Money Can Bring Happiness
Debate Rounds (5)
>> The richest actor was once interviewed, he said " I have so much of money, i can purchase anything i want, but i am not happy and satisfied. Because relationships have become artificial. Everyone pretends to love me but they love my money".
>> On the other hand you see people who lead a simple life for ex:Saints, they are happy and satisfied.
>> more the money , more is the worry and more is the fear that someone will steal it.
i can tell you many more things, but this first round..
To know what is actual happiness and whether money will real happiness, please take time to sit these sites, they are very inspiring and you'll get answers to all your questions.
.. and there are many more..
http://www.google.com...) Notice that "happiness" is within the range of "contentment" to "intense joy." Every single things in the world which brings contentment or joy costs money, must be bought, and therefore, it is money which brings happiness. None of these things can be had without money being spent either by the person experiencing this happiness, or by others spending money so that they can be happy. For example, even people who are "contented" with sustanance and covering will realize that both food and shelter costs money. Turn on the news and watch people dying of starvation; do they look happy? The appear to be quite sad. When the worms of hungry brought on by extreme poverty are eating at people, they tend to smile less (or not at all). I certainly don't see them laughing when I turn on the T.V. and see their bones coming out of their chests. How many homeless people do we find acting extremely overjoyed? Not many. You can't be truely happy if you are constantly worried about what to eat and where to shelter or what to wear; and if you can't afford such things it is natural to worry.
Con mentions a very rich man saying that he is unhappy, but surely it wasn't having money that made him unhappy. Thousands of quite happy individuals are rich, even amongst the very religious. Just because money brings happiness doesn't entail that once you have money there will not also be sources of sadness and misery that can rob us of that happiness. I think we need to establish the fact that there is more than one source of happiness, so let's not get into this "saint" nonsense about happiness coming "only' from God or religion. For example, marriage is a source of happiness. Many husbands can testify that their wives make them happy. But this doesn't mean they can't get sick, and that sickness burden the family can bring a measure of sadness. If this rich guy Con cited used his money wisely, it would not become a souce of unhappiness for him, just as we we have to use all other things in life wisely to derive the most joy from them. So if a man doesn't treat his wife well, she might make him very unhappy in the long run, so too, he must use his money to his best physical, financial, spiritual, emotional, and intellectual advantage. But such cannot be done unless one has the money to begin with.
Christians claim to get their happiness from God, but let's be realistic, they need money to buy clothes to wear to church, and perfume to put on, deoderant, pay for hair-styling and so on. Even members of the church itself would make being there very unhappy for them or they might even be asked to leave if they were to turn up in rags every time church was in session, smelling like rotten eggs. They need money to pay their utility bills so they can bathe and be fresh from church meetings. What on earth can they learn about God in order to even get close to him when instead of listening to the pastor preach and looking up the Scriptures, they are are scratching all over because they didn't bathe and were itching. Thye also need money to buy a Bible is it isn't given away free at church, and even the church had to buy it, and before that it costs money to print. In fact, it cost money for the translators of many Bible versions to go to universities to study different languages and so on to become qualified to embark on Bible translation. Without money religions couldn't fund their preaching work, and so people wouldn't learn about God in order to draw close to him. Without money they would have to buildings for worship. So let's be realistic, religion cost's money; so even the happiness that comes from religion must be bought. Thus, money buys happiness.
Marriage brings happiness, but the rings must be bought. The wedding is an expensive affair. All the things we like, favorite foods, movies, music, sports, all costs money. We tend to feel better psycologically when we have money in out hands than when we are broke. So let's not kid ourselves. Sure, they are some poor people who appear to be quite satisfied with life; but really, even the little they do have costs money. There is "some level" of money they "must" have in order to maintain that happiness. This debate isn't about if being "rich" makes you happy; but rather, if "money" brings happiness. Whatever it is you want to achieve in life to make you happy, you need money to get there, and without that amount of money, you can't be happy.
Even if Con could show us that they are people who can be happy without money, this would not prove that money is not a source of happiness. To illustrate, surely there are many single people who are happy, does that mean that marriage is not a source of happiness? No. One thing is for sure, poorness doesn't bring happiness at all. A husband and wife bickering over how to spend their last hundred dollars is not what I call a happy marriage.
Con says that money is just paper with something printed on it, but so are books, and yet look at how much joy people get out of reading novels, or religious texts like the Bible, poetry books, comics, and the list goes on. When a man writes a letter back home to his wife saying "I love you, and I'm coming home tomorrow," after a long business trip, she smiles with joy - that paper with something printed on it sure did make her happy; likewise, money too may just be paper and ink, but when a man hands a check donation of one million dollars over to the church I'm sure the pastor is quite happy; when a man wins the lottery I'm sure it makes him quite happy, and I dare my opponent in this debate to receive a billion dollars and not smile from ear to ear like a little child on the happiest day of his life.
