My own composed theory: The psychological blockade of the...

Discussion related to Media
SandRock
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 6:07 pm

Postby SandRock » Thu Jan 27, 2005 8:15 pm

You see what your saying is because im not 100% sure that God didnt make us i can assume that he has. Cause there is a chance.

What im saying is that i dont know how we exsisted and ill just have to live with the fact that there is no way of telling as of yet. I dont take any assumptions.

User avatar
[FnG] Nihilist
Posts: 1850
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 10:12 pm
Location: 127.0.0.1
Contact:

Postby [FnG] Nihilist » Thu Jan 27, 2005 8:17 pm

Brain? wrote:Hmm, that is certainly interesting, Nihilist. I have heard of larger apes hunting down and eating (!) smaller ones, but I haven't come across this sort of thing before.


It is a very new realisation. If you have any animal based TV channels, watch out for the programmes; they're fascinating. :)

Polar bears also have cannibalistic tendencies, I've heard.


Yes, they do. Something I've seen (on Discovery footage) actually happening on camera.

Well this may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that humans are any different - we kill eachother all the time, on a mass scale to boot. This implies that Christianity hasn't exactly done much for us in the way of how to behave.

Without religion there would have been no Inquisition, no Holocaust, no Terrorism...now, I know that if there hadn't have been religion, there would have been other issues fueling hatred - race, for instance - because humans naturally have an evil and bloodthirsty side to them; but it's still worth thinking about imo.


No argument there, people don't practice what they preach. I do think, though, that even without religion the violence would be rife. It is just an excuse, but there would be no shortage of others if needed. Take the moden environment - all the US Government would have to do is say that Iran is intending to nuke the US, and a significant proportion of Americans would be fine with going to war with them. Or look at the Nazi movement, and the atrocities committed by the Nazis; most were just normal people who were brainwashed by the incumbant Nazi government.

In fact, psychological tests have proven that this sheep-like lack of thinking is more common than we'd like to think. An example was made through a test in which subjects were put in a fake control room, with an actor allegedly wired up to an electric chair. Doctors told the subjects to give the actor increasingly high "electrical shocks" - which the actor spasmed and cried out to - and they did it because the doctor told them to. The real kicker was the end, in which they were asked to press a large button CLEARLY marked with a "danger of death" skull symbol. And the vast majority pressed it.

The human tendancy to follow without thinking is one which doesn't meld well with our inherent violence.

But...this is WAY off topic, so to link it back, I don't think religion can be blamed for these phenomena.

Brain?
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 11:30 pm

Postby Brain? » Thu Jan 27, 2005 8:17 pm

[FnG] Nihilist wrote:God is hardly a "wild claim"; Christianity has a historical background stretching back a long time. Furthermore, there are records of documented miracles, although whether you care to look at them or not is another matter.

The key is that absence of proof is not proof of absence. That sort of attitude is only counter-productive - and mostly to the self, since you're already adopting a negative attitude about the subject at hand. Therefore you'll be automatically inclined to argue against any evidence that *is* produced because you've already decided what is real.

The question is simple: do you admit it is possible, however unlikely, that there could be a God?

If the answer is no, then your mind is closed. I don't believe in God, but I can readily admit that it is possible there *is* one. I'm not so arrogant so as to believe my mind encompasses everything there is, and I don't think I'll ever know all the truths of the world.

No matter how much we know, no matter how sure we are, there is ALWAYS the possibility that we're wrong.


I think that the claim of a CHRISTIAN god is about as wild as my claim of Colin on my shoulder. We have to be careful with what we are referring to when we mean god, here.

I do not absolutely outrule the fact that there might be a higher being, but I do dispute the claim of a Christian god. If there is a god, it is not something that I can see or feel or imagine; it's beyond my comprehension. Therefore, I do not believe in god.

Now the god in Christianity is something which I 100% disagree with - the Bible is a load of nonsense. None of it makes sense, and none of it adds up imo. Christianity has stretched back all this time entirely because of the concepts of heaven and hell, I think - believe in god, go to heaven; don't, go to hell. I personally think that would have been enough incentive to believe in the Christian god, and bring your children up the same way. Not to mention that you were a heretic if you were not part of the Christian church. Not to mention that you could be killed for disagreeing over minor matters with the church - burnt at the stake, hanged, the list goes on. No wonder Christianity has lasted.

Razor:

It sounds to me that you believe in a higher being, or a god, but not necessarily the Christian god. You say that it is no difference between living a life the way you are and the way someone who does not believe in god does. I disagree. Do you not believe in afterlife? Atheists don't have the comfort of any hope once they're dead - surely then, their whole outlook differs from a Christian's? Again, I'm not going to put words into your mouth but it comes across as if you believed in a god and not the Christian god.

