If you grow up in mid-west or southern america and are a christian...big shocker.

That is to say what you believe about the origins of the universe and the ultimate fate of a human's soul is statistically based on where you live.

What makes you so right? You grew up in a christian society. Of course you believe Jesus is the Christ and only through him.....blah,blah,blah. You believe it b/c chances are your parents, grand parents, great grandparent, and great great grandparents believed it.

This does not make you correct. You are a product of your environment. It is possible that christians are wrong and buddhists are right. If you had only grew up in an Asain country you would find Nirvana (heaven).

What are the chances of you growing up in a christian place and becoming a christian and christianity being right as opposed to you growing up and adopting the basic ideas without question of the society in which you were birthed?

They are wrong in the same sense that we are all wrong for believing we are sane. If it is true that others exist then sanity is, at best, only a consensual perception.

And broadening the focus from solely Christianity, there is no true religion.

If you grow up in mid-west or southern america and are a christian...big shocker.

That is to say what you believe about the origins of the universe and the ultimate fate of a human's soul is statistically based on where you live.

What makes you so right? You grew up in a christian society. Of course you believe Jesus is the Christ and only through him.....blah,blah,blah. You believe it b/c chances are your parents, grand parents, great grandparent, and great great grandparents believed it.

This does not make you correct. You are a product of your environment. It is possible that christians are wrong and buddhists are right. If you had only grew up in an Asain country you would find Nirvana (heaven).

What are the chances of you growing up in a christian place and becoming a christian and christianity being right as opposed to you growing up and adopting the basic ideas without question of the society in which you were birthed?

This is one of the main problems I see in religion, everyone is always trying to convince you that what they believe is "right" and if what you believe doesn't fit in with their beliefs, your "wrong". What it really comes down to is your own reasoning, whether you had christianity pushed on you all your life or not, the decision still lies within you if you believe it or call bullshit.

They are wrong in the same sense that we are all wrong for believing we are sane. If it is true that others exist then sanity is, at best, only a consensual perception.

And broadening the focus from solely Christianity, there is no true religion.

I used to believe i was sane, now i "know" i am.

Insofar as one can "know" anything, but that isn't important.

That focus is coloured - there is either no true religion or every religion is true, it's difficult to know unless one were to apply the cold, hard science to it.

(of course, if one were to believe in cold, hard science, then one should probably expect a cold, hard afterlife of nothing).


Unless someone can relate to what non-existence feels like...

(of course, if one were to believe in cold, hard science, then one should probably expect a cold, hard afterlife of nothing).


And why should we expect more? Is one life not enough to exalt the ego and give one the chance to make his mark on the Universe? You paint "afterlife of nothing" as if it's a bad thing. The coldness and hardness will dissipate once your consciousness fizzles out and you are no longer capable of reacting to it.

While we'll never know what it's like to experience non-existence, all the negativity we assign to it is meaningless. It's a necessary occurrence that I will embrace when it's my time to expire. Shame on me if I didn't make the most of this life and put forth my all when I had the chance.

Unless someone can relate to what non-existence feels like...
You know that time before you were born? Like that.

I do not believe experience will end with the end of this life.

There was never a beginning either. The presence has always been. Or, maybe it makes more sense to say presence is. Or, maybe aham brahmasmi?

That's why I'm not a big fan of religion. There are way too many different religions, with different descriptions of god, and different beliefs for any one to be 100% correct. I do think that there is a god, yes, but not in the way portrayed by religion.

...there is a god, yes, but not in the way portrayed by religion.

Yes.

Well, I think Brahman is pretty accurate, but I don't know everything tied on to the concept. And God wouldn't have a name. And all the dogma that gets dragged along with the rest of the religion is crap.

All organized religions have their crap.

While we'll never know what it's like to experience non-existence, all the negativity we assign to it is meaningless. It's a necessary occurrence that I will embrace when it's my time to expire. Shame on me if I didn't make the most of this life and put forth my all when I had the chance.