The actor Con spoke of said "Everyone pretends to love me but they love my money," so is Con saying that we should strive to be poor so that people won't pretend to be our friends? It says in one of Con's links, "If money promises happiness, then why are the wealthiest people in the world also not the happiest people in the world?" http://www.richardslavin.com... But what statistical data does he give to back that up? Was a survey done asking all the rich people how happy they were on a scale of 1 to 10? And let me ask, does the survey also show that the poorest people in the world are the happiest? I'm sure that if you were to ask a set of 1000 very rich people how happy they were and 1000 poverty stricken, homeless, hungry, sick people who happy they were on a scale of 1 to 10, the rich would definitely fair better in terms of whose happier. Don't believe me? Pick your random homeless person and ask him when was the last time he had fun. Hard to do that when you can't afford medication.
But I never claimed rich people are the happiest, for I never claimed they are not greater sources of happiness out there than money; so it's very deceptive of your source to ask why the richest aren't the happiest, as if that was ever a claim they made. Just because married people aren't the "happiest" people on earth, does that prove marriage can't bring happiness? Marriage and money bring happiness even if other things do a better job of making one happy. My argument is against those who claim money can't make you happy at all. And how does one measure happiness anyway? What is your definition of "happiest"? What statistical proof do you have to show that another source makes people "happier" than money? I look forward to Con's response.
yes i agree that money is required even for spreading religion and spirituality, but that is not the ultimate thing which brings us happiness.
Pro is saying he has seen some poverty ridden people on TV who are unhappy. Yes, i agree it is due to their misuse of their own freewill. what is the guarantee that after getting food and shelter they will become happy? then unhappiness will come in some different form.
Pro has stated in one of the statements that saints are nonsense. Why does he think so, Saints are the people who are self realized, i am talking about real saints. I don't think Pro has ever met any Saints in his life, that's why he speaks so.
And about the argument about happiness in married life. Pro says a wife gets a letter from husband that he is coming home and she feels happy. Please notice here that the neither the paper nor the ink is giving her happiness. It is the message and the relationship between her and the husband which is giving happiness.
similarly, it is not money which brings happiness, it is ultimately the relationships. Of course money is required for our minimum needs, yet doesn't bring happiness.
There are poor people who lead a life centered around God, and they are the people who are happy, If you come to India you can find families like that. I don't think in America or Pro's country there are families like that.
talking about unhappiness in poverty, it is due to laws of nature that brings them unhappiness and nature does not provide them the basic needs. it is something called as "karma" if you have heard of it.
all these laws are ultimately comtrolled by God Himself.
talking about getting a billion dollars myself, Pro said i would have a grin from ear to ear. Yes, I may have but my ultimate happiness depends on how i use it, whether in service of God or selfishly.
As long as i use it selfishly i always have the fear that i will lose it, and that worry brings misery.
talking about the statistics of happiest people, The most happiest country is statistically proved to be Bangladesh, though the country is very small and not a developed country,
Pro can himself check in his country which is developed and every family has a lot of money, are the people most happy and are the people free of stress and anxieties?
one last thing, Even at the time of death , a person is desperately strugging for his life, how much happy does he feel if his life is just extended for even a second.. but whatever money he gives, even billion dollars, he cannot get that second.. so how do you think money can bring happiness? maybe just for a small amount of time it may satisfy us. But not eternally. Eternel happiness lies in satisfying the self. If you see self realized souls who leave the body,(i don't think Pro has ever seen, I have.) they leave their body with peace and satisfaction and go to a higher destination.
When a homeless man gets the money to buy his own home, he experiences the joy and peace of knowing his homelessness will soon be over. His anxiety disappears. When a starving man on the stree finds a hundred dollar bill he smiles with the joy and fantasy of what he will buy and how long he'll try and make it last. Let me list some of the happinesses that come from posessing money:
(1) The posession of money in itself, even before one buys anything with it, relieves stress. For example, most couples arguments are about money. When struggling to pay bills, spouses tend to be more sensitive, and even trivial things (like a bit too much salt in the food) are enough to set an already on edge couple into an argument where being late on the mortgage might well come up. There is relaxation, peace of mind, that comes from being able to pay your bills (just the "ability") to pay them alone, knowing you don't have to worry about money.
(2) Money creates financial oppotunities. When we have lots of money we are quick to invest in different things. Just think of how much a happy camper I'll be in just a few years when my investment pays off? Just thinking about my coming finacial security, being able to do what I want, when I want, brings joy. Money gives us opportunities and freedom of action. That freedom, the "ability" (just knowing) we can do X or Y if we so desire is a source of comfort, and joy, and peace of mind.