User avatar
[FnG] Nihilist
Posts: 1850
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 10:12 pm
Location: 127.0.0.1
Contact:

Postby [FnG] Nihilist » Thu Jan 27, 2005 8:22 pm

SandRock wrote: If you really think that then we cannot argue any further. Because what you do is make a statement. I support my arguements. I do not say prove to me that God exsists. I say that God is an explanation to the things we do not know. All i ask you is to give me some examples that contradict that.


You can't see that your "arguments" are just as unprovable as someone saying God is real.

Your arguments have no factual basis. They are possibly correct. They are no provable through evidence, and as such, there *is* no support for your theory. What I was trying to highlight to you, which you failed to spot, is that there is no more support for your belief than there is for Razor's. So if you are happy with your conclusions, then there is more than enough reason for him to be happy with his.

Again, to re-iterate: you have no proof. You have ideas. So does the Christian religion, and neither side can prove a single thing, only insinuate.

User avatar
[FnG] Nihilist
Posts: 1850
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 10:12 pm
Location: 127.0.0.1
Contact:

Postby [FnG] Nihilist » Thu Jan 27, 2005 8:25 pm

Brain? wrote: I think that the claim of a CHRISTIAN god is about as wild as my claim of Colin on my shoulder. We have to be careful with what we are referring to when we mean god, here.


True, and I agree. But any argument which can be levelled at Christianity as regards to religion and whether "God" exists or not can easily apply to Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. While the religions are all different, the bottom line is the same. :)

SandRock
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 6:07 pm

Postby SandRock » Thu Jan 27, 2005 8:27 pm

You dont get me, im not proving my own assumption, im dont have an opposite theory then the christians, i dont have that. All im saying is that God is an explanation for the things we do not know. And what you keep on repeating and keep on saying is that i cannot proof my point. But i dont have anything to proof further then saying that God is an explanation to the unkown. And when i ask you to give me a contradiction of that all you come up with is that i cannot proof my point...

User avatar
[FnG] [NL]RAZOR!
Posts: 1846
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 8:56 am
Location: Steenwijk Rockcity (NL)
Contact:

Postby [FnG] [NL]RAZOR! » Thu Jan 27, 2005 8:32 pm

Brain? wrote:Do you not believe in afterlife? Atheists don't have the comfort of any hope once they're dead - surely then, their whole outlook differs from a Christian's? Again, I'm not going to put words into your mouth but it comes across as if you believed in a god and not the Christian god.


You have a point with this, but what I meant to say was only about the normal living. Not the things you do when you are not thinking phylosophical things but what I meant was normal life.


[FnG] Nihilist wrote:What I was trying to highlight to you, which you failed to spot, is that there is no more support for your belief than there is for Razor's. So if you are happy with your conclusions, then there is more than enough reason for him to be happy with his.


We will never come to a conclusion and both sides are equally right (or wrong) Most things have already been said and discussing the basics of religion and the believe in God is becoming a repetition of arguments. I think it's better to let this whole thing rest.
Image
:sg:

SandRock
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 6:07 pm

Postby SandRock » Thu Jan 27, 2005 8:37 pm

[FnG] Nihilist wrote:

What I was trying to highlight to you, which you failed to spot, is that there is no more support for your belief than there is for Razor's. So if you are happy with your conclusions, then there is more than enough reason for him to be happy with his.


We will never come to a conclusion and both sides are equally right (or wrong) Most things have already been said and discussing the basics of religion and the believe in God is becoming a repetition of arguments. I think it's better to let this whole thing rest.


If you really do want to call it sides then your wrong

My side is right
Your side is maybe

Because 'my side' is that isay " I DONT KNOW" i dont give an explanation, idont give a theory about it. I just say, i dont know. So when i say i dont know then im right. Cause we both dont know. So my side is right. Your side says its God who did it. I cant proof your wrong and you cant proof your right. Thats why its a maybe.

My side is right
Your side is a maybe

User avatar
[FnG] Nihilist
Posts: 1850
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 10:12 pm
Location: 127.0.0.1
Contact:

Postby [FnG] Nihilist » Thu Jan 27, 2005 8:37 pm

SandRock wrote: All im saying is that God is an explanation for the things we do not know.


Which is your opinion, and you cannot actually produce solid evidence for.

And what you keep on repeating and keep on saying is that i cannot proof my point.


Which you can't.

But i dont have anything to proof further then saying that God is an explanation to the unkown.


Which is your opinion, just as Christians, Muslims, Jews and Hindus have theirs regarding their religions.

And when i ask you to give me a contradiction of that all you come up with is that i cannot proof my point...


The fact they believe God exists *is* the contradiction. It is a simple factor. Your suggestion is a belief. The religious response is a belief. Neither is provable. You keep saying that "God exists" is merely a statement, but so is saying "God is merely an explanation for what we can't explain."