Okay, well regardless of whether or not you die you never really stop existing until the very last atom of your body ceases to exist - which will be within the next 800 years (cremated + scattered = -200 years, i guess.).

Here's my point anyway - why is it that 'non-existence' implies an existence of 'nothing'?

Sure, it might as well be empty enough to be considered 'nothing' (other than 'empty'), but it doesn't nessecarily mean that the 'individual' is indeed 'non-existant', after all - it must exist in nothing in order to be non-existant.

A Vacuum is empty space - but it's still space, so it isn't really an example of 'nothing'.

Perhaps there is an entire dimension filled with 'nothing', and that particular 'nothing' encompasses every living thing that has 'existed', which would be a truer understanding of the idea of existance.

It seems like a rather interesting idea - the planar-reality of non-existence, but then i suppose we're getting onto unstable territory here.

EDIT: Anyway - this is how my twisted idea of logic has lead me to believe that you never stop existing.

Perhaps there is an entire dimension filled with 'nothing', and that particular 'nothing' encompasses every living thing that has 'existed', which would be a truer understanding of the idea of existance.

Imagining the Tenth Dimension (http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php)

"Dimension 0" and "dimension 10" in this concept are equal, and I believe, very similar to what you are saying above. Also, I believe, they can be considered equivalent to God...although thats neither stated nor implied during this video or in the book.

Check it out, if interested. Its only about 10 minutes long.

Both my parents were Christians in atheist and Muslim dominated Soviet Uzbekistan.

Does that prove anything? No.

Thing is that dimensions 0 or 10 are both considered ultimate realities; both will ultimately hold both the idea of existence and the idea of non-existence, even if non-existence existed in another dimension to everything that did exist, it would still hold the characteristic of being 'non-existant'.

These thoughts seem quite familiar to me, it's as if i've been over it so many times it's engraved in my head - but i've forgotten what it was.

Here's the fun bit - is the dimension with existence positive or is the dimension with non-existence in it the positive one?

This is assuming that the universe/ultimate reality works in an orderly fashion based on existence, it may be the case that reality is indeed that chaotic.

if i could find the answer to this question, i'd be able to decide whether there is some sort of ultimate structure or fabric of reality or not.

Ultimate reality seems like a childish dream dreamt by foolish humans - it's probably the case that even if i was correct my understanding of reality would still be nothing in comparision to an ultimate entity, but i hold belief that if i never truly stop existing, then my 'ultimate question' will be answered after my death.

Philosophy is a Good example of a religion doing it's best to appear to be true.

Philosophy is a Good example of a religion doing it's best to appear to be true.

I don't think you can really compare religion and philosophy. I mean philosophy doesn't tell you "this is the way it is" like religion does, it just opens the possibility of certain things and gets you thinking. I think philosophy is more related to science than religion. Think about the scientific method, are you not making a philosophical assumption about sumthing before you experiment with it?

I don't think you can really compare religion and philosophy. I mean philosophy doesn't tell you "this is the way it is" like religion does, it just opens the possibility of certain things and gets you thinking. I think philosophy is more related to science than religion. Think about the scientific method, are you not making a philosophical assumption about sumthing before you experiment with it?

Before we go on, are you defensive about the fact that i associated philosophy with religion or that i associated religion with philosophy?

This is one of the main problems I see in religion, everyone is always trying to convince you that what they believe is "right" and if what you believe doesn't fit in with their beliefs, your "wrong". What it really comes down to is your own reasoning, whether you had christianity pushed on you all your life or not, the decision still lies within you if you believe it or call bullshit.

Yes but my point is this....

Christians deal in an absolute truth belief. They believe that the only way to Heaven is through Jesus.

My belief is that (most of them) believe in Jesus b/c of the environment they were raised in and not b/c they have learned or experienced another religion.

It would be like a black man on trial in Alabama in the 1920's. All the evidence is NOT brought to bear or inspected, yet you come up with a verdict. Clearly, you receive this verdict from your environment and NOT the evidence.