(3) Money creates moments. Just think of the poeple dying in hospital because they can't afford certain operations. Now tell them you will donate the money right away, and tell me they won't be happy to hear that news. If you give them the money, the mere "posession" of that money will make them happy "because" of what they will do with it. Stress and fear of death will be releived from them because of the security that money promises. A man in fear of death or debt ceases to be afraid when he has the needed money, even before he actually cures the illness or clears he debt. There is an intesne emotional response that comes from posession of money because of its value and what can be achieved with it in this world.
I never said that I don't believe in saints, but I called it "saints" nonsense in the context of this debate to mean that it is rediculous to think that happiness comes from serving God alone and nothing else. I'm also saying that it's very hypocritical of "saints" who argue that money can't bring happiness they themselves in many cases lavish in the luxery of money and what it can afford. In fact, my challenge to these "saints" who so argue, is to give up "all" their money and see if they will remain as overjoyed and optimistic as they are now. It's an easy philosophy to preach, but a hard one to live by.
"And about the argument about happiness in married life. Pro says a wife gets a letter from husband that he is coming home and she feels happy. Please notice here that the neither the paper nor the ink is giving her happiness. It is the message and the relationship between her and the husband which is giving happiness."
How sly of my opponent, that's like saying that its not the paper and ink of money that makes one happy, but the value of the money, the things one can (and plan to) do with it, that bring happiness. Fact is, if she didn't posess the note itself she would not have been happy; it was what he wrote with that ink that made her happy, so let's stop playing with words. The money sends just as much messages to her as the paper and ink in her husband's letter. The money too, has a relationship with her, it is her companion and protector, it goes with her in her purse to work each day, it pays her bills and protects her home, and it crys out to her "cherish and protect me as I do for you." Money makes her happy just the same as her husband's letters do. Interestingly, the husband isn't home yet, but posessing his letter cause the very thought of his arrival to pop into her mind which brought joy; so too, she didn't have to spend the money yet, but posessing it also makes her think positively about what her future holds, and in this way it brings happiness.
We all need diffrent amounts of money to be happy. For some its lots, for others its little. The ones in India Con mentions clearly only need little. But are the majority of them really happy? I don't think so. Many of them are fleeing India in search of happiness and a better life in the more developed countries.
"talking about unhappiness in poverty, it is due to laws of nature that brings them unhappiness and nature does not provide them the basic needs. it is something called as "karma" if you have heard of it. all these laws are ultimately comtrolled by God Himself."
Karma? Well this is not a deate about the validity of any particular religious belief, but I certainly see no proof of karma in the world. Poverty causes unhappiness, true or false? Marriages fails or many reasons, but one of them is problems over how to spend money when they only have little. If they had enough money, this is one of the many hazards to a healthy marriage they could easily avoid without having to "pay" Dr. Phil; bickering over money.
"talking about getting a billion dollars myself, Pro said i would have a grin from ear to ear. Yes, I may have but my ultimate happiness depends on how i use it, whether in service of God or selfishly."
Con, is there a difference between happiness, and "ultimate" happiness? Please dont' play with words now, just tell us what you mean. Even if we reason that giving a million dollars to the poor (how you use it) is what makes you happy, the thing is, receiving the money makes them happy, and even before you gave it, the very prospect of being able to give it makes you happy to. So money brings happiness because of what you can do with it, because of its value. A philantrophist sleeps well at night because of the security his money can bring him and others.
"The most happiest country is statistically proved to be Bangladesh, though the country is very small and not a developed country,"
Please give us the statistics to back this up Con. Please cite your source for this information before we disregard this as a mere claim. Since we are on a request for "data," let me provide a study for you. It has been statistically proven that "Economic freedom correlates strongly with happiness." (In Pursuit of Happiness Research. Is It Reliable? What Does It Imply for Policy?The Cato institute. April 11, 2007 http://www.cato.org...) "On average richer nations tend to be happier than poorer nations." http://en.wikipedia.org...
Interesting how Con argues about the moments before death how money can bring happiness. Tell that to the sick people who need that money for medication or operations to save their lives. Even if they will take a year to get the treatment, the mere fact they have the money to afford it will bring them greater joy and less stress for that year. I thank Con for his responses and look forward to his rebuttal
2) "Being able to do what i want and when i want brings happiness", this sounds awkward. If someone takes drugs uncontrollably, does it bring him happiness? the person may think, he is in happiness, But that is just a grand illusion. He is neither in comfort, joy or peace of mind.
3) money does not create moments. so does that mean the richest of the people, have lot of moments and they are eternally happy? "Stress and fear of death will be ignored". This is ridiculous. So does that mean a person having lot of money is free from fear of death, if someone shows a gun at him, will he be fearless? will he jump from a 10 storey buiding and still be fearless of death just because he has money..No. Pro is sadly mistaken. Money cannot guarantee you of curing illness, as i have already stated in previous argument.
