 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Life is but one long learning curve, preparation for greater things beyond? 🤔" Nope, no, no, nopedy no no. And, if your god is right then the greater thing beyond is an eternity in hell for billions of people. What a guy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"nopedy no no,only said I was learning stuff everyday..?" As long as it's not about religion then you're on the right track. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"nopedy no no,only said I was learning stuff everyday..? As long as it's not about religion then you're on the right track. " no,nothing to do with religion, each to their own but everyday's an opportunity to learn | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I love learning things, it's just the lessons I hate!" through the lessons, you learn. good luck X | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Learning is a lifelong process. When we learn something new every day, we keep our mind active and curious. Small daily learning leads to personal growth and improvement. Learning does not always mean studying from books. It can be learning a new word, a new skill, or a new idea. Every bit of knowledge adds value to our life and helps us think better. Learning regularly improves confidence and problem-solving ability. It helps us adapt to change and face challenges with a positive attitude. Learning keeps us updated and mentally strong. Curiosity is the key to learning. Asking questions, observing things around us, and reflecting on experiences help us grow. Learning every day develops discipline and consistency. In conclusion, learning something new every day helps us improve continuously. With curiosity and effort, we can grow wiser, more confident, and more capable in life. " Completely agree | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Learning is a lifelong process. When we learn something new every day, we keep our mind active and curious. Small daily learning leads to personal growth and improvement. Learning does not always mean studying from books. It can be learning a new word, a new skill, or a new idea. Every bit of knowledge adds value to our life and helps us think better. thank you X Learning regularly improves confidence and problem-solving ability. It helps us adapt to change and face challenges with a positive attitude. Learning keeps us updated and mentally strong. Curiosity is the key to learning. Asking questions, observing things around us, and reflecting on experiences help us grow. Learning every day develops discipline and consistency. In conclusion, learning something new every day helps us improve continuously. With curiosity and effort, we can grow wiser, more confident, and more capable in life. Completely agree" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just learned something new on here. Alternative name for menopause - The iron curtain. " manopause X | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 X | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Life is but one long learning curve, preparation for greater things beyond? 🤔 Nope, no, no, nopedy no no. And, if your god is right then the greater thing beyond is an eternity in hell for billions of people. What a guy. " Um???? 🤔. . . . . . 1. Who mentioned god? 2. Why do you assume I have a god? 3. Where is your evidence to support your claim "the greater thing beyond is an eternity in hell for billions of people."? 4. Why do you assume that there is a guy involved? 5. There is no proof or otherwise of greater things beyond this existence, thus my question!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"and devinians word play, well done fella for getting us to have a chat X" Diolch yn fawr! 😊👍 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"5. There is no proof or otherwise of greater things beyond this existence, thus my question!! " Have a look at “Pascal's wager”. Basically (to make it simple) it comes down to “If you believe in a god and he doesn’t exist then you have lost nothing, but if he does exist then you have gained everything so on the balance of probability believing in a god does you no harm”. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't mind being taught a lesson 😁" What about being put in detention? (You've already been warned about that indecently short skirt! 😈) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"cheers fella, will have a look at pasquals wager.." He is also the person that the Pascal programming language is named after a another useless bit of trivia 🤣 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"5. There is no proof or otherwise of greater things beyond this existence, thus my question!! Have a look at “Pascal's wager”. Basically (to make it simple) it comes down to “If you believe in a god and he doesn’t exist then you have lost nothing, but if he does exist then you have gained everything so on the balance of probability believing in a god does you no harm”." Thanks for the recommendation, certainly a wise perspective offered there. 😊👍 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"5. There is no proof or otherwise of greater things beyond this existence, thus my question!! Have a look at “Pascal's wager”. Basically (to make it simple) it comes down to “If you believe in a god and he doesn’t exist then you have lost nothing, but if he does exist then you have gained everything so on the balance of probability believing in a god does you no harm”." Pascal's Wager is unfalsifiable. It's so bad it can't even be tested, ergo it can't be shown to be false. Try again. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Life is but one long learning curve, preparation for greater things beyond? 