How can one make a claim of truth (especially one as bold as the Christ) when you have not seen or truly experienced ALL of the evidence?

Before we go on, are you defensive about the fact that i associated philosophy with religion or that i associated religion with philosophy?

They can be associated but they are two different things. The main difference is between Dogmatic thinking and Abstract thinking. They are two different schools of thought. Religion I dont really think of as a school of thought but more of a school of someone else doing ALL the thinking for you.

That's why I'm not a big fan of religion. There are way too many different religions, with different descriptions of god, and different beliefs for any one to be 100% correct. I do think that there is a god, yes, but not in the way portrayed by religion.

They all have some truth; none has the whole truth.

How can one make a claim of truth (especially one as bold as the Christ) when you have not seen or truly experienced ALL of the evidence?

Similar things can be said of reality.

Before we go on, are you defensive about the fact that i associated philosophy with religion or that i associated religion with philosophy?

Not really, but its just like comparing philosophy to science, or even worse, religion to science. They all have some common ground, but all are quite different from each other. This explains basically what I was saying:

They can be associated but they are two different things. The main difference is between Dogmatic thinking and Abstract thinking. They are two different schools of thought. Religion I dont really think of as a school of thought but more of a school of someone else doing ALL the thinking for you.

Similar things can be said of reality.

^^ Quite true, as well

They all have some truth; none has the whole truth.

and this too...lol

So not the intent of this thread.

EDIT: Anyway - this is how my twisted idea of logic has lead me to believe that you never stop existing.

And perhaps we never do stop existing completely. But when we're no longer self-aware and our organs no longer function - we've ceased to exist for all practical intents and purposes. Believing that a spark of my life force will remain in the Universe long after I'm gone doesn't move me much. That will not be a true representation of what was during the time I existed.

So not the intent of this thread.

What would you have preferred?

What would you have preferred?

A debate on my contention that people affiliate themselves with a particular religion base MORE on geography than they do experience or a pursuit of the ultimate truth.

A debate on my contention that people affiliate themselves with a particular religion base MORE on geography than they do experience or a pursuit of the ultimate truth.

On that, I agree.

I also believe it applies to more then religion, or geography.

kids are stupid and believe anything they are told. this is why its so easy to indoctrinate kids into any given religion.

if you tried to convince an adult who is undecided about their faith to convert to say christianity, they'd be like wtf, thats bullshit.

i personally think its disgusting that parents baptise/circumsise/whatever their children at birth, and then pressure them to be that religion their entire lives, the kid has no choice in the matter.

religion needs indoctrination to survive

i personally think its disgusting that parents baptise/circumsise/whatever their children at birth, and then pressure them to be that religion their entire lives, the kid has no choice in the matter.

The funny thing is, the only time I was ever at a church was when i was baptized and circumsized. I'm technically protestant (which is only a name anyway), but it was never pressed on me and my family never went to church and all that shit.

Imagining the Tenth Dimension (http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php)

"Dimension 0" and "dimension 10" in this concept are equal, and I believe, very similar to what you are saying above. Also, I believe, they can be considered equivalent to God...although thats neither stated nor implied during this video or in the book.

Check it out, if interested. Its only about 10 minutes long.

I was doing a lot of thinking about this lately, iv watched it a few times. It makes sense to me but at the end of that video it says its not exactly the way string theory is said to work, so how is string theory different from what that says? I know this is off topic and I apoligize.

The funny thing is, the only time I was ever at a church was when i was baptized and circumsized. I'm technically protestant (which is only a name anyway), but it was never pressed on me and my family never went to church and all that shit.

they mutilated your dick because of something they believed, not something you believed. how do you feel about that?

they mutilated your dick because of something they believed, not something you believed. how do you feel about that?

well i dunno about mutilated, my dick looks quite fine if your so interested lol.

How do I feel? I feel quite fine actually. Like I said, the whole religion bullshit was never pressed on me. Just cause I got circumcised doesn't mean it was because of "the faith". My family was never religious.

