If there is a Hell, I WANT to be there.

Debasement means "alteration, adultration or reduction of something".

Ok.

Solving others' problems is the fastest way to solve your own. the same goes for understanding. You also gain some perspective.
Just so I may know, what do you refer to when you say "issues"? For me its just the qualms against religious extremism.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

aaqucnaona, were you, like, raised in a really religious housed hold or something? Like private religious education? Fundamentalist upbringing and all that? Maybe CCD or something?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

aaqucnaona,

You're an irresponsible fool.
And I say that in all seriousness.

There are people here, including myself, who are trying to give you another side to your idea of what/who God is, and the essentials of Godly-religion. But here you are, doggedly, dogmatically, sticking to this idiotic notion of what and who God is.

Are you frikkin kidding me?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The rest of your post is bunk.
In fact, it's all bunk, but I thought I'd say something in the hope that when you grow up, there may still be memories of these conversations, which hopefully, will bring you to your senses. Because you don't know wtf you're talking about. Thought experiment or not.


jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@Jan

By the burden of rejoinder, I must either agree or argue. After reading your post, I am forced to admit that I cannot argue and I am in the wrong. This is a poorly thought, hastly whimsical, irresponsible and un-professional thread. My arguments are illogical or inadequate or hastily generalised. I should not have posted this unless I had refined my points and made sensible, unbaised, non-prejudiced and courteous arguments. I am sorry, and I apologise to you and anyone else who reads this. Thank you point out my mistake in this thread and calling a spade a spade. You have just proven sciforums to be a good place for discussion, where bad arguments like this are examined and discarded - and so it must be. So MODERATORS, please delete this thread.

Thank you. I have done my part, by recognising and accepting my mistake, apoligising and retracting my OP [requesting deletion]. Please do not consider the OP to represent my actual, real views - this OP was nothing more that stupidity, naivty, illogic and bad judgement on my part.

This is why I love this place.

Here you go -

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Aaqucnaona how can you be so sure that Satan is not worse than God? If god is not actin they way you wish him to act, what makes you think Satan will do your bidding as you want?

In the old Testament, Satan was in the council of God. Satan is not thrown from heaven until the book of Revelations. The relationship of God and Satan is evident in the book of JOB, where Satan has a lot of influence with God, convincing God to test JOB, which God does.

Book of Job;

God was doing good but takes the council of Satan to heart and tests Job by doing evil to him. All through the old Testament Satan is giving bad advice.

 

I have already retracted my OP, so this isn't a thought experiment anymore. So God and Satan, if to be considered epistemically as you suggest, must first be proven.

 

Really? That's troubling.

I don't care what you've done in other threads. I'm concerned about this thread.

No you don't. If you wanted to hang your hat on one of these ridiculous and superfluous terms, you'd be an agnostic theist. More on that later...

Then you'd be an atheist. But this contradicts a statement you make later in the post.

So you believe there is a god to be known! You can't be an atheist or an agnostic then. You're a gnostic.

See what I mean about hedging bets? You claim to be an atheist, an agnostic, and now a gnostic. Only one can be true, and from you latest admission, you're a gnostic.

These are the same concept, just said different ways. If you say "No you don't," then you're saying I do not have the ball. If you say "I do not believe you," you're still saying I do not have the ball.

 

"Strength is life; weakness is death"
As I don't want to die, I believe in hope and don't like negativity. Atheist are too much negative and that is often suicidal. They enjoy to be cynical but it's just a pretext for doing nothing. Believing in god doesn't necessarily mean "I gotta prove something in my science lab", it's just a positive state of mind which is essential for life to move on. So, I would rather want to be in the heaven. At least I love myself

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So if you have a cavity in your tooth, the best thing to do is make sure that someone else gets a filling?

 

non sequitur - you know that is not what the context was - we are talking philosophy and psychology, not medicine.

 

Good points.

jan.

 

The mind's desire for continuity is distorting your perception. Our bodies are immortal, they will go through various forms after death and emerge as something else. But this immortality isn't good enough for your conditioned ego, so you invent a fantasy instead that you call "positive". There is as much truth to that as there is to the notion that people who don't believe the same garbage are choosing a depressing outlook on life. You are the one driven by fear, false hope, and anti-life ideologies that lead to neurosis. Throw away your crutches, you can walk.

 

. . . Speaking of psychology, you seem obsessed with religion and all topics on atheism. I myself think spiritualism is an intensely personal issue. One can only come to know the source consciousness through personal experience, or on the contrary, by closing oneself off by being blind to the connection thereof.

No amount of discussion on a public forum will ever bring you closer to the divine, nor separate those who have made that connection. So why beat a horse that can't be resurrected through no will of your own?