🤔 Nope, no, no, nopedy no no. And, if your god is right then the greater thing beyond is an eternity in hell for billions of people. What a guy. " If there is or there isn’t a “life” beyond the only people who can be proved wrong are those who say there isn’t 😀 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"5. There is no proof or otherwise of greater things beyond this existence, thus my question!! Have a look at “Pascal's wager”. Basically (to make it simple) it comes down to “If you believe in a god and he doesn’t exist then you have lost nothing, but if he does exist then you have gained everything so on the balance of probability believing in a god does you no harm”. Pascal's Wager is unfalsifiable. It's so bad it can't even be tested, ergo it can't be shown to be false. Try again." But that is the whole point of it. As there is no way to prove that god does or does not exist, so belief in a god hedges your bet. If he does exist you win, if he doesn’t you have lost nothing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"5. There is no proof or otherwise of greater things beyond this existence, thus my question!! Have a look at “Pascal's wager”. Basically (to make it simple) it comes down to “If you believe in a god and he doesn’t exist then you have lost nothing, but if he does exist then you have gained everything so on the balance of probability believing in a god does you no harm”. Pascal's Wager is unfalsifiable. It's so bad it can't even be tested, ergo it can't be shown to be false. Try again." Falsifiability is a great tool for a lab, but it’s a terrible way to live a life. You’re asking for a lab report on a mystery we all have to face alone. The fact is, we don't know—and pretending that 'unfalsifiable' means 'impossible' is just a fancy way of being closed-minded. I'd rather admit the mystery than pretend I've solved it with a catchphrase. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"5. There is no proof or otherwise of greater things beyond this existence, thus my question!! Have a look at “Pascal's wager”. Basically (to make it simple) it comes down to “If you believe in a god and he doesn’t exist then you have lost nothing, but if he does exist then you have gained everything so on the balance of probability believing in a god does you no harm”. Pascal's Wager is unfalsifiable. It's so bad it can't even be tested, ergo it can't be shown to be false. Try again. But that is the whole point of it. As there is no way to prove that god does or does not exist, so belief in a god hedges your bet. If he does exist you win, if he doesn’t you have lost nothing." Agreed!! The logic is actually bulletproof because it’s based on the only real fact we have:- we just do not know. Since nobody can prove what happens next, it’s only common sense to hedge your bet. If you live with integrity and the belief that there’s something more, you lose absolutely nothing in this life—you still live, work, and think for yourself. But if you’re right, the payoff is everything. It’s the ultimate insurance policy for the mind, and it's far more rational than betting your entire existence on the 'certainty' of a guess. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"5. There is no proof or otherwise of greater things beyond this existence, thus my question!! Have a look at “Pascal's wager”. Basically (to make it simple) it comes down to “If you believe in a god and he doesn’t exist then you have lost nothing, but if he does exist then you have gained everything so on the balance of probability believing in a god does you no harm”. Pascal's Wager is unfalsifiable. It's so bad it can't even be tested, ergo it can't be shown to be false. Try again. But that is the whole point of it. As there is no way to prove that god does or does not exist, so belief in a god hedges your bet. If he does exist you win, if he doesn’t you have lost nothing. Agreed!! The logic is actually bulletproof because it’s based on the only real fact we have:- we just do not know. Since nobody can prove what happens next, it’s only common sense to hedge your bet. If you live with integrity and the belief that there’s something more, you lose absolutely nothing in this life—you still live, work, and think for yourself. But if you’re right, the payoff is everything. It’s the ultimate insurance policy for the mind, and it's far more rational than betting your entire existence on the 'certainty' of a guess. " You can think for yourself, up to a certain point, the point where you covet something belonging to your neighbour. It's the original thought crime and it will send you straight to hell. Good luck hedging that bet. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"5. There is no proof or otherwise of greater things beyond this existence, thus my question!! Have a look at “Pascal's wager”. Basically (to make it simple) it comes down to “If you believe in a god and he doesn’t exist then you have lost nothing, but if he does exist then you have gained everything so on the balance of probability believing in a god does you no harm”. Pascal's Wager is unfalsifiable. It's so bad it can't even be tested, ergo it can't be shown to be false. Try again. But that is the whole point of it. As there is no way to prove that god does or does not exist, so belief in a god hedges your bet. If he does exist you win, if he doesn’t you have lost nothing. Agreed!! The logic is actually bulletproof because it’s based on the only real fact we have:- we just do not know. Since nobody can prove what happens next, it’s only common sense to hedge your bet. If you live with integrity and the belief that there’s something more, you lose absolutely nothing in this life—you still live, work, and think for yourself. But if you’re right, the payoff is everything. It’s the ultimate insurance policy for the mind, and it's far more rational than betting your entire existence on the 'certainty' of a guess. You can think for yourself, up to a certain point, the point where you covet something belonging to your neighbour. It's the original thought crime and it will send you straight to hell. Good luck hedging that bet." Calling an honest question a 'thought crime' is just a way of saying you’re terrified of anyone who doesn't follow your script. I’m not 'coveting' anything, but simply refusing to pretend I have answers that I don't have! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"5. There is no proof or otherwise of greater things beyond this existence, thus my question!! Have a look at “Pascal's wager”. Basically (to make it simple) it comes down to “If you believe in a god and he doesn’t exist then you have lost nothing, but if he does exist then you have gained everything so on the balance of probability believing in a god does you no harm”. Pascal's Wager is unfalsifiable. It's so bad it can't even be tested, ergo it can't be shown to be false. Try again. But that is the whole point of it. As there is no way to prove that god does or does not exist, so belief in a god hedges your bet. If he does exist you win, if he doesn’t you have lost nothing. Agreed!! The logic is actually bulletproof because it’s based on the only real fact we have:- we just do not know. Since nobody can prove what happens next, it’s only common sense to hedge your bet. If you live with integrity and the belief that there’s something more, you lose absolutely nothing in this life—you still live, work, and think for yourself. But if you’re right, the payoff is everything. It’s the ultimate insurance policy for the mind, and it's far more rational than betting your entire existence on the 'certainty' of a guess. You can think for yourself, up to a certain point, the point where you covet something belonging to your neighbour. It's the original thought crime and it will send you straight to hell. Good luck hedging that bet. Calling an honest question a 'thought crime' is just a way of saying you’re terrified of anyone who doesn't follow your script. I’m not 'coveting' anything, but simply refusing to pretend I have answers that I don't have! " I should have phrased it as 'one can...'. Not you specifically. Hedging your bets (one's bets) doesn't work either if a thought crime will send you (one) to hell. Between that and original sin, there's a whole lot of people who are bound for pretty dismal time after death. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"5. There is no proof or otherwise of greater things beyond this existence, thus my question!! Have a look at “Pascal's wager”. Basically (to make it simple) it comes down to “If you believe in a god and he doesn’t exist then you have lost nothing, but if he does exist then you have gained everything so on the balance of probability believing in a god does you no harm”. Pascal's Wager is unfalsifiable. It's so bad it can't even be tested, ergo it can't be shown to be false. Try again. But that is the whole point of it. As there is no way to prove that god does or does not exist, so belief in a god hedges your bet. If he does exist you win, if he doesn’t you have lost nothing. Agreed!! The logic is actually bulletproof because it’s based on the only real fact we have:- we just do not know. Since nobody can prove what happens next, it’s only common sense to hedge your bet. If you live with integrity and the belief that there’s something more, you lose absolutely nothing in this life—you still live, work, and think for yourself. But if you’re right, the payoff is everything. It’s the ultimate insurance policy for the mind, and it's far more rational than betting your entire existence on the 'certainty' of a guess. You can think for yourself, up to a certain point, the point where you covet something belonging to your neighbour. It's the original thought crime and it will send you straight to hell. Good luck hedging that bet. Calling an honest question a 'thought crime' is just a way of saying you’re terrified of anyone who doesn't follow your script. I’m not 'coveting' anything, but simply refusing to pretend I have answers that I don't have! I should have phrased it as 'one can...'. Not you specifically. Hedging your bets (one's bets) doesn't work either if a thought crime will send you (one) to hell. Between that and original sin, there's a whole lot of people who are bound for pretty dismal time after death. " I understand that’s a common perspective, but I find the idea of 'thought crimes' and inherited guilt to be more of a social pressure tactic than a pursuit of truth. I prefer to base things on the integrity of what I can actually know, rather than on the fear of what I don’t. Best of luck with your own trajectory too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"5. There is no proof or otherwise of greater things beyond this existence, thus my question!! Have a look at “Pascal's wager”. Basically (to make it simple) it comes down to “If you believe in a god and he doesn’t exist then you have lost nothing, but if he does exist then you have gained everything so on the balance of probability believing in a god does you no harm”. Pascal's Wager is unfalsifiable. It's so bad it can't even be tested, ergo it can't be shown to be false. Try again. But that is the whole point of it. As there is no way to prove that god does or does not exist, so belief in a god hedges your bet. If he does exist you win, if he doesn’t you have lost nothing. Agreed!! The logic is actually bulletproof because it’s based on the only real fact we have:- we just do not know. Since nobody can prove what happens next, it’s only common sense to hedge your bet. If you live with integrity and the