Despite all the shitty dogma; god rejoices at a sinner converting more than one hundred of his followers.
He doesn't send you to the fiery pits. I can't recall Jesus ever talking about the shepherd docking his sheep.

...how is string theory different from what that says? I know this is off topic and I apoligize.

The dude who wrote the book, Rob, is not a physicist, just someone interested in it.

Its different because the video is very direct, while string theory is very, very open. Its not a singular theory, one thing....its a collection of theories which often get grouped together.

Not everything in string theory supports everything else, and some things contradict each other. Some of Robs ideas are based off certain parts in string theory, but not the whole thing.

The concept which is described in the video is portrayed as very definite, while actual string theory is more...open for change. The book itself is much more flexible to actual string theory then the video...puts many questions in your head.

The concept in the video, is just Rob's personal answer.

kids are stupid and believe anything they are told. this is why its so easy to indoctrinate kids into any given religion.

Kids aren't stupid for believing what their parents tell them. They learn lots of valuable lessons from their parents from birth, such as: Fire = Hot, Don't Touch! ... and Good Food = Nutrition! Like these basic survival skills that they pass on, it's only natural for children to grow up being exposed to the religion of their parents.

When their maturity reaches a certain point, it's also completely natural for young people to start learning of practices and belief systems outside their immediate familial environment. It is at this point when the parents, irregardless of belief, have an opportunity to pass on to their children what might possibly be the most important survival lesson of them all: Tolerance.

This is where most parents fail in the "practice what you preach" scenario, for although they may encourage their children to discover and learn about their Universe, they often forget that spirituality (or lack thereof) offers a whole multitude of pathways that their children may experiment with as they're trying to establish their own belief systems.

IMO, there is no such thing as a Catholic child, a Mormon child, a Christian child, or a Muslim child. There are only children, born with blank slates, reared in their parent's spiritual environments and faced with complex choices regarding religion (or complete absence of) when they're mature enough to consider such things.

While some children may reach adolescence and be completely comfortable carrying on their parent's religion into adulthood, others may venture outside their comfort zone and investigate other pathways. "Indoctrination" isn't something that parents pass on to their children with bad intentions. It's also not something that is impossible for the young adult to shed once maturity has allowed them the option of making up their own mind.

i personally think its disgusting that parents baptise/circumsise/whatever their children at birth, and then pressure them to be that religion their entire lives, the kid has no choice in the matter.

Kids have choices. Case in point:

Due to my biological mother's belief system, I was christened at birth and received holy communion as a little girl. I learned the Hail Mary prayers and was schooled on the importance of praying to the rosary. I learned to both love and fear the nuns who were a part of my every day routine. That was the first phase of my young life.

Exit: Catholic relatives. Enter: Pentecostal foster parents.

Here I learned that God was a jealous God, who would have no other God before him, and who could enter the body of a person via the holy ghost. I was told that rosary beads were unnecessary and that Mary wasn't QUITE as important as a guide to heaven as Jesus Christ was. Here I witnessed the incredible transformation of the parishioners "catching" the holy ghost, speaking in tongues, flailing about with spastic motions and seeming completely overcome with joy and enthusiasm. This was a far, FAR cry from the quiet, controlled Catholic churches that barely rose the volume above a whisper during mass.

Exit: Pentecostal foster parents. Enter: Paternal family, rooted in Southern Baptist beliefs.

Here I learned that what you did Monday-Saturday was pretty unimportant as long as you showed up Sunday morning and asked for forgiveness. The Baptists were pretty laid back compared to the Catholics and Pentecostals. Their sermons seemed to revolve around food, fellowshipping and a down-home preacher who could somehow convince all these lower/middle-class members of the congregation to donate 10% of their meager earnings to the church.

