But if there is literally no point in going on the internet you wouldn't have gone on it. Your brain told you to go on it, so it believes there is a point, and thus it cant be meaningless.
No, we make up our own meanings to feel better of us not having any purpose. Sort of like how people still use "God" as there security blank… moreet for things they do not understand
Just because life doesn't have any meaning it doesn't mean you still can't use life's current luxuries like the internet.
Well, I don't spell his name, I try to ignore his existence entirely, so it doesn't matter much to me.
People who act like that are a bit crazy. Propose to kill someone over a video game character/having an argument over a character or few? Now that's madness.
I misunderstood you, then. Well, back in the day, waaay, way back in January/early February I said that I'd be fine with the story even if Kenny doesn't return. This remains true for Season 3 as well. Hell, if it's good, I'll be fine even with a totally new cast. It can even work without Clementine- did I hear gunshots? Oh, no, they're after me...
I dislike Cullen due for two reasons:
His continued presence in the series. I mean, c'mon, I had trouble understanding why he's present in DA2. He seemed like any other "barely significant" NPC for me, but, apparently, he wasn't so "barely significant".
The fact that I, personally, don't find him qualified to lead the whole military wing of the Inquisition. Some people tried to argue that he is the best candidate, that he actually has military experience and that he is a good commander and a potentially good general. None of those sounded convincing to me.
The only rude Jane fan who is still on the forum is Zykelinator or however you spell her/his name.
They still havent reached the heights … moreof proposing to hang all Kenny fans or murder one particular Kenny fan as has happened to the Jane group, for logical reasons as they are less fanatically attached to her character due to the fact that she is in the story for a third of the time Kenny is.
I meant deuteragonist. Like, he is just not going to be as major a character in season 3 as he has been. he'll almost certainly either die or we'll never see him again. And there will be brief riots.
I'm jsut praying we dont get a bleeding kenny dlc such that the fanatics come back and start calling people faggots again.
I dislike Cullen personally, due to his stance on the mage conflict and his racism towards dwarves in da:o and apparent racism towards qunari in dai, however I think he'll be a useful member of the inquisition.
Isn't that a bit weird to say when you haven't made the same complaint about Kenny?
They both just happened to be involved in the stories. Cullen is climbing the ranks as time goes on between the games and during the games so it makes sense that he'd be a big player in inquisition.
We haven't really seen his military side, but we can assume he is strong on it due to him being the advisor.
Well, I don't spell his name, I try to ignore his existence entirely, so it doesn't matter much to me.
People who act like that are a bit… more crazy. Propose to kill someone over a video game character/having an argument over a character or few? Now that's madness.
I misunderstood you, then. Well, back in the day, waaay, way back in January/early February I said that I'd be fine with the story even if Kenny doesn't return. This remains true for Season 3 as well. Hell, if it's good, I'll be fine even with a totally new cast. It can even work without Clementine- did I hear gunshots? Oh, no, they're after me...
I dislike Cullen due for two reasons:
* His continued presence in the series. I mean, c'mon, I had trouble understanding why he's present in DA2. He seemed like any other "barely significant" NPC for me, but, apparently, he wasn't so "barely significant".
* The fact that I, personally, don't find him qualified to lead the whole … [view original content]
Maybe. I'll admit to this little hypocrisy, if you wish.
Cullen is climbing the ranks as time goes on between the games and during the games so it makes sense that he'd be a big player in inquisition.
Well, more power to him, I just hope it wasn't because he attained such a vocal fanbase that keeps him going.
...Yeah, yeah, "sounds like Kenny fans".
We haven't seen his tactical/strategic side at all. He may be a competent warrior, which is good, but "good warrior" doesn't always equal "good strategist/commander".
Oh, I know he does. Was he the one planning the strategic maneuvers, calling the shots, commanding the troops? No, in most cases, he wasn't. Not to mention that assuming he is good doesn't actually make him good. One can argue that rallying the Templars to enforce order in Kirkwall after the whole debacle is enough for him to get hand-picked by Cassandra, by I don't think it is. Ah, well, I guess we'll have to wait and see. It's not like he can get replaced, so, can't do nothin'.
* Isn't that a bit weird to say when you haven't made the same complaint about Kenny?
They both just happened to be involved in the stor… moreies. Cullen is climbing the ranks as time goes on between the games and during the games so it makes sense that he'd be a big player in inquisition.
* We haven't really seen his military side, but we can assume he is strong on it due to him being the advisor.
He has a hell of a lot of firsthand experience.
The question "Why?" has no meaning outside the context of consciousness. "Why?" asks "for what reason, for what purpose, for what ends," but without a mind to conceive of reason, there can be no reason; without a mind to aim at purpose, there is no purpose; without a mind to consider ends, there are no ends. A raindrop does not fall in one place and not another because something willed it to be so. Raindrops fall where they fall because they could not fall anywhere else. And if you want an explanation for this, the proper question is not "Why?" but "How?"
You know me too well, that is exactly what I was going to say :P
I think the fact that he is our military adviser shows that he is tactically competent. Just like we haven't seen Josephine's political side but can safely assume she is good with it.
* Maybe. I'll admit to this little hypocrisy, if you wish.
Cullen is climbing the ranks as time goes on between the games and during … morethe games so it makes sense that he'd be a big player in inquisition.
Well, more power to him, I just hope it wasn't because he attained such a vocal fanbase that keeps him going.