belief that there’s something more, you lose absolutely nothing in this life—you still live, work, and think for yourself. But if you’re right, the payoff is everything. It’s the ultimate insurance policy for the mind, and it's far more rational than betting your entire existence on the 'certainty' of a guess. You can think for yourself, up to a certain point, the point where you covet something belonging to your neighbour. It's the original thought crime and it will send you straight to hell. Good luck hedging that bet." I think you are confusing the possibility of god, with religions that have been created by people. Religion as created and controlled by people throughout history have been used to control other people based on fear of the unknown and has been responsible for much death and suffering that still goes on today. Accepting that there may be a god is a personal act and is not dependent on anyone else. We all know that we are going to die at some point - it is the only thing we can be sure of that is going to happen to us. Whether it is the end or a transition to something else is unknowable, and that is what Pascals Wager was about. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"5. There is no proof or otherwise of greater things beyond this existence, thus my question!! Have a look at “Pascal's wager”. Basically (to make it simple) it comes down to “If you believe in a god and he doesn’t exist then you have lost nothing, but if he does exist then you have gained everything so on the balance of probability believing in a god does you no harm”. Pascal's Wager is unfalsifiable. It's so bad it can't even be tested, ergo it can't be shown to be false. Try again. But that is the whole point of it. As there is no way to prove that god does or does not exist, so belief in a god hedges your bet. If he does exist you win, if he doesn’t you have lost nothing. Agreed!! The logic is actually bulletproof because it’s based on the only real fact we have:- we just do not know. Since nobody can prove what happens next, it’s only common sense to hedge your bet. If you live with integrity and the belief that there’s something more, you lose absolutely nothing in this life—you still live, work, and think for yourself. But if you’re right, the payoff is everything. It’s the ultimate insurance policy for the mind, and it's far more rational than betting your entire existence on the 'certainty' of a guess. You can think for yourself, up to a certain point, the point where you covet something belonging to your neighbour. It's the original thought crime and it will send you straight to hell. Good luck hedging that bet. I think you are confusing the possibility of god, with religions that have been created by people. Religion as created and controlled by people throughout history have been used to control other people based on fear of the unknown and has been responsible for much death and suffering that still goes on today. Accepting that there may be a god is a personal act and is not dependent on anyone else. We all know that we are going to die at some point - it is the only thing we can be sure of that is going to happen to us. Whether it is the end or a transition to something else is unknowable, and that is what Pascals Wager was about." Despite your last post, we are actually on the same page. I completely agree that the transition to whatever comes next is unknowable, that's exactly why I keep my hedge. My point wasn't a critique of the possibility of God, but a refusal to let the other guy (sucker4u) use 'thought crimes' and 'inherited guilt' as a social pressure tactic. ?Indeed, accepting the possibility of a higher power is personal and private to the confines of one's mind. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"5. There is no proof or otherwise of greater things beyond this existence, thus my question!! Have a look at “Pascal's wager”. Basically (to make it simple) it comes down to “If you believe in a god and he doesn’t exist then you have lost nothing, but if he does exist then you have gained everything so on the balance of probability believing in a god does you no harm”. Pascal's Wager is unfalsifiable. It's so bad it can't even be tested, ergo it can't be shown to be false. Try again. But that is the whole point of it. As there is no way to prove that god does or does not exist, so belief in a god hedges your bet. If he does exist you win, if he doesn’t you have lost nothing. Agreed!! The logic is actually bulletproof because it’s based on the only real fact we have:- we just do not know. Since nobody can prove what happens next, it’s only common sense to hedge your bet. If you live with integrity and the belief that there’s something more, you lose absolutely nothing in this life—you still live, work, and think for yourself. But if you’re right, the payoff is everything. It’s the ultimate insurance policy for the mind, and it's far more rational than betting your entire existence on the 'certainty' of a guess. You can think for yourself, up to a certain point, the point where you covet something belonging to your neighbour. It's the original thought crime and it will send you straight to hell. Good luck hedging that bet. I think you are confusing the possibility of god, with religions that have been created by people. Religion as created and controlled by people throughout history have been used to control other people based on fear of the unknown and has been responsible for much death and suffering that still goes on today. Accepting that there may be a god is a personal act and is not dependent on anyone else. We all know that we are going to die at some point - it is the only thing we can be sure of that is going to happen to us. Whether it is the end or a transition to something else is unknowable, and that is what Pascals Wager was about. Despite your last post, we are actually on the same page. I completely agree that the transition to whatever comes next is unknowable, that's exactly why I keep my hedge. My point wasn't a critique of the possibility of God, but a refusal to let the other guy (sucker4u) use 'thought crimes' and 'inherited guilt' as a social pressure tactic. ?Indeed, accepting the possibility of a higher power is personal and private to the confines of one's mind. " It's not a social pressure tactic, it's right there in the bible. If a person believes in an Abrahamic god then that person is most likely going to hell. And accepting the possibility of a higher power (the Abrahamic god) is not personal and private, especially when it's used to brainwash children. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"5. There is no proof or otherwise of greater things beyond this existence, thus my question!! Have a look at “Pascal's wager”. Basically (to make it simple) it comes down to “If you believe in a god and he doesn’t exist then you have lost nothing, but if he does exist then you have gained everything so on the balance of probability believing in a god does you no harm”. Pascal's Wager is unfalsifiable. It's so bad it can't even be tested, ergo it can't be shown to be false. Try again. But that is the whole point of it. As there is no way to prove that god does or does not exist, so belief in a god hedges your bet. If he does exist you win, if he doesn’t you have lost nothing. Agreed!! The logic is actually bulletproof because it’s based on the only real fact we have:- we just do not know. Since nobody can prove what happens next, it’s only common sense to hedge your bet. If you live with integrity and the belief that there’s something more, you lose absolutely nothing in this life—you still live, work, and think for yourself. But if you’re right, the payoff is everything. It’s the ultimate insurance policy for the mind, and it's far more rational than betting your entire existence on the 'certainty' of a guess. You can think for yourself, up to a certain point, the point where you covet something belonging to your neighbour. It's the original thought crime and it will send you straight to hell. Good luck hedging that bet. I think you are confusing the possibility of god, with religions that have been created by people. Religion as created and controlled by people throughout history have been used to control other people based on fear of the unknown and has been responsible for much death and suffering that still goes on today. Accepting that there may be a god is a personal act and is not dependent on anyone else. We all know that we are going to die at some point - it is the only thing we can be sure of that is going to happen to us. Whether it is the end or a transition to something else is unknowable, and that is what Pascals Wager was about. Despite your last post, we are actually on the same page. I completely agree that the transition to whatever comes next is unknowable, that's exactly why I keep my hedge. My point wasn't a critique of the possibility of God, but a refusal to let the other guy (sucker4u) use 'thought crimes' and 'inherited guilt' as a social pressure tactic. ?Indeed, accepting the possibility of a higher power is personal and private to the confines of one's mind. It's not a social pressure tactic, it's right there in the bible. If a person believes in an Abrahamic god then that person is most likely going to hell. And accepting the possibility of a higher power (the Abrahamic god) is not personal and private, especially when it's used to brainwash children. " I understand that you have strong feelings about the history of organised religion, but you’re conflating a personal search for truth with the actions of a system. To suggest that a private thought isn't private because of how others behave is a logic I can't subscribe to. I'm not responsible for the 'brainwashing' of others, nor am I bound by a script of inherited guilt. I shall continue to base my opinion on my own integrity and what I can honestly know, rather than on fear or collective blame. Best of luck with your own perspective too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"5. There is no proof or otherwise of greater things beyond this existence, thus my question!! Have a look at “Pascal's wager”. Basically (to make it simple) it comes down to “If you believe in a god and he doesn’t exist then you have lost nothing, but if he does exist then you have gained everything so on the balance of probability believing in a god does you no harm”. Pascal's Wager is unfalsifiable. It's so bad it can't even be tested, ergo it can't be shown to be false. Try again. But that is the whole point of it. As there is no way to prove that god does or does not exist, so belief in a god hedges your bet. If he does exist you win, if he doesn’t you have lost nothing. Agreed!! The logic is actually bulletproof because it’s based on the only real fact we have:- we just do not know. Since nobody can prove what happens next, it’s only common sense to hedge your bet. If you live with integrity and the belief that there’s something more, you lose absolutely nothing in this life—you still live, work, and think for yourself. But if you’re right, the payoff is everything. It’s the ultimate insurance policy for the mind, and it's far more rational than betting your entire existence on the 'certainty' of a guess. You can think for yourself, up to a certain point, the point where you covet something belonging to your neighbour. It's the original thought crime and it will send you straight to hell. Good luck hedging that bet. I think you are confusing the possibility of god, with religions that have been