Yes, saints can live without any possession. If you ever come to India and meet genuine saints you will find. I am not saying all genuine saints are poor. The facilities are arranged by their wellwishers. And the saints kindly accept them. If you want more info on genuine saints, i can tell you much but that is a completely different topic, you can contact me on mail instead. I have seen many saints who preach and live by their principles, it is not hard for them at all, it may be hard for Pro.
About wife getting the message, The wife feels happy even if she doesn't get the message slip, but only gets the message through phone, etc. It is the relationship which makes her happy. Very simple to understand , what is the difficulty.
Yes. I am saying those who lead a God conscious life are happy by just having their minimum requirements. and it is not that money makes them happy, it is the God centered life which makes them happy.
Karma is very essential in deciding the amount of happiness and suffering. But if Pro doesn't believe in it, i cannot help, still karma acts. disbelief doesn't stop karmic reaction.
So do you think all the marriages of rich people has ended in success? that means there should be no divorces in developed countries. But the opposite statistics are observed. USA has the most divorces.
I am not playing with words, nor do i have to. I am totally conscious of what i am typing. Happiness for a short while means for ex: Let's say you eat your favorite dish, for how long does the happiness stay? for 1-2 hours. Then again you keep craving for that food. Even if you have money and if that food is not available what can you do?
Ultimate happiness is the happiness of the soul which is eternal. which comes by self realization, this i have discussed in previous arguments. if you want more information on this, we can discuss outside this forum, its a very huge topic itself.
With regards to statistics of happiest countries. Take the following links, please tell if you want more..
And finally speaking about death and illness, Can money guarantee you that it can cure illness ?? No, it cannot guarantee. give a billion dollar to a person having HIV+, can he cure the disease? No, there's no cure unfortunately with all the billion dollars.
During the second world war, In Germany, People didn't have grains to eat, Money was thrown on streets because people had money but no grains. How do you think money can give grains. Do you think if i sow money in soil it will give grains? will it give rains? will currency notes fill your stomach?
Less the money, more the worry about how to pay bills and put food on the table. See, most people in the world are not like the very few saints Con goes on about in India who get free food, shelter and clothing from their devoted followers and associates. The rest of us live in the real world where we actually have to get up in the morning and go to work in order to get money to make a decent living. Just imagine if all the money in ten thousands randoms homes were to vanish. How many of these families would be happy? Not much. Maybe a few select saints in India? Come on Con, we are talking about the general effects of money, and you can't decide its effect on the majority based on the doctrine that a minority are happy without it. These saints of yours, do they have mortgages to pay? Do they have to pay rent, utility bills, land tax? Let's be realistic, I'm not saying that people cannot find happiness in other sources besides money, but I am saying that money brings happiness because it is both needed and valued by the majority of the earth's population.
"but can that payment of bill prevent his old age, disease, death."
Does the beliefs of these saints you mention prevent their old age, disease and death? No! Yet you claim their beliefs, God, or whatever you call it, makes them happy. Doing God's will never stop a single human being from getting old and dying. But when people are sick and in need to medical treatment the money can pay for that, which will and does prolong lives. And there are many quite curable diseases and medical conditions out there. My uncle has diabetes, and he needs to buy medication every few weeks. Without it he certainly isn't happy; he's in much pain, itch, and so forth. The money makes him comfortable and he enjoys the little relief. Many people even commit suicide because they can't pay their bills, so don't tell me money doesn't save lives, it does.
"He may get some temporary satisfaction, but that will vanish as soon as he gets misery in other form, at that point even if he has money, he will be miserable."
Saints get problems in other forms too even while they are still doing what their religion says is God's will, and they experience grief over many things such as loss of loved ones. Are are you gonna tell me saints don't grieve? That nonsense argument works both ways. Even temporary happiness is still happiness. If Con admits money brings temporary happiness, then money does make you happy and I've won the debate. I never argues about "eternal" happiness, because nobody lives forever, and what happens in the afterlife would be another debate which cannot be covered in the scope of this debate.
Con actually compared having enough money to do what one wants to a person getting high on drugs. What a laugh. I wonder if he'd still say that about a philantrophist who uses his money to feed the hungry and get joy out of that. Money gives freedom to do what one wants, including purchasing the best technology and research materials to do and indepth study of karma, and the genuiness or heresy of his "saints."
"money does not create moments. so does that mean the richest of the people, have lot of moments and they are eternally happy?"
Take away all the money for ten thousand families in America, this would reduce them to poverty. Now, how many happy smiling moments will they have in comparison to sad moments of not being able to afford a place to stay, being open to the dangers of street life, getting soaked in he rain, and so on? Con just isn't being realistic.
"So does that mean a person having lot of money is free from fear of death, if someone shows a gun at him, will he be fearless?"