...Yeah, yeah, "sounds like Kenny fans".
* We haven't seen his tactical/strategic side at all. He may be a competent warrior, which is good, but "good warrior" doesn't always equal "good strategist/commander".
Oh, I know he does. Was he the one planning the strategic maneuvers, calling the shots, commanding the troops? No, in most cases, he wasn't. Not to mention that assuming he is good doesn't actually make him good. One can argue that rallying the Templars to enforce order in Kirkwall after the whole debacle is enough for him to get hand-picked by Cassandra, by I don't think it is. Ah, well, I guess we'll have to wait and see. It's not like he can get replaced, so, can't do nothin'.
Well, let's hope he is, otherwise his existence will be dreadfully short.
As for Josephine, while that argument sounds convincing enough, I'm not as aversive to her as I am to Cullen simply because she didn't persist in the series as a character with gradually increasing (and, IMO, unwarranted) importance. She's a new character, so I have to try and keep an open mind about her... unlike Cullen, who's pestering me since Origins. Well, not Origins, rather since DA2, but, still.
...Yeah, yeah, "sounds like Kenny fans".
You know me too well, that is exactly what I was going to say :P
I think the fact that h… moree is our military adviser shows that he is tactically competent. Just like we haven't seen Josephine's political side but can safely assume she is good with it.
I don't think life is meaningless. You can always use it to change something in the world, whether it's discovering something new, be remembered, or just being someone's friend. Also, unrelated, you really think that in 5 billion years, the human race won't find a way to exit the Solar System no move to another planet?
But it is meaningless. You're born, you live you die. Your lover and children are born, they live, they die. All to be forgotten. Like you w… moreere never there. One day when the sun will die. The human race and all of its achievements will die along with it. All of it would be meaningless in the end. You can enjoy life, but It doesn't mean it's any less meaningless.
Play Sam & Max Season 2 Episode 4, Chariots of the Dogs. It has its own answer for how everything started.
Other than that, if the Universe began as a singularity, then it doesn't matter what existed before, as any information from that would have been lost. A singularity looks the same no matter what preceded it, if anything.
Have you ever thought that there are many universes hidden in bottles? You know, like people in Matrix? A superior creature or race creates many universes and ours is №12865793452099. We don't know the motivation of this creature or race. We think that our universe is big but the truth is that everything that exists in our world is an awfully little piece of the puzzle.
Everything is nothing , to be honest. What you see is what exists. What is not you is in your brain. You are your own director, writer and p… moreroducer of this long but ending movie you call "Life". We, the other people, are just actors that complete this world and to make your movie complete. Everything you see, hear and smell is a lie, because everything is nothing else then just your imagination. So, yeah, everything is nothing .
When you get down to it it's really Berkeley isn't it? Existence is solely through perception. It's not cogita ergo sum it's video ergo sum. Time requires a consciousness to interpret the changing positions of matter. Time is similarly depedent on perspective - before the big bang, the concept of time was irrelevant.
There is no ascertainable reason for existence, hence we attempt to create one.
Though I've never bought into the whole 'everything comes from something' argument. What can't something be, as is, eternally?
I thought about this when I was a teenager a lot, however after growing up a bit more I realized I don't really care, I mean why should I care?!
In what way is it going to help me to know the answers to these questions?
The answer is none and to be fair it's not really important because life doesn't have to have a meaning, everything just happens most things are nothing but coincidences, all events in life have to do with where someone is located, at what time they are located there and what is everyone else around them doing, in any case there isn't a cool awesome philosophically deep answer to this question, everything just is and it's all based on the circumstances surrounding coincidences and nothing more, while it may be disappointing that's kind off the way the whole Universe is, even the existence of life boils down to nothing but mere coincidence.
I am a Christian. I believe God created humans for a purpose of worship, or the original purpose before the fall. Like an artist to create art, God crafted and breathed life into the Universe.
Trying to grasp the concept of God is like trying to jump to a star. I don't believe in grabbing the concept of God, because if we attempt to do so we just confuse ourselves. God is beyond mere human comprehension. Is there a greater purpose to us than what meets the eye? Only something Almighty God can know. We cannot assume that God is limited to the Universe He created, otherwise He would not be able to do it. If we try to grasp beyond the Universe.... well, we can't, lets put it like that.
God is. That is one of His names: The Great I Am. I Am. God was (past) and is (present) and is to come (future). That very concept alone makes it hard for us to grasp, but it is what makes God so great.
But that belief holds no moral absolutes. Knowledge is power.
And that isn't truth. That is belief. You choose to believe that. You choose to say life isn't important (which I find rather insulting).
There are states of Honest Ignorance and Dishonest Ignorance (as CS Lewis once said): You are in a state of Dishonest ignorance, meaning you are choosing not to seek out what may or may not be truth to you, but instead decide that the whole equation means nothing in the end without searching or discovering. I dare say that one can call that laziness.
You are saying that you want the information to help you... not whether or not the information is true or not. As CS Lewis said in his paper, Man or Rabbit: "I find it hard to sympathize with this state of mind."
If something isn't true, no honest man would want to follow it no matter how much help it claims to provide. If something is true, then people would want to follow it even if it provides no help whatsoever. Christianity gives me my moral absolutes, my redemption, and what I believe to be truth... but I came to this conclusion after a search. A true atheist would first go on a search, then come to their concluded beliefs. Any other person who claims to be atheist but didn't first search out "truth" is no atheist, but simply someone who is lazy.