created by people. Religion as created and controlled by people throughout history have been used to control other people based on fear of the unknown and has been responsible for much death and suffering that still goes on today. Accepting that there may be a god is a personal act and is not dependent on anyone else. We all know that we are going to die at some point - it is the only thing we can be sure of that is going to happen to us. Whether it is the end or a transition to something else is unknowable, and that is what Pascals Wager was about. Despite your last post, we are actually on the same page. I completely agree that the transition to whatever comes next is unknowable, that's exactly why I keep my hedge. My point wasn't a critique of the possibility of God, but a refusal to let the other guy (sucker4u) use 'thought crimes' and 'inherited guilt' as a social pressure tactic. ?Indeed, accepting the possibility of a higher power is personal and private to the confines of one's mind. It's not a social pressure tactic, it's right there in the bible. If a person believes in an Abrahamic god then that person is most likely going to hell. And accepting the possibility of a higher power (the Abrahamic god) is not personal and private, especially when it's used to brainwash children. I understand that you have strong feelings about the history of organised religion, but you’re conflating a personal search for truth with the actions of a system. To suggest that a private thought isn't private because of how others behave is a logic I can't subscribe to. I'm not responsible for the 'brainwashing' of others, nor am I bound by a script of inherited guilt. I shall continue to base my opinion on my own integrity and what I can honestly know, rather than on fear or collective blame. Best of luck with your own perspective too. " So, a personal search for truth which results in believing in god means you don't have to adhere to the word of god? Not sure how god will feel about that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So, a personal search for truth which results in believing in god means you don't have to adhere to the word of god? Not sure how god will feel about that. " But “who’s word of god”? If god spoke directly to you and told you what he wants, then fair enough. But if you are basing it on a book written 100’s of years after events are supposed to have happen be people who had a vested interest as a method to control others then it is not “the word of god” it is something written by a human being for their own purposes. Take the bible for example, what people refer to as the bible was created around 400AD by a group of men. They excluded at least 14 different texts from “The Bible”, and who is to say that what they did put in wasn’t altered to fit their own prejudices (remember they have just excluded 14 other texts they didn’t like). So unless he speaks directly to you, there is no “word of god” only writings of other men. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Every day is a school day." That's been my story from the day I left school with no exam passes. You live life to learn | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So, a personal search for truth which results in believing in god means you don't have to adhere to the word of god? Not sure how god will feel about that. But “who’s word of god”? If god spoke directly to you and told you what he wants, then fair enough. But if you are basing it on a book written 100’s of years after events are supposed to have happen be people who had a vested interest as a method to control others then it is not “the word of god” it is something written by a human being for their own purposes. Take the bible for example, what people refer to as the bible was created around 400AD by a group of men. They excluded at least 14 different texts from “The Bible”, and who is to say that what they did put in wasn’t altered to fit their own prejudices (remember they have just excluded 14 other texts they didn’t like). So unless he speaks directly to you, there is no “word of god” only writings of other men." I'm 100% with you, it's the rest of the Jewish, Christian and Islamic believers that need to get on board. One cannot have a 'personal' god, who also happens to be the Abrahamic god, but not follow the 'word' of god. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"5. There is no proof or otherwise of greater things beyond this existence, thus my question!! Have a look at “Pascal's wager”. Basically (to make it simple) it comes down to “If you believe in a god and he doesn’t exist then you have lost nothing, but if he does exist then you have gained everything so on the balance of probability believing in a god does you no harm”. Pascal's Wager is unfalsifiable. It's so bad it can't even be tested, ergo it can't be shown to be false. Try again. But that is the whole point of it. As there is no way to prove that god does or does not exist, so belief in a god hedges your bet. If he does exist you win, if he doesn’t you have lost nothing. Agreed!! The logic is actually bulletproof because it’s based on the only real fact we have:- we just do not know. Since nobody can prove what happens next, it’s only common sense to hedge your bet. If you live with integrity and the belief that there’s something more, you lose absolutely nothing in this life—you still live, work, and think for yourself. But if you’re right, the payoff is everything. It’s the ultimate insurance policy for the mind, and it's far more rational than betting your entire existence on the 'certainty' of a guess. You can think for yourself, up to a certain point, the point where you covet something belonging to your neighbour. It's the original thought crime and it will send you straight