Serious Discussion: Life

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

Is it better to be alive and hurting, or dead? Are there situations in which suicide is justifiable? Is existence alone justification for existence?

[Xxypher]

Wow. This seems like an incredibly morbid subject.


^{CRAAAAAAAAWLING IIIIIIIINNN MMYYYYYY SKIIIIIIIN.}

[Mangled*]

Any right minded person without impaired judgement based on assumptions of an afterlife would and should do anything possible to stay alive.

Even if you have lost everything, you still have your life, and to deny yourself that is shameful because once you are dead you are truely out of options.

Pain can be numbed through perserverance. Things that are lost can return or be replaced in some form or another. No matter how much pain a person thinks they are in, there will always be someone in a far worse situation than themselves and to give up whilst the other continues makes you weak.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

Any right minded person without impaired judgement based on assumptions of an afterlife would and should do anything possible to stay alive.

The people who believe in afterlives tend to be the ones who think they'll go to the bad one if they kill themselves.  Just saying.

[frogboy]

logically yes, it is better to die than live in suffering, but anyone who actually goes through with it is pretty much a moron and a loser.

[jrgp]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_die
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_die
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_die

[jettlarue]

I have more respect for people that kill themselves than ones that "wish" they could. Atleast they accomplished something, if you are in so much pain and you cant even kill yourself your way worse of a fuckup.
If anything everyone is just recycled energy passed on from what was there a long time ago. Actually was not just there but will always be, you are part of a unified piece of shit existance.
I would like to quote the bloodhound gang-"Life is an aimless drive that ya take alone. Might as well enjoy the ride, take the long way home ".
No matter what your going to die, and it wouldn't matter really anyways, your the only one who thinks your alive anyways.
Heres a good clip to show you:http://www.youtube.com/v/a15KgyXBX24&hl=en&fs=1

[The Geologist]

I think are are situations where it's justifiable.  But they're so rare that the vast majority of the time living is the only real option. 

Also, you're made up of recycled atoms from other people, not energy. 

[Ellimist]

blab wat aload of shite, we are all gonna die someday

@jettlarue- video was funny

[STM1993]

Life's a gift that can only be given once. It's up to you to make full use of the gift until it expires or until you destroy it. Since you only have this gift once, why not just use it wisely for once before it is time for it to expire or to be destroyed?

Doesn't matter if you believe you'd be resurrected - you'd never get the same life as you did before.

[Blue-ninja]

Pain is a part of life. It's how we learn. Enjoy life as much as you can.

The problem with people committing suicide is that they probably don't even know how good they've had it. Being dead is pretty permanent, and you really don't have a second chance.

And since it indeed is up to you or me, die with style. Go out with a bang! Having a fatal seizure? Dance around the mall fountain and fall in the pool, twitching a lot as you die. Don't just die quietly in some rocking chair in a dark room.

[Hair|Trigger]

The decision to die should be based on the majority (basically, your family)

I'd like to live for as long as possible regardless of my own suffering because dying younger would only be more of a loss to my family.  therefore it would be selfish of me to kill myself.

and I'm religious, so if anything, I'd like to live a long as possible to ensure I am ready in a religious sense.

[frogboy]

for what its worth a fatal seizure would be pretty much rocking in a chair in a dark room because i'm pretty sure if someone sees you seizing they're gonna keep you alive

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

This is also interesting to me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_instinct

[Psycho]

My opinion is that it doesen't matter. Whatever you do, it doesent matter. The day will still come, when it is 1000 years from now, and most of us people here will be long forgotten.

I find it pointless to continue to strive for a better future, as my future consists of decomposing in the soil.

"you only have one life, live it to the fullest blabla" I don't see it that way. Some guy 400 years ago might have liven his life to the fullest, gotten a great education and achieved personal goals and so forth. Where did that get him in the end? Death is the finishing line that makes us all equally worthless.

Now theese are just my inner thoughts, and I would never try and push them onto others. Live life as you want.

[The Geologist]

You wouldn't be enjoying the life you do if people in the past didn't push themselves while they were living.  Period. 

Enjoy your life in a trailer park.  I'm pretty sure your opinion will change when you enter the real world.

[STM1993]

@Psycho - I meant "live life to the fullest" as in: live in the way you want your life to be to the best that you can.

[Yes]

I have more respect for people that kill themselves than ones that "wish" they could. Atleast they accomplished something, if you are in so much pain and you cant even kill yourself your way worse of a f**kup.

Hmmm... your the total opposite of me. I respect people for living there life out no matter how painful or bad it gets, just because life gets tough and your hurtin all over, doesn't mean you should pussy out. Chances are there have been people who were in much worse pain than you and they stayed until they actually died.

[Psycho]

You wouldn't be enjoying the life you do if people in the past didn't push themselves while they were living.  Period. 

Enjoy your life in a trailer park.  I'm pretty sure your opinion will change when you enter the real world.

I choose to see the big picture of things. My opinion won't change, simply because I know I am right. Our existance is nothing. Eventually it will probably die out, completely erasing everything that we value and treasure. Getting myself caught up in stuff like my personal future on this planet means less than nothing to me.

[STM1993]

Chances are there have been people who were in much worse pain than you and they stayed until they actually died.

But chances are (rarely the case), you may also be the one who suffered the worst of the worst of pains.

Whatever it is, it is best to just live, unless your life can't be lived any further. Like, if you're a vegetable, then it's better to just end your life since there is no chance of you waking up again to do anything - continuing to live is just a waste.

I choose to see the big picture of things. My opinion won't change, simply because I know I am right. Our existance is nothing. Eventually it will probably die out, completely erasing everything that we value and treasure. Getting myself caught up in stuff like my personal future on this planet means less than nothing to me.

We'd all eventually die, and everything's gonna be useless, all we do is either delaying the inevitable or speeding it up.

Personally, I don't care so much about the future and the inevitable. I believe that since we're given the chance to be here, we just do something for ourselves in the present while it still has some meaning - basically just taking things as they come.

Just giving my opinion on the matter.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

"you only have one life, live it to the fullest blabla" I don't see it that way. Some guy 400 years ago might have liven his life to the fullest, gotten a great education and achieved personal goals and so forth. Where did that get him in the end? Death is the finishing line that makes us all equally worthless.

