Religious 'God Talk' is fooling no-one.
Debate Rounds (5)
I do not believe in the Jewish God, the Christian God, or the Islamic God. Jews do not believe in the Christian God. Who is this 'Allah' fella? Islamic fanatics despise the Christian version of Divinity.
Let us all display honesty on this matter. When a person states that God has 'spoken to them' they are regarded with suspicion and rightly so. T.V. companies, business and Global trade markets make no provision for this thing. Political conflicts and wars carry on regardless. The fact is that this theological 'waffle' is fooling none of us. Nobody believes anyone on this.
There are no miracles.
There are no resurrections.
There is no magic.
There are no spirits, saints or Angels.
There is no Hell.
Humans have no everlasting spirits...............
We need to just collectively 'put our hands up', accept that we have all over-indulged ourselves in this pretentiousness. We need to find more productive undertakings for our time and talents. (As if this was ever going to happen!)
Religious 'God Talk' is fooling no-one. It is ficticious nonsense that we indulge ourselves with.
dreams are as good as nightmares are real
I think I kinda see your argument and I see it as being consistent with my own observations on these things.(Maybe, you are just playing with me here?)
God is in people's head and he lives and rules there in many cases. He can be a worm that eats memories removing both good and bad from our emotive consciousness. We can also institutionalise ourselves to this voodoo that is God worship. Much of religion is day to day repetition and conditioning. I think you are saying that these people have 100% 'spooked themselves' and in the past I might have conceded this point. Now, however in 2016? Are you serious? Why are they almost indistinguishable from your average God fearing atheist? Why can Gandhi not figure out Christians??? ps I assume you meant to write habit and not habbit?
as i see it, magic is real by physical implication of mental effects..
make belief is like disecting a brain, or adding false brain parts
operating on false brain parts.. a false amygdala.. a false emotional response system..
so its like i am saying, if you run from ghosts, ghosts might as well be there.. you would be running from ghosts in both cases
black=b lack=closed eyes=death
if i am thoughts in my mind, i turn a ball in the air while the ball stays in the center, i have memory of how to use my body and turn my hand to be able to do that..
a mental emotion can use peoples mind, and take over its memories fully.. which case the person has died, and is still walking around.. but one can go into nature and stop following limitations.. and yet its hard to stop smoking or quit christianity
rules and limitations put me in a corner, and in that corner you find me defined by them
a pattern.. not sure
you can shoot me, stab me, piss in my coffe, rape my wife in front of me then, but i will be there, i will be there chaining you behind walls, as you try to go back to the way it was before, i will be there screaming at the velocity of your crimes for you to kill yourself and you will listen then.
no matter how much one tries to change the past, it remains unchanged for one to have a past
i can kill a dog for fun... but i also have to let go of a part of myself to do it.. a part of myself i can only get back by realizing what i did was wrong
Thank You v_spex, for engaging in this conversation.
I feel that we could have an interesting debate on the subject of 'morality' where we appear to have real differences of opinion. If you challenge me on this I will gladly accept. Just formulate your ideas and we can go from there. Take for example your final 'analogy'..................v_spex states''i can kill a dog for fun... but i also have to let go of a part of myself to do it.. a part of myself i can only get back by realizing what i did was wrong'
This suggests a notion of morality that I personally do not accept as existing. Anyway, that's for another day.
I totally get this sentence of yours v_spex,................'' i am saying, if you run from ghosts, ghosts might as well be there.. you would be running from ghosts in both cases '
Religious 'God belief' is a reality and a 'psychic norm, and this God has been made real by default
I agree. This is why I expressed exasperation in my previous response when I imagined the scenario of the atheist 'chasing ghosts'.
We need to explore this 'religious belief' phenomena just as we would explore the psychic hallucinations of a person with Alzheimers Disease.
I also agree with you when you say................'rules and limitations put me in a corner, and in that corner you find me defined by them'.This suggests that the psychic 'weirdnesses' of the human , both individually and collectively,can take various forms that are not necessarily religious in nature. These might have 'cross references ' or patterns within them that would be revealing to this 'God-Worship', phenomena that we are discussing.
A simple example might be why a person in Hong Kong would pay £100,000 for a bottle of wine and why an avid wine expert would consider it 'a bargain' at that price.
I believe that I am an advanced primate with primate levels of adaptability. I cannot attribute anything to myself except opportunism and the self preserving ability to do anything under the correct conditions.
I could in theory shoot a dog without flinching or without experiencing remorse.
Thank You for spending time on this.
belief is religion, is belief in god..
but to be limited unnaturally one would end up religious or be religious.. like running from ghosts or being scared of eating candy
"A simple example might be why a person in Hong Kong would pay "100,000 for a bottle of wine and why an avid wine expert would consider it 'a bargain' at that price."
this is an example of knowledge vs belief as i see it... belief is love.. opposite would be necessety or resonable
love=positive emotion+returning at energy
so, shoot 100 dogs.. buy em and shoot em
I wish to continue with my point.
If God was physically 'actual' and fitting remotely , any of the descriptions of religions such as Christianity or Islam, then this existence of ours would be different than it is today. I would not be stupid enough to ignore a real and conceivable threat of eternal pain and punishment. My life would be like a pension plan where my 'brownie points' would be returned to an infinite degree. I would be on my knees and never look up, fact.
Look at the demeanour and actions of the populace of North Korea. No ambiguity there. Their God is among them and he has a sting in his tail. If he says march then you march with as much fervour as you can muster. You are within arms length of this psychopath at any minute of your live. Isn't this the God that is championed by the far right of these religions, come Hell or High Water!
People fart in Church, they scratch, they gossip and that is before they begin to think about their shopping lists. No body is afraid of a God in Heaven anymore, they are more afraid of his Mafia on earth and the hoardes of mindless Zombies that are under their direction and influence.
Correct me, in comments if you see things differently. I see no awestruck amazement in the Christian Churches, rather it is more akin to watching people watching a constructed hologram.
Thanks vi_spex for you participation here.
I cannot think of anything more irrelevant to me than religious 'God Talk'. I do not know why I bother, I really don't!
How can a person believe in these Christian and Islamic Tarot card renditions of a Deity? I am absolutely at a loss to explain this.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Amedexyius 7 months 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:||0||0|
Reasons for voting decision: The debate was very intense, with much argument on both sides. Con decided to use an interpretive form of debating which got his points across successfully. Pro acknowledged the use of metaphors in order to progress the debate and the meaning was in agreement with Con. Con made a very bold statement that many people could relate to with his statement of 'I could kill a dog for fun, but lose a part of myself to do it' which was held in a very deep emotional and ethical state which indubitably touched the readers and Pro. This statement of the killing of a dog would have won the debate although, Pro kept his own form of debating and equalized the pressure from Con's argument by staying on the topic of his debate. A very intense debate which we could all learn from.
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.