Money can buy one the best in security systems so that they feel more safe in dangrous neiborhoods, reducing the risk of being robbed at gun point. In fact, most armed robbers stick up poor people with little security around their homes, putting them in fear. As for the wife, without the money to afford the phone, the paper or the ink, she couldn't get the message. Money is an essential aid to her being happy.
The principle of karma and reincarnation can justify any of the most ghastly forms of mass murder and genocide. Thus, the Genocide of Jews by Nazis in the Second World War can be justified by claiming that the Jews `deserved' this treatment due to their `karma' or bad deeds which they had obtained in previous lives, perhaps because they slaughtered Canaanites when they entered Palestine on their flight from Egypt. Or that the Native Americans deserved being exterminated by Europeans since they displaced a preceding Autraloid population ca. 8000 BC ? Or better still, that the Aryan Hindus deserved to be oppressed by the Muslim invaders on account of their own oppression of Indigenous Sudras ! Does the killer of a million people become reborn again to be murdered a million times by those same people he killed ? The reason why there are no answers to these questions is the whole motive behind the idea of reincarnation: to invent a doctrine that justified the Vedic apartheid varna system as well as the Aryan Genocide of Sudroids. How can I rogress from a bad state in which I was born when I can't even remember my former mistakes in the previous life in order to learn from them? Yet, it is for these sins I am being punished? The false doctrine of karma holds no water in this debate.
"Let's say you eat your favorite dish, for how long does the happiness stay? for 1-2 hours."
So Con's argument is that temporary happiness isn't happiness. That's like saying that moeny that doesn't last forever isn't money. This debate is not about if money brings "everlasting" happiness. Just because marriage doesn't bring "everlasting" happiness doesn't mean marriage can't make you happy, the same can be said of money. Con is trying to change the topic into a religious one about "eternal" happiness. Sly trick.
"Ultimate happiness is the happiness of the soul which is eternal. which comes by self realization"
If Con ever did economics he would know that on Manslow's Heirchy of Needs, "self-actualization" or "self-realization" is only achieved AFTER one has covered his basic needs, and in the modern world people need money in order to do that. They aren't so fortunate as the handful of so-called "saints" he mentions to get everything free.
Pro's own source said: "The study revealed that people in Bangladesh,one of the poorest countries in the world, derive far more happiness FROM THEIR SMALL INCOMES than, for example, the British (32nd on the list) do from their relatively large bank balances." http://www.imserba.com... Notice the people in Bangladesh derive more "happiness" from their what? From their small what? "Incomes." So even according to his own source the people get their happiness from their money. It matters not that a rich person somewhere else gets less happiness from his much money than a Bangladeshi gets form his. Point being, in both cases the money is what brings the happiness.
Bangladesh only had a small unemploymenty rate of %4.0 in 2009 and their cost of living isn't as high as in other places so one can see why most in its population are happy in contrast to the US with soaring unemployment. I'll more to say on these surveys later.
"Can money guarantee you that it can cure illness?"
Yes it can, if you can afford a transplant and you have the right donor. http://www.aidsmap.com... Money funded the eradication of smallpox and rinderpest. Money cannot pay for the cures not yet discovered, but it can provide the treatment to one can live a relatively normal life. Much more to come in the next round.
One thing please understand that paying bills and getting food is not the source of happiness, God is giving food to even dogs and hogs. That is not the goal of life either. Human being has a higher responsibility of Inquiring about God. Vedas Begin with the statement "athatho brahma jijnasa", means: now that you have got the human form of life, your duty is to inquire about God.
Pro says "Minority are happy without Money". but i also say majority are unhappy without it, refer to the previous arguments.
If money is valued by majority of earth's population, You cannot blindly conclude that it brings happiness. That would mean the richest are the most happy people on earth and nobody else. Which is not, refer to the statistics in the previous arguments.
Those who are God realized, The saints whom i am talking about will not again take birth in this mortal world. No more birth, no more old age , no more death for them. It is said in the bhagavad gita "yad gatva na nivartante, tad dhama paramam mama", Those who are surrendered to God, reach His abode and never return back. But those who have no faith in God suffer in hell and go through repeated birth and death.
Pro is talking about his some uncle having diabetes, That uncle is already in terrible suffering and by curing the disease, it just prevents suffering, doesn't give happiness, it is like coming from negative to zero. Pro is in a illusion that money can give positive happiness. But please understand "PREVENTION OF MISERY IS NOT CONSIDERED HAPPINESS". For example, if there are mosquitos causing you suffering, and you put a mosquito repellent, do you think that mosquito repllent is giving you happiness? No, it is just preventing misery, it is not a source of any positive happiness. try to understand this simple point.
I have already mentioned, how even billions of dollarscannot save your lives, if it would, then rich people would have a longer life span than the poorer ones. But that is not observed unfortunately Pro.