Geo had a good response to this, but I'd like to approach it from a different angle.  Let's completely throw out future generations, and let's take everyone out of the picture except for you.  You've been given a tiny section of time between two dates to do absolutely whatever you want with.

Logically, life is pointless, because, as people have said, you're just a collection of molecules.  Heck, you might not even really have free will.  However, there are two very, very important things to consider.  Firstly, our universe and our lives are defined by relativity, not absolutes.  A rather irrelevant example would be that we measure speed relative to the earth, ignoring the movement of the earth, the galaxy, and so on.  It doesn't matter that we don't know the exact absolute speed that we're going; it only matters how fast we're going in our frame of reference.  Similarly, it doesn't matter if our actions aren't universe changing; it only matters that they have an impact on the time that we live in.

The second thing to consider is that humans aren't anywhere near to being rational creatures.  I've had this knowledge reinforced, sometimes painfully, many times in the past six months.  Logic may say that there's no point to life since nothing matters in the long run, but logic is irrelevant - it's personal feelings that drive us.  It's all well and good to SAY that there's no point in going out of your way to make the most of life, but the fact is, people are going to do it anyway.  And why not? After all, this is the only life you have.  You might as well make it a good one.

[Hair|Trigger]

Psycho is using some seriously retarded logic here

[frogboy]

psycho is using perfectly good logic. logic doesn't apply well to people because they're morons.

[Kazuki]

I'm going to base my input to this discussion on Maslow's hierarchy of needs; I'm gonna go ahead and say that people adjust the importance they see in life depending on where they fall in the hierarchy.

For example, someone who has fulfilled their basic needs and moves onto self-actualization will cherish life more than someone who struggles to meet their more basic needs. To put it simply, I would say that it depends on a ratio of struggle to satisfaction.

Also, Frogboy's statements don't count as arguments unless he elaborates on his decision to call people morons. Feelin' a little angsty there, Froggy?

[echo_trail]

I find it amazing how little you people see about the world around you, and frankly it disturbs me. You talk about "the big picture", as if the concept of suicide is just this one particular thing, and should provoke the same particular response. It's not, there's a million different reasons a person might have to take his or her own life, and none of us are in a position to judge them, unless we're personally involved.

logically yes, it is better to die than live in suffering, but anyone who actually goes through with it is pretty much a moron and a loser.

What the fuck is this? My god your eyes are closed, man. First of all, if a person's pushed so far over the edge that he or she would actually choose to give up his life to have peace, they probably already realise how little people think of them. Either that, or they don't give a crap anymore. Secondly, in our unethical judging of these characters, it's important that we look at what factors helped push'em over, not just at the person at hand.

Pain can be numbed through perserverance. Things that are lost can return or be replaced in some form or another. No matter how much pain a person thinks they are in, there will always be someone in a far worse situation than themselves and to give up whilst the other continues makes you weak.

It's true, pain can to some extend be a matter of priority and field of view, but that only applies if your pain is within the frames of a common reality. Odds are these individuals have had horrible experiences that you can't even begin to imagine, and so it's incredibly naive of you to pretend to comprehend. It's got nothing to do with how much we suffer compared to others, that's not a realistic way to look at it. Truthfully, life is a gift. but it's not necessarily a good one. Look at the world today, all the shit that's going on in it. You think that just because you're able to sit back and watch it on CNN, you get to act as you're a part of it? It doesn't work that way. There are people whose life revolve around the missery others bring upon them. Abuse, incest, violence, drugaddiction.. All concepts of fatal value, but they've become so common in our everyday, that they have lost their power in terms of fear factor. Peoples lifes are ruined everyday, but that doesn't make it less of a tragedy, and it doesn't make it any less difficult for said people to get through. I'm not saying suicide is justifiable, but it's understandable. at least to me.

I have more respect for people that kill themselves than ones that "wish" they could. Atleast they accomplished something, if you are in so much pain and you cant even kill yourself your way worse of a f**kup.

Hmmm... your the total opposite of me. I respect people for living there life out no matter how painful or bad it gets, just because life gets tough and your hurtin all over, doesn't mean you should pussy out. Chances are there have been people who were in much worse pain than you and they stayed until they actually died.

This is possibly the most fucked up statement I have ever seen. Suicide isn't a matter of courage, and it certainly isn't a matter of respect either.

What the hell is wrong with you people anyway?...

[koingnegsegg]

I can't decide where I'm at after reading all this.
1 part of me doesn't give a shit because we are all going to die any way, but another part wants to actually do something on this earth, but I don't know why. It's logic defying.
Human instinct?

[Psycho]

Psycho is using some seriously retarded logic here

Care to elaborate?

[jrgp]

1 part of me doesn't give a shit because we are all going to die any way, but another part wants to actually do something on this earth, but I don't know why. It's logic defying.

Stop worrying about how useful you'll be to the human race; shut the hell up and go to school and do your best there.

[PANZERCATWAGON]

i have a hard time having an opinion about a lot anymore on two words mentioned in this topic

happiness and purpose

whenever ive pondered about the possibility that everything is pointless, someone usually talks to me like im 5 and i dont know anything by saying 'happiness is the only thing that matters'. they never say why. or where that opinion came from. why the fuck is it you seem to think happiness is what we should be aiming for. why is that different from aiming to be sad, or even somewhere inbetween

which leads onto purpose. even if there was a purpose to being happy like so many people seem to assume, why the hell should i follow it. maybe there could be an even bigger purpose that means following the other one would be wrong. or maybe its not so fucking hard to believe that there isnt purpose at all



as for the actual, original, question,

if i were in unending untolerable pain with no plus sides, id end it, because im human

if someone wants to commit suicide, and i know they are definitely not mental, sure go ahead

and that last one i dont even care about no offense

[Smegma]

I might argue, if you have to question this you may be doing it wrong.

I might argue.

[Xxypher]

Because video gamers know everything about life.

