that "god didn't make us in his image, we made him in ours" (see the book "Freedom from the known") which is to say with the manmade aspects of religion (see the book "The Tao of Meditation") so the smarter we are the more resist this idea because of course it's bs that god is some male entity who literally speaks to people.

Have you ever thought however, that god might be the stillness, the empty space that allows everything else to exist? That science has found almost 100% of your body is empty space and that "god's one and only voice is silence"? (see the book "I Am That" and "The power of now")

I used to have the same atheist or agnostic views until i read these books. Being skeptical and cynical is a good start but it's only the half way point to truth.

[tekkengod]

i think i misunderstood what you are saying. sounds like its pro-agnostic and Atheist, but the end line speaks otherwise...?

[gt3]

i think i misunderstood what you are saying. sounds like its pro-agnostic and Atheist, but the end line speaks otherwise...?

it's easy to misunderstand what i said if you're used to only thinking in the usual extremes of christians thinking jesus is god and that we should worship something outside of ourselves and the other side of the coin which is that logic dicates this is stupid and thus there is no god.

But what i'm really refering to is more like the chinese call "The Tao" or the yogis call "conciousness". God doesn't need a label it just is or none of us would be here. Scientists certainly didn't create the universe, nor me.

[tekkengod]

it's easy to misunderstand what i said if you're used to only thinking in the usual extremes of christians

But what i'm really refering to is more like the chinese call "The Tao" or the yogis call "conciousness". God doesn't need a label it just is or none of us would be here. Scientists certainly didn't create the universe, nor me.


Apparently thats the only flavors they come in. That and chocolate-Chip. :D

I understand what you are saying now, but the bolded text brings me to the thought process of most christians and one of my favorite quotes.

If it can't be explained right now, this very instant in every single minute detail. Then it was obviously a work of god!!!

"God is mans way of rationalizing that which he does not understand" -
Rufus Shinra

[gt3]

Apparently thats the only flavors they come in. That and chocolate-Chip. :D

I understand what you are saying now, but the bolded text brings me to the thought process of most christians and one of my favorite quotes.

If it can't be explained right now, this very instant in every single minute detail. Then it was obviously a work of god!!!

"God is mans way of rationalizing that which he does not understand" -
Rufus Shinra

I'm not christian nor belong to any religion and the confusion does lie line the fact that i am saying "god is the empty space that allows everything else to exist", silence doesnt exist to you until there's sound. In this way god doesn't "exist" to exist is to "stand out". but it doesn't mean it is not there and in this case to quote from lao tse i believe "usefulness comes from what is NOT there"

I hardly want to sound like i know it all though, i don't, and neither does nor can anyone. it can't be known, the truth is beyond the intellects comprehension, it can only be felt and dwelled upon. Just as no one can describe to you the taste of a mango, you have to taste it for yourself.


"God is mans way of rationalizing that which he does not understand"

Beliefs aren't as important as true knowing/understanding, and in the case of most religions people can only say they 'believe' in god. Thus you don't have to belong to any religion to 'know' god. And which one is more important? Dogma means nothing :D

"Cynicism is intellectual treason." --Norman Cousins

[Maverick]

Yea that's an interesting site Tekken, cheers.

[gt3]

"Skepticism is the philosophical approach that denies that the world can be objectively known in any absolute sense. It further denies the true knowability of God"

Which i find ironic because skeptics usually come across as know-it-alls :D

My question is what good does doubting everything do? its just the other extreme of believing in everything you're told. Neither seem like a good idea

[Strafio]

It's just doubting things can be known in the absolute sense.
Which means that nothing is 100% certain.
That's plain common sense, right?

[aikiMac]

It's just doubting things can be known in the absolute sense.
Which means that nothing is 100% certain.
That's plain common sense, right?
Does the underlined statement apply to itself? Or is it an absolute?

[gt3]

It's just doubting things can be known in the absolute sense.
Which means that nothing is 100% certain.
That's plain common sense, right?

This requires knowing that you don't know which implies that you're *open* to learning, not closed off from it by saying knowing is impossible and thus i'll doubt everything im told never letting fragments of truth seep in. It's almost paradoxical i guess

[Strafio]

Not really. You don't "know" that you don't know because for all you know you might actually be right...
And you don't have to doubt everything, just not take everything for granted and accept that what seems right now might not seem right later so be "open" to "better" knowledge... or something like that. :)

Does the underlined statement apply to itself? Or is it an absolute?

:) Yep, even that statement isn't 100% certain.
There might well be something 100% certain for all I know. :)

[aikiMac]

:) Yep, even that statement isn't 100% certain.
There might well be something 100% certain for all I know. :)
Good. Then if I say that such-and-such is true, you can't say, "No it's not!" At worst you can say, "I withholding affirmation because I don't know if it's true or not."
:)

[Strafio]

That's cool. I don't think I've used "No it's not" or "that's not true" in a while now.
It still might "not make sense to me..." though. :)

[aikiMac]

No, I don't think you have either.

[gt3]

too bad most teachers dont get this. they want it set up as ''im the teacher and always right and don't you ever question my authority and knowledge minion" hehe. Perhaps that is the most important lesson we can learn from them, is how untrue that idea is

[Strafio]

I think that's a problem at the moment.
I think there's a kind of disrespect for pupils which fustrates them so they get all defensive and rebellious.

Teachers talk to students in a way that they won't tolerate in return.
Kind of breeds contempt rather than trust...
But then maybe some sort of authority/discipline has to be laid down, but then I've found that doesn't encourage things not to be done so much as not to be caught doing them...