I thought about this when I was a teenager a lot, however after growing up a bit more I realized I don't really care, I mean why should I ca… morere?!
In what way is it going to help me to know the answers to these questions?
The answer is none and to be fair it's not really important because life doesn't have to have a meaning, everything just happens most things are nothing but coincidences, all events in life have to do with where someone is located, at what time they are located there and what is everyone else around them doing, in any case there isn't a cool awesome philosophically deep answer to this question, everything just is and it's all based on the circumstances surrounding coincidences and nothing more, while it may be disappointing that's kind off the way the whole Universe is, even the existence of life boils down to nothing but mere coincidence.
I choose to believe that life has no meaning, not that it isn't important, importance and meaning are completely unrelated and morality really isn't something that is tied to the subject of "Why we exist.", we've discussed nothing about my morality and therefore you have no right to judge it, so if you find this insulting then apologize to yourself since you're the one that's putting the words you find insulting in my mouth.
Knowledge is power indeed but speculation is not knowledge, we may gain some insights but we'll never reach the truth by just speculating so until we make a way in which we are able to really research this I have no interest in taking part in the speculation which at best can lead to finding out a half truth, and if C.S. Lewis were alive I'd love to ask him he really thinks that I belong in such a category because we really haven't really discussed this to enough depth for you to be categorising my beliefs despite having little to no knowledge of what kind of beliefs I hold or why, so quoting him just like that in order to make your argument seem like it has more validity is an insult to the man.
And once again you are assuming there was no search, that there was no journey for me and that I'm simply lazy because I don't want to look despite the fact that the very first sentence I write says that there was some sort of journey, you don't know my story and I don't really care enough to tell you but your high and mighty attitude those get on my nerves a little bit.
And if you need Christianity in order to have your moral absolutes and your redemption, then I'm happy for you and I'm glad that you find solace in what you believe, but I don't need a judging all-mighty God and his ancient commandments to have my morality and do what I think is right, all I need to know is that we're here and the only thing that can help us is each other, so we should look out for ourselves and try to make life better for everyone because shit ain't going to fix itself.
Anyway I'm sorry if I was a bit harsh but I just hate when people judge me based on stupid baseless assumptions.
But that belief holds no moral absolutes. Knowledge is power.
And that isn't truth. That is belief. You choose to believe that. You choo… morese to say life isn't important (which I find rather insulting).
There are states of Honest Ignorance and Dishonest Ignorance (as CS Lewis once said): You are in a state of Dishonest ignorance, meaning you are choosing not to seek out what may or may not be truth to you, but instead decide that the whole equation means nothing in the end without searching or discovering. I dare say that one can call that laziness.
You are saying that you want the information to help you... not whether or not the information is true or not. As CS Lewis said in his paper, Man or Rabbit: "I find it hard to sympathize with this state of mind."
If something isn't true, no honest man would want to follow it no matter how much help it claims to provide. If something is true, then people would want to follow it even if i… [view original content]
Wait, so I'm lazy and amoral because I choose to not try to grasp the origin of the universe and/or life but you don't believe in trying to grasp the concept of God because you assume we'll just confuse ourselves?
You do realize that we're choosing to do the same thing to different subjects and therefore you are a hypocrite for judging me for doing the exact same thing you did, right?
I am a Christian. I believe God created humans for a purpose of worship, or the original purpose before the fall. Like an artist to create… more art, God crafted and breathed life into the Universe.
Trying to grasp the concept of God is like trying to jump to a star. I don't believe in grabbing the concept of God, because if we attempt to do so we just confuse ourselves. God is beyond mere human comprehension. Is there a greater purpose to us than what meets the eye? Only something Almighty God can know. We cannot assume that God is limited to the Universe He created, otherwise He would not be able to do it. If we try to grasp beyond the Universe.... well, we can't, lets put it like that.
God is. That is one of His names: The Great I Am. I Am. God was (past) and is (present) and is to come (future). That very concept alone makes it hard for us to grasp, but it is what makes God so great.
By making the statement of "I don't care" I made that assumption, I'm sorry.
I tend to get angry when it comes to politics, ethics/morality, religion, and other things, which is why I tend to avoid debate or arguing. Unfortunately, I get into situations like this, where my anger blinds me and starts making me look like an asshole (which I was).
I wasn't really saying that you were immoral, but there is a difference between immorality and not having moral absolutes: no moral absolutes really means that you have no instructions on what is or isn't moral, therefore there isn't anything really keeping you moral besides the law and self consciousness. Sometimes, even self consciousness isn't enough; I've seen too many people hurt others because of their moral lacking, which was in tern why I get so angry regarding ethics/morality. Areas with poor law enforcement knock off one of those pillars, leaving only self consciousness in play, and as I have seen, those people tend to be abusers and outlaws, which is why I do not trust self-made morality and why Christianity was favorable to me.
I choose to believe that life has no meaning, not that it isn't important, importance and meaning are completely unrelated and morality real… morely isn't something that is tied to the subject of "Why we exist.", we've discussed nothing about my morality and therefore you have no right to judge it, so if you find this insulting then apologize to yourself since you're the one that's putting the words you find insulting in my mouth.