Which brings us back to your parents. I speculate that your parents have foisted dogma unto you, which has clouded your soul. And, necessarily, public education, and Jesuit dogma in secondary and post secondary institutions of higher learning have all trained us to reject any notions of a higher consciousness by implying that if there were a higher consciousness, it must be anthropomorphized. I notice in all of your threads, your idea of a higher source consciousness is highly anthropomorphized, it is clear you lack the imagination to think outside the box to imagine a consciousness that could link the consciousness of all of humanity, with the consciousness of all of life, all of matter, and all of energy. Could you even conceive that the ground beneath you is conscious? Or that the trees beside you are conscious? Of course not, because your conception of "GOD" is human like, so trees and dirt couldn't be conscious like you. . . and the churches preach that dogs and cats have no entry to paradise. . .

And so all your threads are the same, they lack imagination and are futile attempts to reconcile the pain of imposed dogma upon higher spirit, a spirit that clearly wishes to be free. You are obviously very intelligent. Probably science hasn't provided any clues either, for the establishment doesn't give any clues to the answers either. If it did, it would explain consciousness. But it doesn't, and it can't.

If you wish to find that source of god, look for the source of consciousness. But be warned, you will not be allowed to discuss it here. There is no scientific proof where consciousness lay, or that it even exists. . . but you and I both know it is there, we experience it. It is experiential. The hard core scientist, the deluded atheist will tell you that it is an "illusion," and that, is where the conversation ends.

 

Jan, atleast acknowledge me doing something that most* theists never do - accepting a mistake. I apologied, retracted my OP and practically bent over backwards in thanking you for do your job as a conversational partner.

*FYI, I dont include you in this. SAM, however, might be.

 

@DUMB DUDE

Welcome to sciforums! Ok here we go -

And what does that apply to? A appeal to emotion or a simple quote is not an argument for anything.

Neither do I. But we will.

I believe in boldly facing reality, whatever it may be. I dont think that my belief in hope or optimism affects the objective reality of the world and hence is of no practical consequence to me.

The more negative you are, the more careful you would be. Your statement has an extra A.

No, we delight in scepticism, because whatever can survive our scrutunity comes with a demonstrable certainty which even the most faithful cannot match. In what sense do atheists do nothing? They are the largest group among the intellectual elite - they are the people who actually do the most for humanity - this is what they did last year - http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=112278
Your turn.

No it doesnt. Belief is ontological. Objective existence is epistemic and it has to be proven to be excepted. Which means that you can believe in God, but dont except there to be a real god unless you have proof and dont except your beliefs to be shared by others. If you make a knowledge claim and not a belief claim [you say "there is a God" instead of "I believe in God"], then you have made a epistemological claim and you are under the burden of proof to substantiate it.

No, it is a state of wishful thinking and avoidance of reality, hoping hopelessly that your whim come true. But I will concede the point that moving on after something bad is easier for theists than atheists, though atheists have lesser baggage in this situation.

And I would like to be in the Spagetti Monster heaven with a beer volcano and a stripper factory.

So do we, and more so and deeper than you can ever imagine -
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111931

In closing-
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
- George Bernard Shaw

 

I don't know why I'm even responding to this.

Hopefully someone has pointed out that if one accepts the concept of the Christian hell, then one logically should accept the related concept of eternal torment. To say I want to suffer eternal torment, as opposed to eternal tranquility, is just inane and silly. Torment is torment. This doesn't mean you get breaks to socialize with famous dead people! As someone who was raised with religion, the very notion of your suggestion is hilarious.

You act as if heaven and hell are supposed to be social clubs.

 

I have no interest in being religiously spiritual or closer to God. My only current interest is to find out what we know and what that tells us about the probability of their being a hypothetical being called "God" that actually exists outside the minds of his believers.

My dad is a moderate strong theist and my mother is a apathetic weak theist.

I am a spinozist, I do believe in the collective everything being something like god, Deus vise Natura - but you dont worship gravity, do you? The god you describe not only ISNT he religious or a personal God,.

Excuse me? There were NO dogma ever holding me back. The only things that ever held me back were taboos.

It does. Science has do a marvellous and highly competent job of snatching away the credit given to God and has assigned those things to natural explainations. This will eventual get to such a level where no only will God become unnecessary both also irrelevant - only philosophy and spirituality* will remain as a form of expression of the human aesthetic. Btw, thnx 4 the complement.

Not yet.

You might suggest this, but how can you assert this [which your tone indicates]?

Yes I would. Alternate theories and free thoughts come to mind.

We can be certain it is connected to the brain. And consciousness exists - we are sentient beings, so is a cat, mouse and octopus.

A shared experience is empirical evidence.

No. I dont think he would call it an illusion. He would call it an emergent property - and he is more likely to be correct than you are.

Btw, a deluded atheist will always be less delusional than a deluded theist - simply because he has less things to be deluded about. Considering that atheism tends to be self correcting against certainty or dogmatism, delusions are likely to be weak or non-existent among atheists.

 

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2901949&postcount=44

 

Please respond to my post, aaqucnaona.

 

So if you have a problem with, say, theodicy, the solution is to solve some other person's problem?