[Kazuki]

happiness and purpose

whenever ive pondered about the possibility that everything is pointless, someone usually talks to me like im 5 and i dont know anything by saying 'happiness is the only thing that matters'. they never say why. or where that opinion came from. why the fuck is it you seem to think happiness is what we should be aiming for. why is that different from aiming to be sad, or even somewhere inbetween

which leads onto purpose. even if there was a purpose to being happy like so many people seem to assume, why the hell should i follow it. maybe there could be an even bigger purpose that means following the other one would be wrong. or maybe its not so fucking hard to believe that there isnt purpose at all

It's been said that happiness can only be truly measured by those who analyze your life after you have passed. Ethics also states that the purpose of each individual should not be happiness, but rather the greater good for humanity.

[excruciator]

If there are somethings at stake I say endure it.

[PANZERCATWAGON]

It's been said that happiness can only be truly measured by those who analyze your life after you have passed. Ethics also states that the purpose of each individual should not be happiness, but rather the greater good for humanity.

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh yeeeeeeeeeah, ethics

im sorry i forgot about that guy

hes all powerful and all knowing, i should have never defied the law of ethics




seriously though the only ethics we know are relevant to only us rather than everything

[Kazuki]

O_o Forgot about what guy? I wasn't talking about anyone in particular.

I'm not going to deny your final statement, but I do think that we're irrational because of it.

[Smegma]

He was referring to ethics as "the guy".

[a fool]

(Before you read, don't expect planification of my post, it's not sorted out much)

My thoughts are basically like Psycho's..
We are born then we die.
We are only living because of our primary instinct: Surviving which is reproduction. If we didn't have that, suicide rate would go so much up!

But living or not living is up to one's choice. It's consent should only rely on the executioner.
Being a human is a f**king load of burden, because of all that emotional bulls**t.
If you want to self destruct, it's up to you to say you really want to, and do it.
Suicide, a permanent solution for every day's problem and upcoming.

Of course, if you are religious (Catholic, protestant are general subject.. since I don't really know much about others), suicide is regarded as a sin (In the old days, dishonor to all your family and they would die too). So all that pressure gained from religion are basically enough to keep one from doing it.

The only problem that people don't suicide is because they have been living to live further, especially as a kid, indirectly taught to live and survive.

What most people don't really realize, is that everything seems to be coming down. Especially society, it exert a big pressure on teen, young adults and most adults. More and more, which will be leaving to a up hill of suicide rate. And life's condition are being more and more harsh on humanity, which in my opinion, should sooner or latter, drop to a unlivable state.
Society tried to resolute the problem it cause on a psychological well being of a person, by placing psychiatrist. Worked fine, but loosing it's touch.

All in all, what I want to say is, die before it's unlivable, but live if you want to live, it might be worth it.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

psycho is using perfectly good logic. logic doesn't apply well to people because they're morons.

Also, Frogboy's statements don't count as arguments unless he elaborates on his decision to call people morons. Feelin' a little angsty there, Froggy?

1 part of me doesn't give a shit because we are all going to die any way, but another part wants to actually do something on this earth, but I don't know why. It's logic defying.
Human instinct?

Ahem...believe I already answered these pre-emptively.

The second thing to consider is that humans aren't anywhere near to being rational creatures.  I've had this knowledge reinforced, sometimes painfully, many times in the past six months.  Logic may say that there's no point to life since nothing matters in the long run, but logic is irrelevant - it's personal feelings that drive us.  It's all well and good to SAY that there's no point in going out of your way to make the most of life, but the fact is, people are going to do it anyway.  And why not? After all, this is the only life you have.  You might as well make it a good one.

[PANZERCATWAGON]

O_o Forgot about what guy? I wasn't talking about anyone in particular.

I'm not going to deny your final statement, but I do think that we're irrational because of it.

He was referring to ethics as "the guy".

yeah dont worry about it kazuki i was just being a dick

i didnt really expect a proper answer anyway its all opinion based

but whatever im gonna go get drunk

[Lt. Sprizz]

 One interesting philosopher I advise all of you to look into is Rene Descartes. His life was lived trying to prove scientifically that there is a higher being. Also, he came up with two unfaltered truthes. The first, "I think." has to be true, because simply by thinking that statement, you prove that it is correct. His second un faltered truth, "I exist." is also true. Then Descartes combined them to the famous phrase we know and love today,

"I think, Therefore I am (exist)."

 But how he proved that there is a higher being is flawless. First, he realized that for anything to exist, it has to be perfect. Don't try and argue; everything down to the content of marrow in our bones to the Earth's atmosphere is perfect. And Descartes realized that ONLY a higher being, one above all of us, could create perfection.

 So, scientifically, there has to be some kind of higher being. I call that higher being God personally, but you can call him whatever you've been taught. Realizing that there is a higher being, to me, says that we all have an obligation to please this higher being. And I believe this higher being has created an afterlife, be it happy or sad.

 I believe suicide is an unforgiveable sin, like most Catholics, (though I'm not) because no matter the torment in your life, this higher being can guide you through it.

 No pain can surmount to anything anyone else hasn't gone through and lived thorugh it and turned out better on the other side.

 Suicide is not the answer to any of life's problems, because you'll end up on the other side and be confronted with something even worse, and this time you can't commit suicide to get yourself out of it.

 
 A little long, I know, but I hope some people take the time to read it. Btw, this is my opinion, not a statment of fact, although I realized that I kind of wrote it to sound like one.

[LtKillroy]

I tend to say hold on to life because its the only one you've got you are going to die regardless, and therefore any chance of living longer is good enough for me even if it seems there is no way of me living.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

One interesting philosopher I advise all of you to look into is Rene Descartes. His life was lived trying to prove scientifically that there is a higher being. Also, he came up with two unfaltered truthes. The first, "I think." has to be true, because simply by thinking that statement, you prove that it is correct. His second un faltered truth, "I exist." is also true. Then Descartes combined them to the famous phrase we know and love today,

"I think, Therefore I am (exist)."

Heh, I feel a little out of place arguing with a guy like that, but let's give it a whirl.

"I think."
There's a pretty strong argument for our behavior being purely deterministic, with our actions being the natural consequences of all the stimuli in our lives.  Therefore, since anyone with a big enough knowledge base could say definitely what a given person would do in a given situation, can you really call that thinking? If we don't control our minds, how is life anything more than stimulus-response?

