First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
Afterlife is pointless
16257 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 7/31/08 , edited 7/31/08

sorenku wrote:


Omok wrote:

Well, I think we or the first page that i read - i'm sorry if you think i should read through all 3 pages before answering; thats' too much of a hassle =_=;..... anyways----you guys all neglected one point; whats' the point in LIFE regardless even AFTER life?

What we have, we only have theories of after life, but while in the MOMENT--- this very moment-- we're living in LIFE. but if you're a person who have no religious belief, then whats' OUR point? ---- now this is all debatable, but there's REALLY no POINT in the first place; but what we CAN have is a BELIEF of a point. For some people, it could be religion, like wise---after life--- to live a good life is to have a good after life---- but we can have other beliefs, like our life is well, meaningless. Thats' a belief too. or likewise, that our point in life IS to find a point. ---- so on and so forth, it could be ANYTHING, but the very KEY word here is BELIEF --- it means no one KNOWS for sure.

I think if we have to argue that afterlife IS or IS NOT pointless, we'll have to FIRST look at life. Because we cannot answer that question; then what's the answer after wards? even more so, OUR belief of after life WILL BE based on what we know THIS life. ----- all we ever know, all we ever WILL know, is ALL in this world, in this life. like Jesus once said(not in exact words, I don't remember) 'if i use earthly words to tell you and teach you, and yet you don't understand; how will you understand my heavenly words?'--- what i'm telling you, is likewise, AFTERLIFE it don't necessarily have to be ANYTHING we know in THIS life. --- for all we know, it could just be a way of transportation, transporting us to another time, another place, or another 'planet'.

but keep in mind one thing

NO ONE have been EVER able to prove we're TRULY alive, or EXIST


Um, are you trying to change the topic? I believe there is already a thread about what life is. It is fully possible to discuss the afterlife without discussing life seeing as how they are two different things. They may be related, but they are not interconnected. And digs stole what I was gonna say... :(

If you can provide evidence that we don't exist, then you may have an argument.




A: No i"m not trying to change the topic. Its POSSIBLE to discuss the afterlife without knowing what life is. but CAN we really? I pointed out that what we know, what we see, how we see things are BASED on things we know in LIFE. My guess of after life is good as the next person's guess. Or anyone's guess. My point is, we've yet to solve the mysteries of life, and its merely stupid to try to find out the mystery of AFTER life, while ALL of our knoweldge or how ever we're going to think of it; are BASED on THIS LIFE. --- like wise, we cannot talk about how babies are born without talking about the MOTHER. (or the ...'cell process' which i most rather not go in detail about.... )

If you can provide evidence that we DO exist, then there could be an actual argument. What we feel, what we touch, can merely be someone's sheer imagination. or we can merely be what we call a 'book' a part of someones' story. We don't KNOW truly if we're like a computer that's PROGRAMMED to feel this way, programmed ALL part of 'somethings' plan. We don't know. you can say we control our own body, our own will; but do we REALLY? For example, like our theory of hero, we can see by our context over time, how back in 2000 years ago (greek) a hero is ALWAYS of royal heritage and ALWAYS had some glorious acomplishments, and ALWAYS have a sappy ending. -- as of now, our logic of hero is 'self hero', it's ourselves, no longer saving the world from monsters, but more so about ourselves and the connection we have with the out side world. our typical story hero always starts with some kid that no one knows about, then climb their way to the topic. no longer of royal heritage.


digs wrote:

Can't you verify your own existence? You know personally that you exist because you can feel, sense, and understand things. You are alive because you have a will, a mind, and are conscious of being alive.


further more, how CAN we verify our own existence? like what i pointed out above, those things that we feel, we sense, what and how we act upon things, it could merely be in someone's plan, we can be something someone created out of mere amusement. Like one of those games where you plan out things before hand, and when the monsters come, the player just sits there and WATCH the things they planned out to act out the way they're suppose to. -- while the 'things' do not know that someone is controlling them. -------- that player is what most of us would call 'God' (if you believe in God ~_~; but keep in mind, i'm not saying there's necessarily a god. or gods.)
Scientist Moderator
digs 
38052 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Online
Posted 7/31/08 , edited 7/31/08
Well, if something created us for amusement then you know you exist because you are a creation. Thoughts and ideas are inside of your mind, and you are saying them in your post. The fact that you have thoughts and ideas is proof that you exist. There really is no way to prove (from your point of view) that I exist, or that everything isn't a dream. But you can personally prove your existence. I do believe in God and I believe that He is the Creator. But I don't think we are for some sick amusement. We exist to worship, to love, to praise God. we have the choice not to though, God gave us our own wills.
1557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / SoCal
Offline
Posted 7/31/08
... So you are basically ignoring what we just said. That's cool... If you want to talk about life so badly, then do it in the right thread.

As for your arguments, you are giving nothing but paradoxes. For example, this talk about existence is not going to go anywhere. So I'm gonna save us the trouble of discussing it. We don't exist. Nothing exists. Nothing ever mattered and nothing every will. Because there is nothing. Actually, even nothing does not exist because there must be something for there to be nothing. And since something does not exist, nothing does not exist. So if nothing does not exist, what exists? There must be something if nothing does not exist. Do you get it, Omok? Would you like to continue? Please don't.
5211 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / You'll never guess!
Offline
Posted 7/31/08
I'm terribly sorry, but your argument is invalid because you completely forgot the concept of VALHALLA!!!!!!!!!!!! Beer, women, fighting, endless food... what moar do you want?!
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 7/31/08

Narc_7 wrote:


leviathan343 wrote:


sorenku wrote:

o_o An apology? Amazing! There is hope in the forums. :)

As for your question, homosexuality can be seen as a moral offense without the Bible. The way I see it, homosexuality is not natural in the sense that reproduction is impossible between the same sex. So you could say that it is morally wrong because it goes against nature? Bleh, maybe someone else could give a better explaination, but we should stay on topic.


Well, that entire argument hinges on the assumption that no one is born a homosexual. And right now, there's evidence to suggest homosexuality is derived from many factors. Genetics being one of them. Other studies suggest that human beings in general are not as much a dichotomy (sexually) as we like to believe.


Provided that the first homosexual randomly suffered a genetic mutations that altered is perception of what sex is supposed to be like.
Seems fatuous

I'm not discounting the genotype, but the phenotype has a lot to do with it.
Its essentially a lifestyle choice.



It's not as if homosexuals are an entirely different species. And I did say that genetics is suggested to be one of many facrtors. But I disagree with you on the "lifestyle choice".
658 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / In your imaginati...
Offline
Posted 7/31/08

leviathan343 wrote:


Narc_7 wrote:


leviathan343 wrote:


sorenku wrote:

o_o An apology? Amazing! There is hope in the forums. :)

As for your question, homosexuality can be seen as a moral offense without the Bible. The way I see it, homosexuality is not natural in the sense that reproduction is impossible between the same sex. So you could say that it is morally wrong because it goes against nature? Bleh, maybe someone else could give a better explaination, but we should stay on topic.


Well, that entire argument hinges on the assumption that no one is born a homosexual. And right now, there's evidence to suggest homosexuality is derived from many factors. Genetics being one of them. Other studies suggest that human beings in general are not as much a dichotomy (sexually) as we like to believe.


Provided that the first homosexual randomly suffered a genetic mutations that altered is perception of what sex is supposed to be like.
Seems fatuous

I'm not discounting the genotype, but the phenotype has a lot to do with it.
Its essentially a lifestyle choice.



It's not as if homosexuals are an entirely different species. And I did say that genetics is suggested to be one of many facrtors. But I disagree with you on the "lifestyle choice".


Everyone is entitled to his own view. However, genetics is not the only factor than influences and essentially determines ones sexuality. Its a number of factors working in harmony, and one of the most significant of those factors, if not the most significant is, ones personal choice, which stems from ones individual belief.
658 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / In your imaginati...
Offline
Posted 7/31/08

leviathan343 wrote:


Narc_7 wrote:


leviathan343 wrote:


sorenku wrote:

o_o An apology? Amazing! There is hope in the forums. :)

As for your question, homosexuality can be seen as a moral offense without the Bible. The way I see it, homosexuality is not natural in the sense that reproduction is impossible between the same sex. So you could say that it is morally wrong because it goes against nature? Bleh, maybe someone else could give a better explaination, but we should stay on topic.


Well, that entire argument hinges on the assumption that no one is born a homosexual. And right now, there's evidence to suggest homosexuality is derived from many factors. Genetics being one of them. Other studies suggest that human beings in general are not as much a dichotomy (sexually) as we like to believe.


Provided that the first homosexual randomly suffered a genetic mutations that altered is perception of what sex is supposed to be like.
Seems fatuous

I'm not discounting the genotype, but the phenotype has a lot to do with it.
Its essentially a lifestyle choice.



It's not as if homosexuals are an entirely different species. And I did say that genetics is suggested to be one of many facrtors. But I disagree with you on the "lifestyle choice".


"For the radicals, like the conservatives, homosexuality is definitely a choice. . . . They both react with disdain to those studies that seem to reflect a genetic source for homosexuality."

—Andrew Sullivan, "The Politics of Homosexuality," New Republic, May 10, 1993

-------Queer by choice dot com
757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 7/31/08 , edited 7/31/08
It is proven that genetics have something to do with homosexuality. However, genetics never become the deciding factor of homosexual. There might be some real geneticly homosexual, but I don't think all homosexual people that exist is really geneticly homosexual. I believe most of them choose to become one.

btw..... what is the connection of homosexual and afterlife? you are going to hell if you are homo? LOL
757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 7/31/08

zendude wrote:


tweety_cool wrote:

It is proven that genetics have something to do with homosexuality. However, genetics never become the deciding factor of homosexual. There might be some real geneticly homosexual, but I don't think all homosexual people that exist is really geneticly homosexual. I believe most of them choose to become one.

btw..... what is the connection of homosexual and afterlife? you are going to hell if you are homo? LOL


Wait, when did Homosexuality became a topic about the after-life. "LAWL"

You guys are getting too off-topic.

P.S. There are really buff people that are homos. Doesn't having a lot of testosterone make you want to reproduce with a woman more? If there is essential a gay gene, I think that it would be really rare. So most likely, the person is gay by choice, and being programmed by behavior and experiences (abusive father, too attached to the mother, etc.).


So who is to blame if they are "programed" by behavior and experiences? (wait, is it wrong in the first place? :D)
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 7/31/08 , edited 7/31/08

Narc_7 wrote:


leviathan343 wrote:


Narc_7 wrote:


leviathan343 wrote:


sorenku wrote:

o_o An apology? Amazing! There is hope in the forums. :)

As for your question, homosexuality can be seen as a moral offense without the Bible. The way I see it, homosexuality is not natural in the sense that reproduction is impossible between the same sex. So you could say that it is morally wrong because it goes against nature? Bleh, maybe someone else could give a better explaination, but we should stay on topic.


Well, that entire argument hinges on the assumption that no one is born a homosexual. And right now, there's evidence to suggest homosexuality is derived from many factors. Genetics being one of them. Other studies suggest that human beings in general are not as much a dichotomy (sexually) as we like to believe.


Provided that the first homosexual randomly suffered a genetic mutations that altered is perception of what sex is supposed to be like.
Seems fatuous

I'm not discounting the genotype, but the phenotype has a lot to do with it.
Its essentially a lifestyle choice.



It's not as if homosexuals are an entirely different species. And I did say that genetics is suggested to be one of many facrtors. But I disagree with you on the "lifestyle choice".


"For the radicals, like the conservatives, homosexuality is definitely a choice. . . . They both react with disdain to those studies that seem to reflect a genetic source for homosexuality."

—Andrew Sullivan, "The Politics of Homosexuality," New Republic, May 10, 1993

-------Queer by choice dot com


I see.


zendude wrote:

Wait, when did Homosexuality became a topic about the after-life. "LAWL"

You guys are getting too off-topic.

P.S. There are really buff people that are homos. Doesn't having a lot of testosterone make you want to reproduce with a woman more? If there is essential a gay gene, I think that it would be really rare. So most likely, the person is gay by choice, and being programmed by behavior and experiences (abusive father, too attached to the mother, etc.).


Apparently the growing acceptance of homosexuality in today's society is an indicator of its moral decay. To some people.
757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 7/31/08

zendude wrote:


tweety_cool wrote:


zendude wrote:


tweety_cool wrote:

It is proven that genetics have something to do with homosexuality. However, genetics never become the deciding factor of homosexual. There might be some real geneticly homosexual, but I don't think all homosexual people that exist is really geneticly homosexual. I believe most of them choose to become one.

btw..... what is the connection of homosexual and afterlife? you are going to hell if you are homo? LOL


Wait, when did Homosexuality became a topic about the after-life. "LAWL"

You guys are getting too off-topic.

P.S. There are really buff people that are homos. Doesn't having a lot of testosterone make you want to reproduce with a woman more? If there is essential a gay gene, I think that it would be really rare. So most likely, the person is gay by choice, and being programmed by behavior and experiences (abusive father, too attached to the mother, etc.).


So who is to blame if they are "programed" by behavior and experiences? (wait, is it wrong in the first place? :D)


Lets leave the realms of religion, philosophy, and morality aside for now.

This is my naturalist and libertarian stance on homosexuality:
Lets consider the cavemen. Somewhat they were program to seek out the opposite sex to reproduce. This is what is deemed natural in the eyes of evolution and society, for it is a species job to reproduce. This idea has been adapted to our mind because of the precedent that was left by us by nature. Now that we are conscience, we question our motives and try something else, i.e. homosexual intentions, abortion, sex with animals, not to mention crapping on someone's chest, etc. In a sense, we have some sort of freewill. In a sense, religious people are just going by with what nature left, and the people of the other side is saying that we are somewhat above nature (civilization) and we can do whatever we want. This questions what is really moral and immoral. Do we do as nature intended or practice our some sort of freewill? Do we define things (freewill), or is there some sort of objective truth that has been left by nature, or maybe a compromise?


dude, that's still philosophy

btw practical point of view : we need to reduce population, homosexuality? HMM......
658 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / In your imaginati...
Offline
Posted 7/31/08
Dude, no one can provide an absolute answer to those questions as the answers are reflections of our internal beliefs, essentially it all comes down to an individualistic basis.
658 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / In your imaginati...
Offline
Posted 7/31/08
"Is that 'exactly' to me or tweety"-Zendude

Both.
757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 7/31/08

Narc_7 wrote:

"Is that 'exactly' to me or tweety"-Zendude

Both.


what THE?????

@zendude : hmm... yeah, I get it (thought about it... long.... long.... long.... ago.....).
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.