Knowledge is power indeed but speculation is not knowledge, we may gain some insights but we'll never reach the truth by just speculating so until we make a way in which we are able to really research this I have no interest in taking part in the speculation which at best can lead to finding out a half truth, and if C.S. Lewis were alive I'd love to ask him he really thinks that I belong in such a category because we really haven't really discussed this to enough depth for you to be categorising my beliefs despite havi… [view original content]
I said I was sorry for making the assumption, I just tend to get angry over those points of view. I should have acted with more civility.
Trying to grasp of something that is beyond the Universe simply isn't possible. I've tried it. It just ends up giving me a headache. I therefore came to the conclusion that God would have to be above and beyond His own creation; not limited to time, space, and nature. Since our existence is almost based on those things, anything beyond that we simply cannot comprehend unless the creator comes to us, which God has done through The Bible.
Wait, so I'm lazy and amoral because I choose to not try to grasp the origin of the universe and/or life but you don't believe in trying to … moregrasp the concept of God because you assume we'll just confuse ourselves?
You do realize that we're choosing to do the same thing to different subjects and therefore you are a hypocrite for judging me for doing the exact same thing you did, right?
I said I was sorry for making the assumption, I just tend to get angry over those points of view. I should have acted with more civility.
… more Trying to grasp of something that is beyond the Universe simply isn't possible. I've tried it. It just ends up giving me a headache. I therefore came to the conclusion that God would have to be above and beyond His own creation; not limited to time, space, and nature. Since our existence is almost based on those things, anything beyond that we simply cannot comprehend unless the creator comes to us, which God has done through The Bible.
Well that's fine but just because you can't grasp it, it doesn't mean that other people can't, much less that everyone gets confused thinking about it, though given that there is no evidence to the existence of God and everything we come up with is based on assumptions and beliefs this is merely a Philosophical issue and based on our current knowledge a solid conclusion cannot be reached.
And before you say something about that, I am merely stating that the existence of God cannot be proven therefore his existence is uncertain since cannot be sure if he exists or not until more evidence is found.
And yeah, I got a bit angry, I wrote that other thing before and then I saw this and I just thought I would point out your hypocrisy, in any case there's no need to dwell on it, and I guess everything is fine.
I said I was sorry for making the assumption, I just tend to get angry over those points of view. I should have acted with more civility.
… more Trying to grasp of something that is beyond the Universe simply isn't possible. I've tried it. It just ends up giving me a headache. I therefore came to the conclusion that God would have to be above and beyond His own creation; not limited to time, space, and nature. Since our existence is almost based on those things, anything beyond that we simply cannot comprehend unless the creator comes to us, which God has done through The Bible.
That's fine but I assure that you are wrong about your theory of moral absolutism, most atheists I know make their own moral codes and don't need faith in order to know that some things are right and others wrong, and I've lived in places with poor law enforcement, I've seen people get killed and other awful things and I can assure a strong religious belief is pretty worthless when it comes to morality, I've met tons of awful people that were devoted Christians and I've met great people that believe in nothing (I've also met the contrary of what I just mentioned, I was just making a point).
While Christianity may fit you well I can assure you that everything comes down to the person and their own self-consciousness, religion does jack-shit for morality in the end, and for some people it's just better to drop all that pretence of having a God and/or law and just admit that everything is down to their own volition and what they decide to do in any given situation, in any case I find it hard to trust someone that needs the existence of a power beyond theirs in order to do the right thing, I get the feeling that if it were somehow disproved or betrayed they'd just become awful people, it's almost like they need to be kept in line by the threat of hell/purgatory or the hope of heaven, those kinds of people are the ones that can't be trusted after all their morality is completely based on fear (Of going to hell or not going to heaven).
And I've got news for you all morality is self-made, I've question different people that have similar (I've found that people of the exact same faith that go to the same church and even live in the same house hardly ever believe the same things) beliefs and they have completely different morals from each other, so if you distrust self-made morality you distrust everyone, sure that self-made morality can have a basis on their beliefs but everyone has different interpretations of the same things, so it's pointless to trust someone just because they have similar beliefs to yours as their interpretation of what that faith tells them is right or wrong is likely to be very different to yours.
By making the statement of "I don't care" I made that assumption, I'm sorry.
I tend to get angry when it comes to politics, ethics/morali… morety, religion, and other things, which is why I tend to avoid debate or arguing. Unfortunately, I get into situations like this, where my anger blinds me and starts making me look like an asshole (which I was).
I wasn't really saying that you were immoral, but there is a difference between immorality and not having moral absolutes: no moral absolutes really means that you have no instructions on what is or isn't moral, therefore there isn't anything really keeping you moral besides the law and self consciousness. Sometimes, even self consciousness isn't enough; I've seen too many people hurt others because of their moral lacking, which was in tern why I get so angry regarding ethics/morality. Areas with poor law enforcement knock off one of those pillars, leaving only self consciousness in play, and as … [view original content]
Lets say there is a moral dilemma of some sort: revenge.
Someone has royally pissed you off and you are thinking about revenge. There is an atheist and a religious individual.
The atheist will ask, "Is revenge right?" and the atheist must decide on his own conscious if it is so.
The religious individual will ask the same question, "Is revenge right?" and still will have to decide on his/her own moral conscious, but having a moral absolute and a religion will help guide the action. The follower will ask, "what does my religion say about revenge?" and it will influence their actions. It may not change it, but it will give them a light to follow. They still have a choice to not listen to their religion, but it is there nonetheless to guide.