"I exist."
As crazy as it sounds, does self-awareness really prove existence? The simplest counter-example would be a video game.  No matter how much a virtual environment emulates reality, and how much the characters in it understand that environment and even themselves, the simple flip of a switch eradicates them.  Can existence that transient really be called existence at all? And in the same way, might we all be some sort of actors in a virtual world, such as in the Matrix?

Note that this isn't me disagreeing with you at all.  I'm just playing devil's advocate against ol' Rene.

[Smegma]

Actually, that all depends on how you define "I".

Also, his statement is the classic form of petitio principii, or begging the question. Maybe he was just an elaborate troll.

The simplest counter example is that. The query is if he exists. The use of I is an assumption of existence.

[frogboy]

First, he realized that for anything to exist, it has to be perfect. Don't try and argue; everything down to the content of marrow in our bones to the Earth's atmosphere is perfect. And Descartes realized that ONLY a higher being, one above all of us, could create perfection.

the human body is not perfect at all. bone marrow is a good example of that. it's just luck and coincidence anyway; there's trillions of joules of matter in the universe, some of that has arranged itself in a way which is hospitable to life.

descartes was a quack just like einstein. "god does not play dice" so ive gotta go fix my perfectly good theory which is pretty much accepted as truth now

[echo_trail]

it's just luck and coincidence anyway; there's trillions of joules of matter in the universe, some of that has arranged itself in a way which is hospitable to life.

Agreed 100%. The problem with the human race is that their selfawareness goes way beyond themselfs. There used to be a time when it was just a matter of survival, where we were no more entitled to this planet than any other animal. But now as we gain increased intelligence, we start to realise what a rarity life is and how fragile it really is. Therefor, it must be out of this world in terms of the supernatural.

I don't believe in any god, I believe nature arranged itself in a highly unlikely pattern, and we are the result(that is also why I do believe life exists on other planets, 'cause though the pattern needed to form life is quite the rarity, it's just a matter of looking hard enough to fnd it. But that's another thread). It's not the most romantic of visions, but it's really not so bad. I mean, after all... why not? Many of you believe in some kinda god, the most popular choice in here probably being "God", and that's swell. I hold nothing against you for that. But tell me, as much as you are convinced of creational theory, or at least some kind of divine intervention along the way, why isn't it possible or even likely that we are nothing more than a lucky setup?

[excruciator]

If you can do quazillion of tries, Anything can be done.

[Lt. Sprizz]

Heh, I feel a little out of place arguing with a guy like that, but let's give it a whirl.

"I think."
There's a pretty strong argument for our behavior being purely deterministic, with our actions being the natural consequences of all the stimuli in our lives.  Therefore, since anyone with a big enough knowledge base could say definitely what a given person would do in a given situation, can you really call that thinking? If we don't control our minds, how is life anything more than stimulus-response?

 Yes, you can call that thinking, in my opinion. I feel that even instincts, the most primitive of thought processes, still involves thinking. I also think we are in complete control of our minds. Even though people say that God has a plan for all of us, and though that may sound like fate, he still gave us free will. No outside source can determine how someone will react, not even God, because of free will.

That's my opinion.

"I exist."
As crazy as it sounds, does self-awareness really prove existence? The simplest counter-example would be a video game.  No matter how much a virtual environment emulates reality, and how much the characters in it understand that environment and even themselves, the simple flip of a switch eradicates them.  Can existence that transient really be called existence at all? And in the same way, might we all be some sort of actors in a virtual world, such as in the Matrix?

 Even if the world was a simulation, like the matrix, even if our thoughts equaled nothing and that we're really balls of goo inside of some alien's mouth, we still have to exist. To not exist is a pretty absolute idea. We could not do anything if we didn't exist, regardless if our existence wasn't what we thought it was.


Again, my opinion.

Agreed 100%. The problem with the human race is that their selfawareness goes way beyond themselfs. There used to be a time when it was just a matter of survival, where we were no more entitled to this planet than any other animal. But now as we gain increased intelligence, we start to realise what a rarity life is and how fragile it really is. Therefor, it must be out of this world in terms of the supernatural.

I realize what you're saying. That we used to be no better than animals, and our thoughts were basically instinct. And the human race has overdramatized the whole "supernatural" beliefs. I get that. I acknowledge that my God could probably be looking down on me right now, disagreeing with all my opinions on him. We cannot understand God, no matter how hard we try, and the human race is trying to do what we always will; put a label on everything, and make it so that we can completely understand it.

We can't. God can't be put into a book. To this day, I don't count the Bible as a credible source, because first of, it was written a long time ago and has gone under so many translations that I'm sure today the Bible we read was nothing like the way Moses or David intended it to be. Secondly, the people back then were obviously more primitive and probably thought that everything was done by God's help, not the way that we see things today.

Did you know that around the time of Jesus, there were about THREE other people in Europe, all claiming to be the son of God, all having folowers, and ALL being crucified? Why does Jesus get so much attention? I don't think that the way the church sees God is credible at all, but I still go to church because the basic meaning is still there, that God does love us, and that church is just a handy tool to help you get through life. Church can open up so many doors for you, that even if you don't believe in God, you can still meet some pretty cool people, get some help with your emotional problems, and maybe some free coffee and doughnuts .

But tell me, as much as you are convinced of creational theory, or at least some kind of divine intervention along the way, why isn't it possible or even likely that we are nothing more than a lucky setup?

It is totally possible that it was just luck, but explained above, even if God wasn't real, being part of something like a church can help your life in more ways than one.

The odds are like this:
 
 I believe in God, I'm saved, there turns out to not be one, I die and nothing happens to me.(or I'm reincarnated, whatever)
 I believe in God, I'm saved, there turns out to be one, I go to some afterlife, presumably good, maybe it's heaven, but I'm not sure
 I don't believe in God, I'm not saved, there turns out to not be one, I die and nothing happens to me.(or I'm reincarnated, whatever)
 I don't believe in God, I'm not saved, There turns out to one, I die and go to some afterlife, good or bad, for eternity.