I was nearly 22 years old before I took a step back and discovered that regardless of my spiritual upbringing, I just wasn't feeling it like I knew I should be. Feeling a bit spiritually dysfunctional and out-of-place, I started learning about the multitude of other religions that, at their core, pretty much taught the same overall message as the others: Be kind to others. Don't lie, cheat or steal. Love is important. Hatred is a burden that will drag you down... etc.

It wasn't until I realized that this core message was something I could implement in my life irregardless of what religion I subscribed to that I was able to free myself from the shackles of denominational faith. It encouraged me to discover other explanations of the origins of human morality and prompted me to ask many, many more complex questions that could all be discovered without having to call on God for an explanation. Most importantly, it taught me that no one religion was the correct religion, and that world-wide, the diversity of religion was just a huge testament to the fact that we all seek peace, comfort and love - these religions were just one way people could find it.

Blaming your parents for the "indoctrination" they bestowed upon you as a child is unnecessary. In fact, I am grateful for all the over-exposure I received, for it was within the very context of confusion that led me to ask so many questions and discover my own path.

You are the exception to the rule.

Most children do not have several different set of paternal figures raising them. They simply do not.

Your views still seem to represent basic judeo-chirstian values. This, I believe,would be do to the fact that you were raised by differing christian sects but christian sects nonetheless.

Blaming your parents for anything after reaching maturity is a total cop out I completely agree. But, religion is a meme complex and very hard to get rid of. Religion has always been very harsh in one way or another to those who stop believing or do not believe. Especially family members. Reflects on a good christian father that his daughter is not a good christian.

My point is that a person's religous views corralate directly with their environment. Simply put, this applies to the majority of the faithful.

Nearly all believers think their faith is the truth. They believe this not b/c they have checked out or learned of the other faiths, but b/c there parents believed it and theirs before them. Becuase of environment.

That means in a round about way and without realizing it most of the faithful believe they were born right.

That is pretty funny.

Your views still seem to represent basic judeo-chirstian values. This, I believe,would be do to the fact that you were raised by differing christian sects but christian sects nonetheless.

I like to believe that my views represent basic human values. My religious upbringing and the fact that I associate myself as a secular humanist today isn't as directly correlated to the set of values I hold as you may think.

Suppose I was raised in an environment completely cut off from any mention of God or spirituality. We can't just assume that I would be a person of loose moral values, a thief and a liar and a murderer. Even at those times when lying, cheating and stealing would serve to better my survival and selfishness was a viable option, I'd still have to consider how those acts would isolate me in society and separate me from my peers. I couldn't readily rely on the help of others to help better my life, because these people would grow to dislike and distrust me. Human beings are naturally group animals. Those who benefit from work and rewards of an entire group fares far better than those who go it completely alone or with other non-do-gooders.

Acceptance in your "group" is as strong a force to be reckoned with as the ongoing pressure from a dogma or the fear of God that is instilled in some people.

Let's be real here. We don't naturally lean towards doing good unto others because we know it's our one-way-ticket to Heaven. We do good unto others because it helps better position ourselves in a world where the society you live in dictates the opportunities you are presented with to do better.

This is the reason why irregardless of the faith you "inherited" from your parents or ancestors, you're not in an unfair position to be able to discover for yourself that there are alternative means to Goodness besides religious dogma.

religion is a meme complex and very hard to get rid of.

True that it's a meme complex, but untrue that it is very hard to get "rid" of. I am an atheist. I live a life that is absent of the influence of a deity. That is not to say that I have "rid" myself of the effects a religious upbringing. When discovering new explanations and adopting new methods of understanding, having my experiences of being faithful at one time really served as a boon to my progress of becoming more secular-minded. I can't honestly assess that I wouldn't have adopted a religious view if I had been raised in a godless environment, either. How I determine my preferences is cultivated by all the experiences I've had thus far. What else does a person have to draw on?

Making peace with your parents after you've strayed from their religious views is a touchy subject, and a whole other topic. But it can be done.

My point is that a person's religous views corralate directly with their environment. Simply put, this applies to the majority of the faithful.

My point is that any of a person's views correlate directly with their environment. It's not exclusive to religion. It applies to the majority of all people, not just the faithful.