I trust the Ten Commandments and Jesus' Teachings. There are denominations within Christianity.
That's fine but I assure that you are wrong about your theory of moral absolutism, most atheists I know make their own moral codes and don't… more need faith in order to know that some things are right and others wrong, and I've lived in places with poor law enforcement, I've seen people get killed and other awful things and I can assure a strong religious belief is pretty worthless when it comes to morality, I've met tons of awful people that were devoted Christians and I've met great people that believe in nothing (I've also met the contrary of what I just mentioned, I was just making a point).
While Christianity may fit you well I can assure you that everything comes down to the person and their own self-consciousness, religion does jack-shit for morality in the end, and for some people it's just better to drop all that pretence of having a God and/or law and just admit that everything is down to their own volition and what they decide to do … [view original content]
The Atheist must decide upon his own moral values created from modern day problems and issues that allow for a better understanding of the problem today.
The Religious person must decide upon someone else's moral values from thousands years ago when issues were different. They don't have to decide on that but feel bad afterwards if they don't follow their God's teachings.
Lets say there is a moral dilemma of some sort: revenge.
Someone has royally pissed you off and you are thinking about revenge. There is… more an atheist and a religious individual.
The atheist will ask, "Is revenge right?" and the atheist must decide on his own conscious if it is so.
The religious individual will ask the same question, "Is revenge right?" and still will have to decide on his/her own moral conscious, but having a moral absolute and a religion will help guide the action. The follower will ask, "what does my religion say about revenge?" and it will influence their actions. It may not change it, but it will give them a light to follow. They still have a choice to not listen to their religion, but it is there nonetheless to guide.
I trust the Ten Commandments and Jesus' Teachings. There are denominations within Christianity.
Does it seriously not tick? God cannot be limited to the thing He Himself have created, else it would be impossible for Him to create it.
You can try to create a new color in your head. A brand new base color that doesn't exist... but you can't, because our experience with existence is limited to what was created by God. It's the same thing: God is beyond what our experience understands, so trying to comprehend all that God is isn't possible.
"Who created God?"
Well, who says He was created? Who are we to think that God, as mighty as He is, can be created? Could He be? Maybe. But since God is beyond our understanding of our current existence, we do not know what laws, if any, apply to God. The Universe is ran by laws and structure and order. We know because we discovered them, but what laws apply to God? I would safely assume that none apply to God, because as I said above, God is not limited to His own creation or it would be impossible for Him to create it.
Issues were different? Is divorce different? Looking at woman lustfully, people still do that now. Stealing. Lying. Jealousy. Murder. Hatred. All these things are issues still being dealt with today.
Sorry for jumping in.
So, in the whole dilemma...
The Atheist must decide upon his own moral values created from modern day problems a… morend issues that allow for a better understanding of the problem today.
The Religious person must decide upon someone else's moral values from thousands years ago when issues were different. They don't have to decide on that but feel bad afterwards if they don't follow their God's teachings.
I trust my own values.
If you did half of those things in the Bible you got stoned to death like "Witchcraft". Do we brutally beat someone to death over something as stupid as admiring a woman? No. The thing is that many of these morals you get from the Bible are actually bad.
Issues were different? Is divorce different? Looking at woman lustfully, people still do that now. Stealing. Lying. Jealousy. Murder. Hatred. All these things are issues still being dealt with today.
How are the decency of morals dependent on the punishment given to the ones who break the morality? No, we don't punish people for their morality anymore, but I would love to know how that equates the morals to bad.
And for the record, the Israelites did do some nasty things (whether or not they were done under God's command is a whole different and completely subjective story). I would say that the Israelites sucked... I mean, God revealed Himself to them numerous amounts of times, and they STILL wondered away from Him. People now day's wonder why God doesn't reveal himself to people; because it didn't work. It didn't work with the Israelites, nor will it work now.
Yes but the way we handle them are different.
If you did half of those things in the Bible you got stoned to death like "Witchcraft". Do … morewe brutally beat someone to death over something as stupid as admiring a woman? No. The thing is that many of these morals you get from the Bible are actually bad.
Before you get all angry, I said "Many" not all.
A man looks as a woman and admires her. Today what does that get him...A divorce or restraining order at best. Back then they would tie him down in the town square, say he disgraced God, tell him he's going to hell, then kill him with rocks.
One of these sounds a little evil...I'm going to say the one that kills a man in the name of a God. God is another name for control over the people. I'm Agnostic, I don't know if there is a God or not, but if there is one thing i'm sure of is that no religion accurately portrays them. We don't murder someone (Which is morally wrong) or something they did, if it was wrong or not.
How are the decency of morals dependent on the punishment given to the ones who break the morality? No, we don't punish people for their mo… morerality anymore, but I would love to know how that equates the morals to bad.
And for the record, the Israelites did do some nasty things (whether or not they were done under God's command is a whole different and completely subjective story). I would say that the Israelites sucked... I mean, God revealed Himself to them numerous amounts of times, and they STILL wondered away from Him. People now day's wonder why God doesn't reveal himself to people; because it didn't work. It didn't work with the Israelites, nor will it work now.
Can I ask you a simple question? Why do you believe in the Christian God? There are thousands upon thousands of gods from several different religions. Do you deny other peoples beliefs and believe your religion is the one and only true religion and has the one and only true god?