 Why, in all honesty, would you take that chance? There's only one bad outcome, and the chance is that you could go to some bad afterlife for ETERNITY, simply because you didn't get that holy water poured on your head. The effort put in to be saved is so little, and the chance of the WORST PUNISHMENT in history is so HUGE, why would you take the chance?

 Wow, that's a lot of typing. Btw, all my opinion, just in case I forgot to put it somewhere.

[echo_trail]

I can tell you've thought things through, and I'm quite impressed with what you said about the bible, it not being much of a credible source and all. I like your 'realistic' point of view, good for you. But you're also saying "why take the chance?". I find that contradicting. If I choose to believe in God 'cause it's convenient and I mjight as well, just to cover myself, will that earn me any credit at all when I face judgementday?

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

Did you know that around the time of Jesus, there were about THREE other people in Europe, all claiming to be the son of God, all having folowers, and ALL being crucified?

I did not.  Source?

To this day, I don't count the Bible as a credible source, because first of, it was written a long time ago and has gone under so many translations that I'm sure today the Bible we read was nothing like the way Moses or David intended it to be. Secondly, the people back then were obviously more primitive and probably thought that everything was done by God's help, not the way that we see things today.

I'm not sure how I want to approach this, because I really don't want to attack you over this, but I am curious about your justification.  Guess I'll just respond and hope it comes out sounding alright.

I guess the biggest problem I have is that you say you're saved, but you also say that you don't believe the Bible is credible.  What makes those parts of the New Testament about being a Christian any more valid than the rest of the book? Or if it really is just as simple as "being saved is better than the alternative," what makes the Bible a better source for getting to the afterlife than anything else? Furthermore, the Bible says that Jesus is the only source of salvation; how did you decide which of your Jesuses to rely on?

I agree that it's good to have a healthy skepticism when it comes to these things, rather than just following blindly.  However, that makes it all the more important to have solid justification when you finally do settle on a particular set of tenets to follow.

[Mangled*]

The odds are like this:
 
 I believe in God, I'm saved, there turns out to not be one, I die and nothing happens to me.(or I'm reincarnated, whatever)
 I believe in God, I'm saved, there turns out to be one, I go to some afterlife, presumably good, maybe it's heaven, but I'm not sure
 I don't believe in God, I'm not saved, there turns out to not be one, I die and nothing happens to me.(or I'm reincarnated, whatever)
 I don't believe in God, I'm not saved, There turns out to one, I die and go to some afterlife, good or bad, for eternity.

 Why, in all honesty, would you take that chance? There's only one bad outcome, and the chance is that you could go to some bad afterlife for ETERNITY, simply because you didn't get that holy water poured on your head. The effort put in to be saved is so little, and the chance of the WORST PUNISHMENT in history is so HUGE, why would you take the chance?

 Wow, that's a lot of typing. Btw, all my opinion, just in case I forgot to put it somewhere.

That kind of weak rationalisation has a flaw in it. There are thousands of Gods that man has worshipped over hundreds of thousands of years, you're assuming that you have the right one and in many religions worshipping a false God is just as bad and sometimes worse than worshipping none. Afterall, Man has been around for hundreds of thousands of years and yet the religions that are still alive today have been around for only a few thousand years at the most.

Would you not agree that the earliest religion in human culture has the most chance of being correct being the closest to the origin of our species?

[Psycho]

I would not think of it that way Mangled. The earlier the age, the less people knew about the world around them. The lack of scriptures and information left pretty much everything open to be explained by the first guy with a divine theory.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

I would not think of it that way Mangled. The earlier the age, the less people knew about the world around them. The lack of scriptures and information left pretty much everything open to be explained by the first guy with a divine theory.

On the other hand, if people DID have a divine origin, the first people would be the ones closest to God.  In Genesis, for example, it says that Adam literally walked with God.  That's pretty close.

[Smegma]

Even if the world was a simulation, like the matrix, even if our thoughts equaled nothing and that we're really balls of goo inside of some alien's mouth, we still have to exist. To not exist is a pretty absolute idea. We could not do anything if we didn't exist, regardless if our existence wasn't what we thought it was.

Unfortunately, this does not satisfy my objection.

The odds are like this:

I believe in God. I don't exist. God is me.

Would you not agree that the earliest religion in human culture has the most chance of being correct being the closest to the origin of our species?

Just as the earliest of theories is bound to be the most correct.

[jerich]

Descartes was a great philosopher when his philosophy was based on absolutely certainty. Rather, doubt everything unless it is absolutely certain.

I, myself, was born a Catholic, and yes I do believe in God. Do I believe every word in the Bible. Nope. Do I believe God is perfect. Nope. I treat my life as if it is my very last second every second. I don't consider the consequences of death, rather the gift of life. If God chooses to send me wherever, that's up to God. I will live life morally and ethically sound because I choose to.

I can see this, just like many philosophical arguments, cross lines with the existence of God, especially with life and death arguments. So before it goes there, here are my thoughts. A night before essay I wrote for a philosophy class last semester. I made a self-debate in a paragraph.

One problem that is created is that God is undefinable. God does not suit a universal definition and it is hard to solve a problem if one does not know the source of the problem itself. Not only do philosophers have to try and prove if God exists, but also prove if God is all-powerful. Today, God is usually looked upon as a perfect monotheistic being with supreme power. However, something that is all-powerful and all-knowing would never permit something evil to come to existence. Believers in God could state the idea of free will and that we as humans have the ability to choose good or evil and thus evil exists. Others against the idea of God would suggest that if God was really all-goodness, he would make humans be able to choose good every time. But instead of restricting free will and limiting humans to righteousness, this God of pure goodness would decide to accept the possibilities of evil. Well, a possible resolution that someone would come up with is that what humans perceive as evil is not really evil and that God has a divine plan that will ultimately end in omni benevolence(pure goodness). Again, a counter argument would probably state if God is pure in goodness, then God can not make pure evil. However, if pure goodness can exist, then so can pure evil. And if pure evil did exist, then this pure evil could be as powerful as God and puts God's superiority into question. Even after all that debating, there was virtually no progress in proving if God is all-powerful or if he even exist.