Saints don't have any misery of losing loved ones or any such kind of nonsense miseries like the one Pro may experience. They worry for the spiritual benifit of others and not for selfish reasons.
i never said money brings true happiness, My point is the person after getting money is in illusion that he can do anything and he is happy, but soon sufferings are going to inflict upon him.
Pro says with money, he can purchase some sort of best technology and gadgets which would be a source of happiness for him, So let us lock up Pro in a room containing all his gadgets and he would be eternally happy..!! would you??
Yes certainly we can do an in depth study of karma with these technology and that would be the right use of technology. To prevent people from doing anymore sin. But possessing that technology is not happiness.
Pro is sadly mistaken that i am arguing for the topic "Poverty brings happiness".. Pro, I am not arguing on this topic. I am saying Money is not the source of happiness. even if a person is rich, and is not too much attached to money, he can be happy. For example : If you know Alfred Ford (great grandson of Henry Ford), He is called a billionare devotee, he is a god conscious person and leading a very happy life.
You are just arguing "richness vs poverty", wheras that is not the topic of the debate. My point is "Even if a person has money. that is not the source of happiness". I have told this many times in the previous arguments, still Pro comes back to the same point of poverty which is not at all a topic of this debate.
Pro says if i take out all the money from Americans, they would not be happy.. This statement is made as though now americans are very happy. No, even now Americans are miserable with all those latest technology and gadgets. because that is not the source of happiness.
>> Pro thinks my arguments are not realistic, He would be thinking, working hard like a donkey day and night and enjoying like a monkey is a realistic idea. Which is not.
I would like to ask him which point sounded to him unrealistic? are rich people are also not suffering? is it not realistic? But Pro argues only poverty stricken people are unhappy. I don't deny this point. But only providing them money would prevent their misery but doesn't give them happiness. They would then become the rest of the americans who are still unhappy.
Installing a powerful security system in the house just exposes his fear that somebody would steal his money, So that person is fearful and worried that somebody would take my money. Don't you think this fear and worry is miserable.
I know Pro will argue that if that person becomes poverty stricken, he would be still miserable. Yes he would be, But having money or no money, in both cases he is miserable.. So money is in no way a source of happiness. Only the form of misery changes.
Pro says the concept of reincarnation is because there are no explanantions to his topics, I don't think so. Just because Pro doesn't know the explanantions, He cannot deny reincarnation as something fictitious. The principles of reincarnation and Karma are elaborately described in the scriptures billions of years before our Pro was born as Human. and they accepted by authorities. So Pro need not take a role of authority do deny them and He is no authority on scriptures as well.
The argument of "everlasting". I have already explaines. How the happiness which you get by marriage or getting money is not at all happiness, though you may think.. but it is illusion. And it naturally concludes "Those who think money can bring happiness are in illusion".
Even the scriptues say the same thing: this is a verse from Srimad bhagavatam 11.3.20.
"nity�rtidena vittena durlabhen�tma-m�tyun�
g�h�paty�pta-pa�ubhi� k� pr�ti� s�dhitai� calai�"
Translation : Wealth is a perpetual source of distress, it is most difficult to acquire, and it is virtual death for the soul. What satisfaction does one actually gain from his wealth? Similarly, how can one gain ultimate or permanent happiness from one's so-called home, children, relatives and domestic animals, which are all maintained by one's hard-earned money? Attachment to the wealth causes illusion.
I can quote many more verses, but there's no space here. and Pro says all this is not realistic on no basis of his own.
Pro is even confused with economics. The manslow's Hierarchy states that "Self actualization" is the highest need for the person, even above money, Of course money is required to achieve this level but money is just a means to achieve this level. But the happiness is derived from self actualization. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
Pro also says, saints are self realized and happy and get everything for free. It easily proves my point that money cannot bring happiness, therefore i won the debate, no need of further arguments itself !!.
In the website regarding Bangladesh, it is never mentioned that Bangladeshis derive more happiness because of money. Pro is just concocting with some word jugglery. If money could bring happiness, then why doesn't the survey say that britain is more happy? Please read carefully Pro, It says, british and Soviet union even though they have money, their quality of life has not improved. It is the quality of life not the money. And you cannot purchase quality of life with your money.. Even with billions of dollars in hand can you improve the quality of a hog which eats stool, and make it eat sandwhich? No , Unfortunately.
You have not still answered my question.