to hell. Good luck hedging that bet. I think you are confusing the possibility of god, with religions that have been created by people. Religion as created and controlled by people throughout history have been used to control other people based on fear of the unknown and has been responsible for much death and suffering that still goes on today. Accepting that there may be a god is a personal act and is not dependent on anyone else. We all know that we are going to die at some point - it is the only thing we can be sure of that is going to happen to us. Whether it is the end or a transition to something else is unknowable, and that is what Pascals Wager was about. Despite your last post, we are actually on the same page. I completely agree that the transition to whatever comes next is unknowable, that's exactly why I keep my hedge. My point wasn't a critique of the possibility of God, but a refusal to let the other guy (sucker4u) use 'thought crimes' and 'inherited guilt' as a social pressure tactic. ?Indeed, accepting the possibility of a higher power is personal and private to the confines of one's mind. It's not a social pressure tactic, it's right there in the bible. If a person believes in an Abrahamic god then that person is most likely going to hell. And accepting the possibility of a higher power (the Abrahamic god) is not personal and private, especially when it's used to brainwash children. I understand that you have strong feelings about the history of organised religion, but you’re conflating a personal search for truth with the actions of a system. To suggest that a private thought isn't private because of how others behave is a logic I can't subscribe to. I'm not responsible for the 'brainwashing' of others, nor am I bound by a script of inherited guilt. I shall continue to base my opinion on my own integrity and what I can honestly know, rather than on fear or collective blame. Best of luck with your own perspective too. So, a personal search for truth which results in believing in god means you don't have to adhere to the word of god? Not sure how god will feel about that. " Your logic exemplifies the 'system' trying to constrain independent thought. You're assuming I must accept your interpretation if I acknowledge something greater. That's a big jump. Claiming to know a higher power's intentions just to win a debate isn't faith, it's a control tactic. I admit I don't have the answers – it's the realm of the completely unknown, yet your argument pretends you do. I'll trust my moral compass and my approach over your script thanks, but all best wishes with your own interpretation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"5. There is no proof or otherwise of greater things beyond this existence, thus my question!! Have a look at “Pascal's wager”. Basically (to make it simple) it comes down to “If you believe in a god and he doesn’t exist then you have lost nothing, but if he does exist then you have gained everything so on the balance of probability believing in a god does you no harm”. Pascal's Wager is unfalsifiable. It's so bad it can't even be tested, ergo it can't be shown to be false. Try again. But that is the whole point of it. As there is no way to prove that god does or does not exist, so belief in a god hedges your bet. If he does exist you win, if he doesn’t you have lost nothing. Agreed!! The logic is actually bulletproof because it’s based on the only real fact we have:- we just do not know. Since nobody can prove what happens next, it’s only common sense to hedge your bet. If you live with integrity and the belief that there’s something more, you lose absolutely nothing in this life—you still live, work, and think for yourself. But if you’re right, the payoff is everything. It’s the ultimate insurance policy for the mind, and it's far more rational than betting your entire existence on the 'certainty' of a guess. You can think for yourself, up to a certain point, the point where you covet something belonging to your neighbour. It's the original thought crime and it will send you straight to hell. Good luck hedging that bet. I think you are confusing the possibility of god, with religions that have been created by people. Religion as created and controlled by people throughout history have been used to control other people based on fear of the unknown and has been responsible for much death and suffering that still goes on today. Accepting that there may be a god is a personal act and is not dependent on anyone else. We all know that we are going to die at some point - it is the only thing we can be sure of that is going to happen to us. Whether it is the end or a transition to something else is unknowable, and that is what Pascals Wager was about. Despite your last post, we are actually on the same page. I completely agree that the transition to whatever comes next is unknowable, that's exactly why I keep my hedge. My point wasn't a critique of the possibility of God, but a refusal to let the other guy (sucker4u) use 'thought crimes' and 'inherited guilt' as a social pressure tactic. ?Indeed, accepting the possibility of a higher power is personal and private to the confines of one's mind. It's not a social pressure tactic, it's right there in the bible. If a person believes in an Abrahamic god then that person is most likely going to hell. And accepting the possibility of a higher power (the Abrahamic god) is not personal and private, especially when it's used to brainwash children. I understand that you have strong feelings about the history of organised religion, but you’re conflating a personal search for truth with the actions of a system. To suggest that a private thought isn't private because of how others behave is a logic I can't subscribe to. I'm not responsible