This is probably the reason I don't really aim my focus on the afterlife. I'm just going to keep asking questions, rather than enjoy the time I have.

[Kazuki]

Would you agree, Smegma, that the ability to be experienced is not required in order for something to exist, yet existence is required in order for that something to be experienced? That simple premise is the basis of my belief: since we experience, we must exist in one sense or another. It is true that the way we view our existence is a contingency, but I believe that our existence in itself is a necessary truth.

"I think."
There's a pretty strong argument for our behavior being purely deterministic, with our actions being the natural consequences of all the stimuli in our lives.  Therefore, since anyone with a big enough knowledge base could say definitely what a given person would do in a given situation, can you really call that thinking? If we don't control our minds, how is life anything more than stimulus-response?

I don't think you're completely wrong, but you're not in the green, either. In all technicality, the act of thinking is a physical one. The brain reacts to stimuli, whether they are self-induced or not. However, these reactions are not always the same. This can be viewed as free will. One's mind is trained from the moment he or she is born and is therefore bound by society, thereby allowing it to be fairly predictable by anyone with a dash of wisdom. Free will is an antimony because it isn't strictly defined. Are we free because we rationalize; because we are given choices to choose from? Or are we not because there are things we cannot control, such as our own existence?

[Smegma]

Would you agree, Smegma, that the ability to be experienced is not required in order for something to exist, yet existence is required in order for that something to be experienced?

This still does not satisfy (a defeater) to my original claim. I see no reason to believe this dogma other than one does not bring a more sound proposition to the table. Even if it were true, the case of the cogito still would be in some trouble.

It being that I is what is in question of existence. If I experiences thinking, well then I suppose we can say I exists at first glance. Yet, the initial clause of your statement would say that this thinking may NOT exist for the potential for experience does not imply existence and as such there is a possibility that the subject (I) may not be experiencing anything.

However, in the english language it would seem to be suitable for these paradoxes. The way we view the self may lead us into these odd rabbit holes and that including a subject automatically assumes existence. I still stick by the idea that the cogito follows the classic form of begging the question. Even if the knots of your claim are unwound, I see no real reason to accept it, but I'm willing to play with the rope.

It is true that the way we view our existence is a contingency, but I believe that our existence in itself is a necessary truth.

What if, and if you don't believe me just step back and try to view how it would if possible, the subject experienced nothing. Would the subject then cease to exist?

[Kazuki]

Hopefully I'm understanding your point properly, but I doubt that I am. It doesn't help my case at all that I worded my initial statement incorrectly. Since we are experienced, we must exist in one sense or another.

So you're saying that thoughts only have potential to exist, rather than simply existing? In such a case, I suppose you're correct. Using one's own ability to experience as proof that one exists may be too far of a shot to be rational. I agree with you here. So let's move slightly outside of Descartes' statement.

What of universality -- the ability to be experienced? If we can be experienced by others, does it not imply our existence? That is, unless said ability to experience a subject can somehow be imposed upon others by the subject.

You, sir, have much to teach me. I like how thought-provoking this conversation is.

[Smegma]

If we can be experienced by others, does it not imply our existence?

If we stick with your initial proposition, no, because you said that the ability to be experienced is not a quality of existence, or not necessary for existence.

Since we are experienced, we must exist in one sense or another.

But then what are we experiencing? Can you prove that this is true even with the large assumption that you exist?

[Kazuki]

If we can be experienced by others, does it not imply our existence?

If we stick with your initial proposition, no, because you said that the ability to be experienced is not a quality of existence, or not necessary for existence.

Correct, but I also said that existence is necessary in order to experience something. Just because something exists does not mean you can experience it. But if you experience something, then it must exist.

[Smegma]

But then all that means is that thinking exists.

[Lt. Sprizz]

Lots of stuff to cover here.

If I choose to believe in God 'cause it's convenient and I mjight as well, just to cover myself, will that earn me any credit at all when I face judgementday?

I'll admit, my post wasn't quite clear on this. Choosing to believe in God goes farther than sitting on a sofa saying, "He's out there all right." You need to actually be in touch with God, be that in prayer or at church. You eed to know, with undying faith, that he does exist. If everyone was the best possible Christ follower they could be, we could all throw our possesions away and allow God to take us in. But God knows we're not like that. You have to try, and mean try, your very hardest to please God. I'm not claiming to know what the minimum requirements are to get into heaven, but the most absolute is to dedicate your entire life to God, and if you stride to reach that goal, then in my opinion, you're safe.

I did not.  Source?

A college level philosophy class. It was a topic our professor told us about and we discussed.

I guess the biggest problem I have is that you say you're saved, but you also say that you don't believe the Bible is credible.  What makes those parts of the New Testament about being a Christian any more valid than the rest of the book? Or if it really is just as simple as "being saved is better than the alternative," what makes the Bible a better source for getting to the afterlife than anything else? Furthermore, the Bible says that Jesus is the only source of salvation; how did you decide which of your Jesuses to rely on?

I agree that it's good to have a healthy skepticism when it comes to these things, rather than just following blindly.  However, that makes it all the more important to have solid justification when you finally do settle on a particular set of tenets to follow.

The things I'm talking about "the bible not being credible" come from most of the more skeptical things.
Do I think Jonah survived in the belly of a whlae and then was spit out onto dry land?
no.
Do I think there was a great flood that killed everyone but Noah's family, and they repopulated the Earth?
no.
But, things like baptism, communion, and all the traditions that originated around Jesus' time and that I think are viable. Yes there were three other messiahs, all crucifed, all with followers, but I bet if they had been the ones selected and not Jesus, we'd probably still have the same kind of traditions. Jesus didn't come up with the idea of bathing in a river to be saved. It's actually based off a Jewish tradition. Look at John the Baptist.
And I mean, even though I brought up the point of the other messiahs (more to hear what you guys had to say), Jesus did have some excellent credentials. Read Matthew Chapter one (one of the excerpts I consider to be reliable, considering it is dealing with factual evidence). Jesus' family lines match up perfectly with the great Jewish historical figures. I believe that Jesus, even if he wasn't the Son of God (i'm not saying that he is or isn't), is still a great source to get spiritual information from.