You are saying money can cure illness, So having only money and no medicine, No doctors , cure the illness?? Certainly not, and also you cannot
So saints don't mourn? When a female saint loses a baby, does she not grieve? What kind of loveless, detached, sick, psychopathic, heart-of-stone Jedi-Knight nonsense is this? The emotional bond between a mother and child is way to strong for any woman in her right mind not to become unhappy when she looses a baby. I am not claiming that the happiness from money can't be interrupted by sorrows, but you are the one in the extreme position of claiming that the saint's happiness is not diminished by any event at all! If that's the case, that these saint's consider grieving over a dead loved one nonsense, then their beliefs are "nonsense"! Those people are probably possessed by demons, suffering from mental illness, or severe brain-washing and indoctrination that causes them to be so detached. Grief is part of the healing process, not because some religious texts says so, but because empirical evidence as documented by experts shows it. Sociologists and psychologists describe parental grief as complex and multilayered and agree that the death of a child is an incredibly traumatic event leaving parents with overwhelming emotional needs. They also agree that this grief must be acknowledged and felt in its intensity. These experts repeatedly state that dealing with parental grief involves deep pain and ongoing work as the parents attempt to continue their "journey down the lonely road of grief" (Wisconsin Perspectives Newsletter, Milwaukee, WI: Wisconsin Sudden Infant Death Center, February 1997, 1).
Grief is the natural response to any loss. Parents need to be reminded how important it is to process all feelings, thoughts, and emotions in resolving grief. They need to talk out and through their thoughts and feelings from the heart, not just from the head. Healing for bereaved parents can begin to occur by acknowledging and sharing their grief, not by saying "saints don't grieve, so get over it!" If money can't bring happiness, it sure as hell won't come from the inhumane doctrines of Con's religion or the god behind them.
He says: "The principles of reincarnation and Karma are elaborately described in the scriptures billions of years before our Pro was born as Human." Really? The empirical evidence does not show the Vedas were written billions of years ago; that is just Con's religious dogma, not fact. The actual authorities in dating these things hold that the oldest Vedas were written from 1500-1000 B.C.E., not billions of years ago as Con suggests. http://www.google.com... We don't have to believe in reincarnation just because its in Con's holy book. He must first prove to us it's reliable. As this is my last post, I won't be able to rebut him if he even does present evidence in favor of its divine origin. Unless Con can show us some credible, peer-review scientific evidence for reincarnation and karma, we must dismiss it as his own religious doctrine, not some fact which holds as evidence in this debate.
"So According to you do you think in India or any developing countries, we get free food and people don't go to work?"
I was not talking about the general population, I was talking about the so-called "saints" you mentioned who don't have money. And you never answered my questions. Do these saints have to pay mortgages, rent, land tax, utilities? Do they have to pay for day-care when they can't be home for their kids? These are real issues in the real world, as real as sickness and death which you rant on about so often in your rebuttals. Funerals themselves are expensive, so are medical bills for sickness, so again, if these saints live happy without money, then do they have expenses or not? How easy to claim that money doesn't bring happiness when you are free from the responsibilities of the real world. But most people, both in India and worldwide, are not like those religious nuts who don't have to work everyday to feed a family. They are not like your privileged "saints" who have well-wishers to give them food and shelter for free.
Con argues that money can't stop people from dying, and he trumps serving his god as the answer when millions die every day from diseases begging God (or their gods) for a cure. Six million children die every year from starvation begging God for a slice of bread. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... If money can't bring happiness for these reasons, then God can't bring happiness either for the same reasons, for neither money or God changes the fact that people will eventually die. But surely, there are more well documented reports of money affording medicine which cures or treats illness, than miraculous healings by God. So its foolish to use death as proof money can't bring happiness.
"But those who have no faith in God suffer in hell and go through repeated birth and death."
And the proof of this is? That its in Con's holy book?
"My point is the person after getting money is in illusion that he can do anything and he is happy,"
One of the main quandaries facing those caught up in the superstitious belief in karma is the question of under whose control thus mythical process takes place. In other words, what is the force that decides whether a person is good or bad, or in what form he will supposedly return to life? The answers to these questions reveal that the idea of karma is hollow nonsense because, according to its adherents, the process is a totally uncontrolled one. If though, God controls it, then why does he not let the millions of people who are reincarnated remember their former lives? How can they learn from mistakes they can't remember? No, it is Con and his saints who are caught in the irrational illusion of false beliefs.
"Similarly, how can one gain ultimate or permanent happiness from one's so-called home, children, relatives and domestic animals, which are all maintained by one's hard-earned money?"
So now Con claims nothing else at all makes you happy, not your wife, kids, relatives, friends, or money, just because they aren't eternal. Well, Con's religion isn't eternal either; it had a beginning, it will have an end. This illusion that his saints bought into, that they are serving God, will also end when they die. Their beliefs about the afterlife, reincarnation, are just that, beliefs, not facts.
"Pro also says, saints are self realized and happy and get everything for free."
I never agreed that the ones "he" thinks are saints are truly happy, I think they are indoctrinated to think they are. I also think they have deep psychological problems, they don't even hurt or grieve when a loved one dies.
"In the website regarding Bangladesh, it is never mentioned that Bangladeshis derive more happiness because of money."