Does it seriously not tick? God cannot be limited to the thing He Himself have created, else it would be impossible for Him to create it.
… more You can try to create a new color in your head. A brand new base color that doesn't exist... but you can't, because our experience with existence is limited to what was created by God. It's the same thing: God is beyond what our experience understands, so trying to comprehend all that God is isn't possible.
"Who created God?"
Well, who says He was created? Who are we to think that God, as mighty as He is, can be created? Could He be? Maybe. But since God is beyond our understanding of our current existence, we do not know what laws, if any, apply to God. The Universe is ran by laws and structure and order. We know because we discovered them, but what laws apply to God? I would safely assume that none apply to God, because as I said above, God is not limited to His own creation or it would be impossible for Him to create it.
Comments
But if there is literally no point in going on the internet you wouldn't have gone on it. Your brain told you to go on it, so it believes there is a point, and thus it cant be meaningless.
If you don't need to answer them or even pay attention to them then in what way does life revolve around them?
Well, I don't spell his name, I try to ignore his existence entirely, so it doesn't matter much to me.
People who act like that are a bit crazy. Propose to kill someone over a video game character/having an argument over a character or few? Now that's madness.
I misunderstood you, then. Well, back in the day, waaay, way back in January/early February I said that I'd be fine with the story even if Kenny doesn't return. This remains true for Season 3 as well. Hell, if it's good, I'll be fine even with a totally new cast. It can even work without Clementine- did I hear gunshots? Oh, no, they're after me...
I dislike Cullen due for two reasons:
They both just happened to be involved in the stories. Cullen is climbing the ranks as time goes on between the games and during the games so it makes sense that he'd be a big player in inquisition.
He has a hell of a lot of firsthand experience.
Well, more power to him, I just hope it wasn't because he attained such a vocal fanbase that keeps him going.
...Yeah, yeah, "sounds like Kenny fans".
Oh, I know he does. Was he the one planning the strategic maneuvers, calling the shots, commanding the troops? No, in most cases, he wasn't. Not to mention that assuming he is good doesn't actually make him good. One can argue that rallying the Templars to enforce order in Kirkwall after the whole debacle is enough for him to get hand-picked by Cassandra, by I don't think it is. Ah, well, I guess we'll have to wait and see. It's not like he can get replaced, so, can't do nothin'.
The question "Why?" has no meaning outside the context of consciousness. "Why?" asks "for what reason, for what purpose, for what ends," but without a mind to conceive of reason, there can be no reason; without a mind to aim at purpose, there is no purpose; without a mind to consider ends, there are no ends. A raindrop does not fall in one place and not another because something willed it to be so. Raindrops fall where they fall because they could not fall anywhere else. And if you want an explanation for this, the proper question is not "Why?" but "How?"
You know me too well, that is exactly what I was going to say :P
I think the fact that he is our military adviser shows that he is tactically competent. Just like we haven't seen Josephine's political side but can safely assume she is good with it.
Well, let's hope he is, otherwise his existence will be dreadfully short.
As for Josephine, while that argument sounds convincing enough, I'm not as aversive to her as I am to Cullen simply because she didn't persist in the series as a character with gradually increasing (and, IMO, unwarranted) importance. She's a new character, so I have to try and keep an open mind about her... unlike Cullen, who's pestering me since Origins. Well, not Origins, rather since DA2, but, still.
I wonder about the same thing everyday... why do we exist, why does our planet exist, why does our universe exist, why does existing exist?!
What caused all this to start exist and why?
I don't think life is meaningless. You can always use it to change something in the world, whether it's discovering something new, be remembered, or just being someone's friend. Also, unrelated, you really think that in 5 billion years, the human race won't find a way to exit the Solar System no move to another planet?
That's a lot of questions.
The answer is
How should I know?
Play Sam & Max Season 2 Episode 4, Chariots of the Dogs. It has its own answer for how everything started.
Other than that, if the Universe began as a singularity, then it doesn't matter what existed before, as any information from that would have been lost. A singularity looks the same no matter what preceded it, if anything.
This thread makes me feel so depressed XD
this Forum just got a whole lot more Deep :P
Have you ever thought that there are many universes hidden in bottles? You know, like people in Matrix? A superior creature or race creates many universes and ours is №12865793452099. We don't know the motivation of this creature or race. We think that our universe is big but the truth is that everything that exists in our world is an awfully little piece of the puzzle.
Why is the wrong question to ask. Asking why everything exists is like asking what blue tastes of.
Meaningless babble attempting to be deep and philosophical.
When you get down to it it's really Berkeley isn't it? Existence is solely through perception. It's not cogita ergo sum it's video ergo sum. Time requires a consciousness to interpret the changing positions of matter. Time is similarly depedent on perspective - before the big bang, the concept of time was irrelevant.
There is no ascertainable reason for existence, hence we attempt to create one.
Though I've never bought into the whole 'everything comes from something' argument. What can't something be, as is, eternally?
I thought about this when I was a teenager a lot, however after growing up a bit more I realized I don't really care, I mean why should I care?!
In what way is it going to help me to know the answers to these questions?
The answer is none and to be fair it's not really important because life doesn't have to have a meaning, everything just happens most things are nothing but coincidences, all events in life have to do with where someone is located, at what time they are located there and what is everyone else around them doing, in any case there isn't a cool awesome philosophically deep answer to this question, everything just is and it's all based on the circumstances surrounding coincidences and nothing more, while it may be disappointing that's kind off the way the whole Universe is, even the existence of life boils down to nothing but mere coincidence.
only one answer...