As to your last few sentences, you hit the nail on the head. We have to keep asking questions, or else God just becomes another labeled object we think we can grasp. And you have to know what you believe. I'm loving this conversation, some good points are coming up .

Would you not agree that the earliest religion in human culture has the most chance of being correct being the closest to the origin of our species?

Just as the earliest of theories is bound to be the most correct.

No. Earlier religions, like Pyscho mentioned, did not have scriptures or anything. Also, most of the things they believed are proven scientifically today to be completely false. We do not need to dance around a fire beating drums for rain to fall. We don't need to make human sacrifice to keep the sun from buring us alive. I'm sorry, but I have to disagree.

@Smegma
The earliest theories are usually not correct. Look at the atom. The first to come up with an idea from it believed it was a solid sphere. Then someone said it was more like cookie dough with raisins in it. Then Rutherford said it had electrons floating in pathes around a nucleus. Then someone even smarter came along and said that the electrons were more like a cloud.

I'm sorry but I don't believe that at all. Come up with three examples where it is true, and we'll talk.

Finally, I'm going to side with Kazuki, mainly because he sides with me . "If you expeience something, it has to exist" is a good way to validate the "I exist" statement. If thinking exists, as said above, then where are these thoughts coming from? The thoughts have to come from some kind of existing object, no matter what it may be. Thoughts can't exist without something thinking them.

 I love this topic .

[Smegma]

@Smegma
The earliest theories are usually not correct. Look at the atom. The first to come up with an idea from it believed it was a solid sphere. Then someone said it was more like cookie dough with raisins in it. Then Rutherford said it had electrons floating in pathes around a nucleus. Then someone even smarter came along and said that the electrons were more like a cloud.

Apparently you don't pick up sarcasm well.

I'm sorry but I don't believe that at all. Come up with three examples where it is true, and we'll talk.

Now you're beginning to grasp it.

Finally, I'm going to side with Kazuki, mainly because he sides with me . "If you expeience something, it has to exist" is a good way to validate the "I exist" statement. If thinking exists, as said above, then where are these thoughts coming from? The thoughts have to come from some kind of existing object, no matter what it may be. Thoughts can't exist without something thinking them.

It doesn't validate it, it has to be presupposed to make the proposition true, but there's no real reason to subscribe to it.

If thinking exists, as said above, then where are these thoughts coming from?

Just because you can't answer a question with a rigorous proof, doesn't mean that you can choose the one that your intuition points you to.

Thoughts can't exist without something thinking them.

I'm not so sure about that.

[Lt. Sprizz]

@Smegma
The earliest theories are usually not correct. Look at the atom. The first to come up with an idea from it believed it was a solid sphere. Then someone said it was more like cookie dough with raisins in it. Then Rutherford said it had electrons floating in pathes around a nucleus. Then someone even smarter came along and said that the electrons were more like a cloud.

Apparently you don't pick up sarcasm well.

My bad, I honestly thought you were serious .

I would like to hear your honest opinions. You replied to all of mine, saying that I can't assume what I assume (a good point), but what are your thoughts? I enjoy hearing all kinds of philosophy. Or are your thoughts simply that we can't assume anything?

[Smegma]

I don't know.

[excruciator]

I don't know.

It is much easier to defeat a theory than to come up with one.

[Smegma]

I don't know.

It is much easier to defeat a theory than to come up with one.

Not necessarily. It depends on the theory.

[LtKillroy]

Yet again they have fallen victim to the Smegma. Will they never learn? I doubt it. Think about it for a little while.

[Kazuki]

But then all that means is that thinking exists.

How so? Maybe I'm just not grasping your argument. If you experience something, it must exist; therefore, everything which can be experienced must exist. Then there are the things which we can rationally conclude exist although we cannot experience them.

If everything I can experience must exist, how is it that only thinking exists? We would then be presuming that we only think that we experience.

Just to be clear, I'm not putting any aggression into this discussion. I respect you greatly and I can't help but feel like you're trying to hint at an idea that I can't wrap my mind around. Either that, or you're just as clueless as the rest of us, yet you try to break down our theories using reason.

[Smegma]

I'm still harping over the whole prove of existence that the cogito tries to prove. That is, experiencing thinking would only show the existence of such and not the self.

[Kazuki]

Ah. No, I'll side with you on that one. In order to prove one's existence, one must be experienced by others. In everyday, practical life, it is true that if you have a conscience, odds are you exist. But when you get into deeper philosophy, that kind of argument won't really fly. I just think that if other objects and people can perceive and interact with you, you must exist.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

Epic post coming up.  You've been warned.

One problem that is created is that God is undefinable. God does not suit a universal definition and it is hard to solve a problem if one does not know the source of the problem itself. Not only do philosophers have to try and prove if God exists, but also prove if God is all-powerful. Today, God is usually looked upon as a perfect monotheistic being with supreme power. However, something that is all-powerful and all-knowing would never permit something evil to come to existence. Believers in God could state the idea of free will and that we as humans have the ability to choose good or evil and thus evil exists. Others against the idea of God would suggest that if God was really all-goodness, he would make humans be able to choose good every time. But instead of restricting free will and limiting humans to righteousness, this God of pure goodness would decide to accept the possibilities of evil. Well, a possible resolution that someone would come up with is that what humans perceive as evil is not really evil and that God has a divine plan that will ultimately end in omni benevolence(pure goodness). Again, a counter argument would probably state if God is pure in goodness, then God can not make pure evil. However, if pure goodness can exist, then so can pure evil. And if pure evil did exist, then this pure evil could be as powerful as God and puts God's superiority into question. Even after all that debating, there was virtually no progress in proving if God is all-powerful or if he even exist.

God may be incomprehensible, but that doesn't make him undefinable.  I'm going to stick with a monotheistic God here, though, because that's what the majority of the world believes in these days, and you run into all sorts of problems with lesser gods and demigods and half-god, half-fishes and all sorts of other crazy junk.  I'm also going to consider God an entity, rather than some sort of "life energy," as in "we are all collectively God."