The readers of this debate can see for themselves what it says. I realize my last response was more about Con's religious beliefs than money, he didn't refute my points, and this needed to be said.
I have never introduced my own scrpiture, nor do i have to because scriptures are already available.
I think Pro does not know any other authoritative scripture other than bible, which has been edited throughout by many people, and the bible we get now is the thoroughly edited version.(http://www.gotquestions.org...) (http://www.biblediscoveries.com...). If you refer to the original bible, there's is mention of reincarnation and many other topics.
But the Indian scriptures such as Srimad Bhagavatam and the Upanishads have been compiled 5000 years ago, and even before that it existed in the form of word which was transferred through aural reception.
you can download the soft copies of some of the scriptures here : http://vedabase.net...
If you just go through these , I am sure you will get answers to all of your questions.
I am not denying that a saint does not mourn on losing his baby, he does. But ultimately, he knows that it is the will of the Lord to take the baby away from him.
How and what proof do you have when you say they are possessed by demons or having mental illness?
Is Pro not Brain-washed that money brings him happiness? He is. Some people get brain-washed that alcohol or drugs can give happiness. They are the ones who are having mental illness. Not the ones who talk about reality of life.
Pro is diverting the topic by talking elaborately about grief, which is totally out of topic, and he doesn't even connect it to the topic at the end.
Pro is doubting about the reliability of the Scriptures and Reincarnation,
If you want a complete encyclopedia with scientific and scriptural evidences then explore the following website:
Pro has a stuck up idea in his mind that saints are by default poor. There are genuine saints leading a happy life with their family and "paying bills" as pro says. But their main happiness comes from their God centered life, though they may possess money, They use it to preach about God consciousness, . Some Examples :
Pro says about some people dying because they don'e get bread even after begging from God, Pro is not able to understand the concept of Karma, It is only due to karma that a person is born rich or poor. If you give some currency notes to these beggars will they eat it? they need bread. And bread doesn't come by sowing currency notes in soil either. It is only due to God's will that we get grains. God knows whom to give grains and whom not to give. if Pro thinks all this is superstitious, He has to refer to the above references.
Pro thinks death is a very happy moment, and says, death cannot be proof for money can't bring happiness, he thinks, money can prevent death and make us happy. psssst, what a wrong idea.
The question regarding the rememberence of pat lives is also answered in the above references, please go through them.
Relegion is eternal, because it is the teaching of God. Just because Pro is ccaught up with the time frame between birth and death he cannot conclude statements about scriptures.
THERE'S A STORY OF A FROG WHICH STAYED IT'S WHOLE LIFE IN A WELL. WHEN A FROG FROM ATLANTIC OCEAN CAME, THE WELL FROG ASKED "HOW BIG IS ATLANTIC OCEAN? IS IT HALF OF MY WELL?", THE OTHER FROG SAID "NO, ITS VERY BIG", WELL FROG ASKED "IS IT TWO TIMES, THREE TIMES, FIVE TIMES BIG AS MY WELL?", THE OTHER FROG REPLIED "NO ITS WAY BIGGER". SO THE WELL FROG CONCLUDED "I DON'T BELIEVE IT, ATLANTIC OCEAN DOES NOT EXIST".
PRO'S SITUATION IS SOMETHING SIMILAR, He thinks his knowledge is all in all. And there are no existance of soul, karma, scriptures etc. without researching about them. He will only know them once he follows process amd learns submissively. Just like the Well frog will know about atlantic ocean only if he goes there.
Pro thinks that saints have mental problems and all other people who pay their bills are happy, Pro, please understand just by paying bills, one doesn't become happy. If it was so most of the people who could pay their bills would be happy but it is not so, they have a higher level of anxiety.
My last words are for the viewers and voters:
HOW MANY OF YOU WOULD BE HAPPY IF YOU WOULD BE LOCKED UP IN A ROOM CONTAINING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND CURRENCY NOTES? WOULD YOU BE HAPPY? NO, CERTAINLY NOT, YOU NEED FOOD, YOU NEED RELATIONSHIPS, YOU NEED TO BE YOURSELF AND KNOW YOURSELF, THAT MAKES YOU HAPPY. MONEY MAY BE A MEANS OF PURCHASE OF GOODS, BUT MONEY ITSELF DOESN'T MAKE YOU HAPPY. WITH MONEY CAN YOU BUY RELATIONSHIPS? CAN YOU GROW CROPS BY SOWING MONEY? CAN YOU BRING RAINS BY MONEY? CAN YOU PREVENT NATURAL DISASTERS BY MONEY? CAN YOU PURCHASE HAPPINESS WITH MONEY?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro shows quite clearly how nearly everything in life requires money, and how without money, people can't buy food, and by implication that they would starve. Pro also shows that the cause of most worry, stress and suffering is not money, but the lack of money. Awesome debate though.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.