I am a Christian. I believe God created humans for a purpose of worship, or the original purpose before the fall. Like an artist to create art, God crafted and breathed life into the Universe.
Trying to grasp the concept of God is like trying to jump to a star. I don't believe in grabbing the concept of God, because if we attempt to do so we just confuse ourselves. God is beyond mere human comprehension. Is there a greater purpose to us than what meets the eye? Only something Almighty God can know. We cannot assume that God is limited to the Universe He created, otherwise He would not be able to do it. If we try to grasp beyond the Universe.... well, we can't, lets put it like that.
God is. That is one of His names: The Great I Am. I Am. God was (past) and is (present) and is to come (future). That very concept alone makes it hard for us to grasp, but it is what makes God so great.
But that belief holds no moral absolutes. Knowledge is power.
And that isn't truth. That is belief. You choose to believe that. You choose to say life isn't important (which I find rather insulting).
There are states of Honest Ignorance and Dishonest Ignorance (as CS Lewis once said): You are in a state of Dishonest ignorance, meaning you are choosing not to seek out what may or may not be truth to you, but instead decide that the whole equation means nothing in the end without searching or discovering. I dare say that one can call that laziness.
You are saying that you want the information to help you... not whether or not the information is true or not. As CS Lewis said in his paper, Man or Rabbit: "I find it hard to sympathize with this state of mind."
If something isn't true, no honest man would want to follow it no matter how much help it claims to provide. If something is true, then people would want to follow it even if it provides no help whatsoever. Christianity gives me my moral absolutes, my redemption, and what I believe to be truth... but I came to this conclusion after a search. A true atheist would first go on a search, then come to their concluded beliefs. Any other person who claims to be atheist but didn't first search out "truth" is no atheist, but simply someone who is lazy.
I choose to believe that life has no meaning, not that it isn't important, importance and meaning are completely unrelated and morality really isn't something that is tied to the subject of "Why we exist.", we've discussed nothing about my morality and therefore you have no right to judge it, so if you find this insulting then apologize to yourself since you're the one that's putting the words you find insulting in my mouth.
Knowledge is power indeed but speculation is not knowledge, we may gain some insights but we'll never reach the truth by just speculating so until we make a way in which we are able to really research this I have no interest in taking part in the speculation which at best can lead to finding out a half truth, and if C.S. Lewis were alive I'd love to ask him he really thinks that I belong in such a category because we really haven't really discussed this to enough depth for you to be categorising my beliefs despite having little to no knowledge of what kind of beliefs I hold or why, so quoting him just like that in order to make your argument seem like it has more validity is an insult to the man.
And once again you are assuming there was no search, that there was no journey for me and that I'm simply lazy because I don't want to look despite the fact that the very first sentence I write says that there was some sort of journey, you don't know my story and I don't really care enough to tell you but your high and mighty attitude those get on my nerves a little bit.
And if you need Christianity in order to have your moral absolutes and your redemption, then I'm happy for you and I'm glad that you find solace in what you believe, but I don't need a judging all-mighty God and his ancient commandments to have my morality and do what I think is right, all I need to know is that we're here and the only thing that can help us is each other, so we should look out for ourselves and try to make life better for everyone because shit ain't going to fix itself.
Anyway I'm sorry if I was a bit harsh but I just hate when people judge me based on stupid baseless assumptions.
Wait, so I'm lazy and amoral because I choose to not try to grasp the origin of the universe and/or life but you don't believe in trying to grasp the concept of God because you assume we'll just confuse ourselves?
You do realize that we're choosing to do the same thing to different subjects and therefore you are a hypocrite for judging me for doing the exact same thing you did, right?
By making the statement of "I don't care" I made that assumption, I'm sorry.
I tend to get angry when it comes to politics, ethics/morality, religion, and other things, which is why I tend to avoid debate or arguing. Unfortunately, I get into situations like this, where my anger blinds me and starts making me look like an asshole (which I was).
I wasn't really saying that you were immoral, but there is a difference between immorality and not having moral absolutes: no moral absolutes really means that you have no instructions on what is or isn't moral, therefore there isn't anything really keeping you moral besides the law and self consciousness. Sometimes, even self consciousness isn't enough; I've seen too many people hurt others because of their moral lacking, which was in tern why I get so angry regarding ethics/morality. Areas with poor law enforcement knock off one of those pillars, leaving only self consciousness in play, and as I have seen, those people tend to be abusers and outlaws, which is why I do not trust self-made morality and why Christianity was favorable to me.
I said I was sorry for making the assumption, I just tend to get angry over those points of view. I should have acted with more civility.
Trying to grasp of something that is beyond the Universe simply isn't possible. I've tried it. It just ends up giving me a headache. I therefore came to the conclusion that God would have to be above and beyond His own creation; not limited to time, space, and nature. Since our existence is almost based on those things, anything beyond that we simply cannot comprehend unless the creator comes to us, which God has done through The Bible.
That's what you conclude? Seriously? I can't imagine something, therefore, God.
Well that's fine but just because you can't grasp it, it doesn't mean that other people can't, much less that everyone gets confused thinking about it, though given that there is no evidence to the existence of God and everything we come up with is based on assumptions and beliefs this is merely a Philosophical issue and based on our current knowledge a solid conclusion cannot be reached.
And before you say something about that, I am merely stating that the existence of God cannot be proven therefore his existence is uncertain since cannot be sure if he exists or not until more evidence is found.
And yeah, I got a bit angry, I wrote that other thing before and then I saw this and I just thought I would point out your hypocrisy, in any case there's no need to dwell on it, and I guess everything is fine.
That's fine but I assure that you are wrong about your theory of moral absolutism, most atheists I know make their own moral codes and don't need faith in order to know that some things are right and others wrong, and I've lived in places with poor law enforcement, I've seen people get killed and other awful things and I can assure a strong religious belief is pretty worthless when it comes to morality, I've met tons of awful people that were devoted Christians and I've met great people that believe in nothing (I've also met the contrary of what I just mentioned, I was just making a point).
While Christianity may fit you well I can assure you that everything comes down to the person and their own self-consciousness, religion does jack-shit for morality in the end, and for some people it's just better to drop all that pretence of having a God and/or law and just admit that everything is down to their own volition and what they decide to do in any given situation, in any case I find it hard to trust someone that needs the existence of a power beyond theirs in order to do the right thing, I get the feeling that if it were somehow disproved or betrayed they'd just become awful people, it's almost like they need to be kept in line by the threat of hell/purgatory or the hope of heaven, those kinds of people are the ones that can't be trusted after all their morality is completely based on fear (Of going to hell or not going to heaven).
And I've got news for you all morality is self-made, I've question different people that have similar (I've found that people of the exact same faith that go to the same church and even live in the same house hardly ever believe the same things) beliefs and they have completely different morals from each other, so if you distrust self-made morality you distrust everyone, sure that self-made morality can have a basis on their beliefs but everyone has different interpretations of the same things, so it's pointless to trust someone just because they have similar beliefs to yours as their interpretation of what that faith tells them is right or wrong is likely to be very different to yours.
@BlueShadiw
What is it, my friend?
:P
Lets say there is a moral dilemma of some sort: revenge.
Someone has royally pissed you off and you are thinking about revenge. There is an atheist and a religious individual.
The atheist will ask, "Is revenge right?" and the atheist must decide on his own conscious if it is so.
The religious individual will ask the same question, "Is revenge right?" and still will have to decide on his/her own moral conscious, but having a moral absolute and a religion will help guide the action. The follower will ask, "what does my religion say about revenge?" and it will influence their actions. It may not change it, but it will give them a light to follow. They still have a choice to not listen to their religion, but it is there nonetheless to guide.
I trust the Ten Commandments and Jesus' Teachings. There are denominations within Christianity.
Sorry for jumping in.
So, in the whole dilemma...
The Atheist must decide upon his own moral values created from modern day problems and issues that allow for a better understanding of the problem today.
The Religious person must decide upon someone else's moral values from thousands years ago when issues were different. They don't have to decide on that but feel bad afterwards if they don't follow their God's teachings.
I trust my own values.
Does it seriously not tick? God cannot be limited to the thing He Himself have created, else it would be impossible for Him to create it.
You can try to create a new color in your head. A brand new base color that doesn't exist... but you can't, because our experience with existence is limited to what was created by God. It's the same thing: God is beyond what our experience understands, so trying to comprehend all that God is isn't possible.
"Who created God?"
Well, who says He was created? Who are we to think that God, as mighty as He is, can be created? Could He be? Maybe. But since God is beyond our understanding of our current existence, we do not know what laws, if any, apply to God. The Universe is ran by laws and structure and order. We know because we discovered them, but what laws apply to God? I would safely assume that none apply to God, because as I said above, God is not limited to His own creation or it would be impossible for Him to create it.
Issues were different? Is divorce different? Looking at woman lustfully, people still do that now. Stealing. Lying. Jealousy. Murder. Hatred. All these things are issues still being dealt with today.
Yes but the way we handle them are different.
If you did half of those things in the Bible you got stoned to death like "Witchcraft". Do we brutally beat someone to death over something as stupid as admiring a woman? No. The thing is that many of these morals you get from the Bible are actually bad.
Before you get all angry, I said "Many" not all.
How are the decency of morals dependent on the punishment given to the ones who break the morality? No, we don't punish people for their morality anymore, but I would love to know how that equates the morals to bad.
And for the record, the Israelites did do some nasty things (whether or not they were done under God's command is a whole different and completely subjective story). I would say that the Israelites sucked... I mean, God revealed Himself to them numerous amounts of times, and they STILL wondered away from Him. People now day's wonder why God doesn't reveal himself to people; because it didn't work. It didn't work with the Israelites, nor will it work now.
The type of punishment is what the problem is...
A man looks as a woman and admires her. Today what does that get him...A divorce or restraining order at best. Back then they would tie him down in the town square, say he disgraced God, tell him he's going to hell, then kill him with rocks.
One of these sounds a little evil...I'm going to say the one that kills a man in the name of a God. God is another name for control over the people. I'm Agnostic, I don't know if there is a God or not, but if there is one thing i'm sure of is that no religion accurately portrays them. We don't murder someone (Which is morally wrong) or something they did, if it was wrong or not.
Can I ask you a simple question? Why do you believe in the Christian God? There are thousands upon thousands of gods from several different religions. Do you deny other peoples beliefs and believe your religion is the one and only true religion and has the one and only true god?