First of all, the very nature of God makes him all-powerful.  God must be the source of every single imaginable thing in the universe: matter, energy, natural laws, time, you name it.  Science, being secular, can't explain how the universe began, but religion guarantees that if you roll back far enough, you'll have some sort of creator.  It follows that since the creator created the universe, he is more powerful than everything in it, and really, that's the only frame of reference that matters.  Who cares if there's something bigger than the thing that created the universe? The latter has full control of us and our destinies, and that's what matters.

Now then, on to morality.  We've already determined that God would be bigger than the universe, so it follows that his will and his essence are the standard by which to compare everything else.  What God IS determines what's good; what God WANTS determines what's sinful (going against that want).  Once you have that standard, you can split actions into good and bad: morality.  Once you have morality, you have choice and free will.  After all, what good is it to have two sides if you're bound to one?  You say that it doesn't make sense for God to create or permit evil; I'd like to counter that by saying it wouldn't make sense for God to only allow good.  If you create something that's a carbon copy of yourself (already an omnipotent being), what's the point? You can't logically extend yourself past what you are, after all.  Therefore, logic dictates that any sentient creations of God must be flawed, or at least have the ability to become flawed.  This greatly increases the importance of free will: Now your creations are following your plan because they WANT to, not because you programmed them to.

Assuming morality does exist, as I've laid out above, then several of your finishing points become irrelevant.  Evil is evil, just as good is good.  However, you go on to imply that good and evil are essentially equals.  That is, there can be a something that is pure evil, just as there is something that is pure good.  To some extent, this is true.  There can be a being that is dedicated to nothing but obstructing God's plans for the universe.  But on the other hand, there is no way that evil can ever be equal to good.  Evil exists only as a misapplication or corruption of good.  It's natural and healthy to feel good when you've done something well.  However, pride is wrong, because you're taking more credit than you should for something.  It's great for a man to love a woman, but lust comes into play when that love occurs in the wrong situation.  Basically, there are benefits to being good, and evil is simply trying to unjustly gain those benefits.  Because evil is simply a corruption of good, and is therefore lesser than it, it follows that the pure evil creature that most would call Satan MUST be weaker than God.

It is in that weakness that your final argument fails.  Satan must be a created being, because we've already concluded that God is the source of any and every thing in the universe, spirits included.  You said that God cannot create evil, and there you are right.  However, by creating a good being with the option to succumb to corruption, the door is open to that being becoming the epitome of that corruption, which is what Christians believe Satan is.  However, as a being created by God with a will that's simply a corruption rather than an equal of good, Satan is ultimately weaker than God and will ultimately fall to God.


(In case anyone is worried about citation, yes, this post is essentially a paraphrasing of the first couple of chapters of Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis.)

Even if the knots of your claim are unwound, I see no real reason to accept it, but I'm willing to play with the rope.

Great quote.  Sigged.

And in my frenzy to prove God to jerich, I completely skipped over the great discussion between Smegma, Kazuki, and a few others.  I'll respond to that soon.

[Ellimist]

Sorry Gamer_2k4, but god is only for the terribly missinformed

This is only my opinion, and unlike those who believe in god, im not going to force it down your throat

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

As promised, here are my musings on the subject of consciousness as it relates to existence.

Smegma has drawn a clear distinction between thought and self.  Whether or not such a distinction exists may not be knowable (if it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place, right?), but if it does exist, the concept opens up some interesting possibilities.  But before I delve into those, I need something clarified.  "Thought" is no longer considered the firing of neurons, right? If so, then it would at least prove the existence of the neurons, and if those exist, then everything they interact with must also exist.

Or is it existence that we're arguing? Virtual neurons firing in a virtual world proves nothing.  What, exactly, is existence?

Ah. No, I'll side with you on that one. In order to prove one's existence, one must be experienced by others. In everyday, practical life, it is true that if you have a conscience, odds are you exist. But when you get into deeper philosophy, that kind of argument won't really fly. I just think that if other objects and people can perceive and interact with you, you must exist.

Ah, but here's the catch: Those other objects and people must also exist, or else their perceptions and interactions would be meaningless and prove nothing.  And now we're back to square one of "'I' assumes existence," only now it's "'They' assumes existence."

[Smegma]

My distinction between thought and self may only be implied because the structure of the English language. I'm not completely excluding other options, but I still think the same problems occur.

[jerich]

And in my frenzy to prove God to jerich, I completely skipped over the great discussion between Smegma, Kazuki, and a few others.  I'll respond to that soon.

I never said I didn't believe in God. I do believe in God as I said in that same post. That paragraph was just a hypothetical debate between 2 people as if they were setting up arguments. I wrote whatever I thought of that night before. Of course if I was doing some crazy in depth analysis, your points would have been bought up  and I'm sure other points from the other side would too.

My point was stating that there will never be sufficient enough evidence(at least IMO) to figure out God and the afterlife, so one should be concentrating on the present rather than worrying about death. But kudos to the points you've made.

[echo_trail]

I may be misunderstanding you blokes, but isn't the whole meaning of God that he is beyond and above man and his understanding?

[Smegma]

I may be misunderstanding you blokes, but isn't the whole meaning of God that he is beyond and above man and his understanding?

No.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

I may be misunderstanding you blokes, but isn't the whole meaning of God that he is beyond and above man and his understanding?

Well, to some extent, yes, but there's a difference between being incomprehensible and being completely obscure.  Consider a silhouette.  You can get an idea of the source object, but that object is still incomprehensible.  All you have is a vague outline.  In the same way, we'll only ever have a vague outline of God, simply because human concepts can't get anywhere close to describing a supernatural being.  On the other hand, that shadow DOES exist, and we can still discuss the object based on the limited knowledge we have.

[echo_trail]

Ah, a silhuette. Fine metafor, sir. But then, how can you be so sure what God expects of you?

EDIT: Sorry, didn't mean to hijack the thread. If you wanna answer the above, please create a new thread, otherwise get back on topic with this one

[excruciator]

Indeed, that was a ill metaphor.

I would like to share a video with y'all, it's topic related..sorta.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=nJDq2fYt5AQ

It screams sarcasm