for the 'brainwashing' of others, nor am I bound by a script of inherited guilt. I shall continue to base my opinion on my own integrity and what I can honestly know, rather than on fear or collective blame. Best of luck with your own perspective too. So, a personal search for truth which results in believing in god means you don't have to adhere to the word of god? Not sure how god will feel about that. Your logic exemplifies the 'system' trying to constrain independent thought. You're assuming I must accept your interpretation if I acknowledge something greater. That's a big jump. Claiming to know a higher power's intentions just to win a debate isn't faith, it's a control tactic. I admit I don't have the answers – it's the realm of the completely unknown, yet your argument pretends you do. I'll trust my moral compass and my approach over your script thanks, but all best wishes with your own interpretation. " You acknowledge the Abrahamic god, but in your own way? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"5. There is no proof or otherwise of greater things beyond this existence, thus my question!! Have a look at “Pascal's wager”. Basically (to make it simple) it comes down to “If you believe in a god and he doesn’t exist then you have lost nothing, but if he does exist then you have gained everything so on the balance of probability believing in a god does you no harm”. Pascal's Wager is unfalsifiable. It's so bad it can't even be tested, ergo it can't be shown to be false. Try again. But that is the whole point of it. As there is no way to prove that god does or does not exist, so belief in a god hedges your bet. If he does exist you win, if he doesn’t you have lost nothing. Agreed!! The logic is actually bulletproof because it’s based on the only real fact we have:- we just do not know. Since nobody can prove what happens next, it’s only common sense to hedge your bet. If you live with integrity and the belief that there’s something more, you lose absolutely nothing in this life—you still live, work, and think for yourself. But if you’re right, the payoff is everything. It’s the ultimate insurance policy for the mind, and it's far more rational than betting your entire existence on the 'certainty' of a guess. You can think for yourself, up to a certain point, the point where you covet something belonging to your neighbour. It's the original thought crime and it will send you straight to hell. Good luck hedging that bet. I think you are confusing the possibility of god, with religions that have been created by people. Religion as created and controlled by people throughout history have been used to control other people based on fear of the unknown and has been responsible for much death and suffering that still goes on today. Accepting that there may be a god is a personal act and is not dependent on anyone else. We all know that we are going to die at some point - it is the only thing we can be sure of that is going to happen to us. Whether it is the end or a transition to something else is unknowable, and that is what Pascals Wager was about. Despite your last post, we are actually on the same page. I completely agree that the transition to whatever comes next is unknowable, that's exactly why I keep my hedge. My point wasn't a critique of the possibility of God, but a refusal to let the other guy (sucker4u) use 'thought crimes' and 'inherited guilt' as a social pressure tactic. ?Indeed, accepting the possibility of a higher power is personal and private to the confines of one's mind. It's not a social pressure tactic, it's right there in the bible. If a person believes in an Abrahamic god then that person is most likely going to hell. And accepting the possibility of a higher power (the Abrahamic god) is not personal and private, especially when it's used to brainwash children. I understand that you have strong feelings about the history of organised religion, but you’re conflating a personal search for truth with the actions of a system. To suggest that a private thought isn't private because of how others behave is a logic I can't subscribe to. I'm not responsible for the 'brainwashing' of others, nor am I bound by a script of inherited guilt. I shall continue to base my opinion on my own integrity and what I can honestly know, rather than on fear or collective blame. Best of luck with your own perspective too. So, a personal search for truth which results in believing in god means you don't have to adhere to the word of god? Not sure how god will feel about that. Your logic exemplifies the 'system' trying to constrain independent thought. You're assuming I must accept your interpretation if I acknowledge something greater. That's a big jump. Claiming to know a higher power's intentions just to win a debate isn't faith, it's a control tactic. I admit I don't have the answers – it's the realm of the completely unknown, yet your argument pretends you do. I'll trust my moral compass and my approach over your script thanks, but all best wishes with your own interpretation. You acknowledge the Abrahamic god, but in your own way?" We’re circling now. You’re determined to find a label for me so you can use your script, and I’m determined to maintain the integrity of the 'I don't know' factor. ?I’m not acknowledging your specific system, your handbook, or your labels neither am I ignoring them. I am simply comfortable with the unknown, while you seem to need a manual to navigate it. There's no point in further debate when we’re speaking different languages, I’m talking about honest inquiry, and you’re talking about compliance. I’ll leave you to your certainties, I’m perfectly content with my own perspective. Perhaps we should let the question be now put. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