Believers who seem lazy to you for not having the gumption to question the faith of their parents and just blindly accepting what they've learned to be true are merely just satisfied with the life they lead and perhaps have no reason to stray outside of what they already know. To them, it seems most beneficial to their survival scheme to just go with the flow. They shouldn't be regarded as being blind or ignorant for their choice. While it's not something you or I would be satisfied in steeping in for the rest of our lives, we shouldn't feel superior to them for having directed ourselves on a godless path. Way I see it, it's just two different methods of coping with the trials and tribulations of being human.

My point is that any of a person's views correlate directly with their environment. It's not exclusive to religion. It applies to the majority of all people, not just the faithful.

Believers who seem lazy to you for not having the gumption to question the faith of their parents and just blindly accepting what they've learned to be true are merely just satisfied with the life they lead and perhaps have no reason to stray outside of what they already know. To them, it seems most beneficial to their survival scheme to just go with the flow. They shouldn't be regarded as being blind or ignorant for their choice. While it's not something you or I would be satisfied in steeping in for the rest of our lives, we shouldn't feel superior to them for having directed ourselves on a godless path. Way I see it, it's just two different methods of coping with the trials and tribulations of being human.

I understand that a person's veiws on anything is going to be affected by their environment.

The funny thing is that most christians I know make such hardcore statements about the very fundamental nature of existence and do so b/c they were born to believe that. Not b/c they search for the absolute truths out there.

They were just born right.

i think christianity is a big government scheme/hoax to reduce crime etc.

i think christianity is a big government scheme/hoax to reduce crime etc.

Nope, it was brought here by aliens in order to prepare us for foreign domination.

Nope, it was brought here by aliens in order to prepare us for foreign domination.

lol domination by who? The aliens? why would they need to put christanity here in order to conquer us?

lol domination by who? The aliens? why would they need to put christanity here in order to conquer us?

'twas sarcasm.

'twas sarcasm.

Well now you must be kidding. Don't you know there's aliens on the dark side of the moon?

:p

I also agree with BrokeProphet, most christians aren't looking for absolute truths, its mearly something to justify existance. They don't need to make outrageous statements though, the bible does that quite well on its own.

Christians are bullshit, Christianity might not be.

Allah is complete imagination. Islam teachings are of good guidance and perfect coordinates lmao jk.

Gods don't exist. The teachings based on the guidance to virtue and perfection of morality exist.

It sucks that not even 5% of the world realizes that god is imaginary, tricking yourself and pretending that god is there is the way you can get the most out of religion. Religion just teaches you right and wrong. It won't get you your birthday wish or get you halo 3 or get you a nice computer you can play crysis on or get you guitar skills or get you a girlfriend. If you believe in yourself you can get these things rather than some imaginary guy out there.

Face it fuckers, god doesnt exist. I do.
Believe the absolutism that i face before you and do not convert, religion isnt wrong, you are.

Btw The hindu gods can kick the shit outta any other gods. Peace.

Christians are bullshit, Christianity might not be.

Allah is complete imagination. Islam teachings are of good guidance and perfect coordinates lmao jk.

Gods don't exist. The teachings based on the guidance to virtue and perfection of morality exist.

Up to here I agree perfectly. Nicely said.

Everything apart from the blank assertion that God doesn't exist is great, but I don't believe you can just say that there is no God and leave it at that. I mean there doesn't HAVE to be a god. But maybe there is.






I also agree with BrokeProphet, most christians aren't looking for absolute truths, its mearly something to justify existance. They don't need to make outrageous statements though, the bible does that quite well on its own.

And is anyone else is looking for anything else? I personally would say that no one is looking for absolute truths, but looking solely for reason to justify their existence.

And is anyone else is looking for anything else? I personally would say that no one is looking for absolute truths, but looking solely for reason to justify their existence.

One thing at a time...

They all have some truth; none has the whole truth.

Precisely.

I think I like it here.