Your insinuation is clearly that God doesn't exist. You can't prove that. Neither can a religious person prove he/she/it/them does. The basis for both arguments is exactly the same - belief in something you can't prove.

Your contention is that because no-one is producing a contradiction to your argument that you will recognise, your argument is correct. This isn't the case. Your opinion has no more factual basis than any documented religion.

SandRock
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 6:07 pm

Postby SandRock » Thu Jan 27, 2005 8:42 pm

Your just trying to fight me now. Your playing word games not a mature debate. For me this debate unfortunatly ends here. You fail to understand i do not say God doesnt exsist.

Have a nice debate - im out.

User avatar
[FnG] Nihilist
Posts: 1850
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 10:12 pm
Location: 127.0.0.1
Contact:

Postby [FnG] Nihilist » Thu Jan 27, 2005 8:43 pm

SandRock wrote: If you really do want to call it sides then your wrong

My side is right
Your side is maybe

Because 'my side' is that isay " I DONT KNOW" i dont give an explanation, idont give a theory about it. I just say, i dont know. So when i say i dont know then im right. Cause we both dont know. So my side is right. Your side says its God who did it. I cant proof your wrong and you cant proof your right. Thats why its a maybe.

My side is right
Your side is a maybe


"I don't know" isn't a side.

Your article CLEARLY indicated you believe God is a made up phenomenon.

You cannot prove it.

There really is nothing more to say than that. And the fact you seem to think I am so firmly behind the religious camp proves you haven't read what I've said properly, because I've clearly indicated earlier that I have no religious convictions whatsoever.

If your statement is "I don't know if there is a God", then there is no argument to that.

The fact is that, contrary to what I just quote by you, that isn't what you've tried to argue.

Writing a philosophical piece is all well and good, but defending it as gospel really won't get you very far, to be honest.

SandRock
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 6:07 pm

Postby SandRock » Thu Jan 27, 2005 8:49 pm

You keep putting words in my mouth

1.
"I don't know" isn't a side.
I clearly said IF you want to call it sides. Hard to understand isnt it

2.
There really is nothing more to say than that. And the fact you seem to think I am so firmly behind the religious camp proves you haven't read what I've said properly, because I've clearly indicated earlier that I have no religious convictions whatsoever.


I know your not for the religious side, i read your first post. Once again you put words in my mouth cause i never said this to you. I quoted Razor, not you. Please read posts before my posts aswell.


3.
If your statement is "I don't know if there is a God", then there is no argument to that.

The fact is that, contrary to what I just quote by you, that isn't what you've tried to argue.

My theory says that the the term God is used for things we cannot explain. The soul of my theory isnt even about God.
If i do think god exsists or not doesnt have anything to do with it. I dont believe in him no, but thats not what i argue about here.


4.
Writing a philosophical piece is all well and good, but defending it as gospel really won't get you very far, to be honest.

All i can say is w/e
If you cant have a good debate but can only try to take down other people then your not worth discussing with. Maybe this is above your level.

Have you even read the piece fully? i think you just think this is another, god does, god doesnt exsist discussion :roll:

Like i said, the debate ends for me, dont make any posts to me =)

User avatar
[FnG] Nihilist
Posts: 1850
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 10:12 pm
Location: 127.0.0.1
Contact:

Postby [FnG] Nihilist » Thu Jan 27, 2005 8:52 pm

SandRock wrote:Your just trying to fight me now. Your playing word games not a mature debate. For me this debate unfortunatly ends here. You fail to understand i do not say God doesnt exsist.

Have a nice debate - im out.


To quote from your article, verbatim:

I do not believe in God. I think that some things in life are there, I cannot explain them, in time we might be able to explain it. But till then I will just have to live with it. I will just have to wait till I can lift the blockade and can understand this phenomenon.


You did say God doesn't exist. I'm not playing word games, and this was a perfectly mature debate, despite your claims to the contrary. I'm sorry you feel like I am trying to pick a fight, but you're incorrect. I believe your reasoning is flawed, and I have done nothing more than illustrate that in what I have written.

If you truly think this wasn't mature debate, I'd suggest avoiding such discussions in future. There was nothing wrong with the opinions and arguments posted here by anyone. :)

SandRock
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 6:07 pm

Postby SandRock » Thu Jan 27, 2005 9:00 pm

Except yours, since once again you have read my posts with one eye closed

If you read the article once again you see all my other stuff is under My theory:

and the part you quoted is under My opinion:

See the difference

User avatar
[FnG] Nihilist
Posts: 1850
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 10:12 pm
Location: 127.0.0.1
Contact:

Postby [FnG] Nihilist » Thu Jan 27, 2005 9:03 pm

SandRock wrote: If you cant have a good debate but can only try to take down other people then your not worth discussing with. Maybe this is above your level.


Right, clearly it is way above my level. My mistake - I must be insanely stupid.

Your article is fantastic and flawless. :)


Return to “Media Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest