The philosophy thread

[GrowUrOwnDank]

Religion could be argued all day. I choose not to. Our lives are kind of short anyway. I accept that people may use their time to believe whatever they want as long as it's peaceful. Much of life is really an illusion. I honestly don't care how others believe. It's a personal experience not an emotional experience. Perhaps when I pray I speak to my own self conscience. Whatever works? If others don't wanna believe I'm cool with it. It's about the peace and love and kindness to all. Respect. People are selfish by nature. I don't need a lot. I live a very humble lifestyle actually. Prayer just helps to comfort. Really. That's it. I like believing in God. Else self is God and I know I am not perfect at all.

 

[Darth Vapour]

Our world is not perfect and never will be, so why not get used to it, because that's the way it is. Religion never has, nor ever will, solve anything. Only we can do that. As for religion, its just make-believe, a heart warming myth to pacify and control the masses who otherwise would not be quite so happy to accept their miserable lot, or their eventual demise. However, we would all be better off without it because no matter how unpalatable the truth may be, its better than living a lie.

 

[GrowUrOwnDank]

I think I can be better tho. And me is the only thing I have some amount of control over. Believe how you wanna believe. I honestly don't care. I really think people should not wear their religion on there sleeve or lack there of. Peace and love.

 

[New Age United]

Our world is not perfect and never will be, so why not get used to it, because that's the way it is. Religion never has, nor ever will, solve anything. Only we can do that. As for religion, its just make-believe, a heart warming myth to pacify and control the masses who otherwise would not be quite so happy to accept their miserable lot, or their eventual demise. However, we would all be better off without it because no matter how unpalatable the truth may be, its better than living a lie.

I find truth and wisdom in the words of the prophets Siddhartha, Jesus and Muhammad but as you say scripture can be interpreted in many ways, but I still hold their word as absolute truth, because it seems so obvious to me. Unfortunately the Scriptures were all perverted by the words of other men that had their own self interests at heart, the salesman who preys on the fear and desire of the masses.

Just so you know I don't believe Jesus ever refers to the kingdom of heaven as the after life.

 

[Darth Vapour]

why would you hold there word as truth ??? i mean when you really break it down

 

[New Age United]

why would you hold there word as truth ??? i mean when you really break it down

Find me any scripture from the four gospels where jesus presents the idea of eternal damnation and I will see if I can give you my perspective on his words. Find me any quote from Siddhartha referring to Atman, Jesus referring to God or Muhammad referring to Allah as any of the things he states and I will give you my opinion.

Whoever goes against Allah and his apostle shall be crucified or murdered or they shall have their foot and hand cut off at opposing sides, this shall be a chastisement in this life and the next- Muhammad

What you have to understand is that Muhammad is facing heavy opposition, he is trying to instill fear in any Muslim who may turn and plot against him. Like the video said they were dealing with barbarians that's a good point, but even today I receive violent opposition to my own word, I think many people can agree.

"When one attains the height of heights, when they try to help others do the same, they often find themselves the subject of ridicule, even violence" Plato

 

[Darth Vapour]

Traditionally, the most prominent view regarding eternal damnation is that the people cast into hell—the lake of fire—will suffer fiery conscious torments forever and ever. Depicting the horrors of this belief was a favorite subject amongst artists in medieval times, resulting in all manner of imaginative and ghastly portraits of people suffering unending agony. Some have since tried to modify this position a bit, suggesting a more metaphorical view, that the unending pain experienced probably refers to the mental anguish of eternal loss and “separation from God;” but it makes no significant difference as both views involve the notion of eternal torment.

Didn’t Jesus preach that those who reject the gospel and refuse to repent will suffer never-ending torment in hell? Many ministers adamantly insist on this, but what did Jesus say as recorded in the bible itself? By all means, let’s examine what Jesus himself taught on the issue starting with a statement we’ve already looked at:

MATTHEW 7:13-14:

“ ‘Enter through the narrow gate. For wide and broad is the road that leads todestruction and many enter through it, but small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.’ ”

Seriously, how much clearer could Jesus possibly be here? Destruction is the fate that awaits the “many” that are thrown into the lake of fire, not perpetual undying torture in flames of torment. And please notice, again, that this is in contrast to life that will be granted to the “few.”

Jesus repeatedly made this very clear. For example, consider his simple statement, “Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3, 5 NASB). This mirrors Jesus’ statement in John 3:16regarding the fact that those who believe in him “… shall not perish, but have eternal life.” “Perish” in both these texts is not referring to the death we all must face at the end of this present earthly life. No, Jesus is obviously referring here to a perishing that those who believe in him will not have to suffer—the second death, which takes place on the day of judgment when the damned are cast into the lake of fire. Revelation 20:11-15 verifies this; verses 14 b and 15 of this passage state: “The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, He was thrown into the lake of fire.”

In Matthew 10:28 Jesus solemnly declaredwhat would happen to people when they experience this “second death:”

MATTHEW 10:28

“Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One(God) who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” 4

Notice that Jesus is telling us explicitly what God will do to unrepentant sinful people on the day of judgment: He will destroy both soul and body in the lake of fire, his chosen instrument of destruction.

Jesus is dealing specifically here with the subject of the second death and yet He says absolutely nothing about spending eternity in undying conscious torment. If this were true Jesus would tell us to “fear the One who is able to preserve the soul in hell.” But this is not what Jesus taught. He didn’t teach it because it is not a biblical doctrine. Religion may very well teach it, but the bible does not. God is going to unenthusiastically issue out the wages of sin and justly destroy the unrighteous, not sadistically torture them forever. Scripture clearly states:

 

[New Age United]

Traditionally, the most prominent view regarding eternal damnation is that the people cast into hell—the lake of fire—will suffer fiery conscious torments forever and ever. Depicting the horrors of this belief was a favorite subject amongst artists in medieval times, resulting in all manner of imaginative and ghastly portraits of people suffering unending agony. Some have since tried to modify this position a bit, suggesting a more metaphorical view, that the unending pain experienced probably refers to the mental anguish of eternal loss and “separation from God;” but it makes no significant difference as both views involve the notion of eternal torment.

Didn’t Jesus preach that those who reject the gospel and refuse to repent will suffer never-ending torment in hell? Many ministers adamantly insist on this, but what did Jesus say as recorded in the bible itself? By all means, let’s examine what Jesus himself taught on the issue starting with a statement we’ve already looked at:

MATTHEW 7:13-14:

“ ‘Enter through the narrow gate. For wide and broad is the road that leads todestruction and many enter through it, but small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.’ ”

Seriously, how much clearer could Jesus possibly be here? Destruction is the fate that awaits the “many” that are thrown into the lake of fire, not perpetual undying torture in flames of torment. And please notice, again, that this is in contrast to life that will be granted to the “few.”

Jesus repeatedly made this very clear. For example, consider his simple statement, “Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3, 5 NASB). This mirrors Jesus’ statement in John 3:16regarding the fact that those who believe in him “… shall not perish, but have eternal life.” “Perish” in both these texts is not referring to the death we all must face at the end of this present earthly life. No, Jesus is obviously referring here to a perishing that those who believe in him will not have to suffer—the second death, which takes place on the day of judgment when the damned are cast into the lake of fire. Revelation 20:11-15 verifies this; verses 14 b and 15 of this passage state: “The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, He was thrown into the lake of fire.”

In Matthew 10:28 Jesus solemnly declaredwhat would happen to people when they experience this “second death:”

MATTHEW 10:28

“Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One(God) who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” 4

Notice that Jesus is telling us explicitly what God will do to unrepentant sinful people on the day of judgment: He will destroy both soul and body in the lake of fire, his chosen instrument of destruction.

Jesus is dealing specifically here with the subject of the second death and yet He says absolutely nothing about spending eternity in undying conscious torment. If this were true Jesus would tell us to “fear the One who is able to preserve the soul in hell.” But this is not what Jesus taught. He didn’t teach it because it is not a biblical doctrine. Religion may very well teach it, but the bible does not. God is going to unenthusiastically issue out the wages of sin and justly destroy the unrighteous, not sadistically torture them forever. Scripture clearly states:

Very good quote at the first, I have an opinion on that. Can someone please tell me how to multi QUOTE so I can break it up and reply accordingly.

Shit I'm on a cell phone that can't copy and paste is that all you do is copy the first quote and type in the end quote. I'll try to reply to this post tonight when I'm on my computer.

 

[Darth Vapour]

with all philosophy aside can anyone tell me what this thing is ??

 

[hellmutt bones]

So I've met a lot of very intelligent people on here and I know we all like to debate so this thread is for anyone who just wants to debate, any topic, no subject is off limits. Put your thoughts out there and see if we can't get something going in the philosophy thread. Absolutely any subject.

Working is for suckers

 

[New Age United]

with all philosophy aside can anyone tell me what this thing is ??View attachment 3519726

Jesus Christ you're gonna give people nightmares, tell me you didn't find that in a north American lake.

 

[reddan1981]

Yes for the individual it is the interpretation of electrical signals but therefore is there not a reality beyond the individual, if your last statement is true then aren't electric signals real and therefore constituting an objective reality beyond what the individual may subjectively experience, an ultimate reality.

Does the universe exist outside and independent of the human consciousness?

Ok I will attempt to answer what I think your question is asking. Think of your most cherished memory, perhaps you can remember a smell or a feeling. One of my earliest memories is laying on an old Red Indian patterned rug with my dad changing my nappy. I remember being blinded by the strong sunlight, that had found its way through an opening in our closed curtains. I remember being fascinated with the light, I was blowing raspberries and watching the spit disperse and illuminate parts of the ray I couldn't see. My memory is real in the sense that I remember it, but where is that memory stored? In photons stored in our brains? Not likely. Is my memory real in the scientific, physical interpretation of the word real? The answer will change when the condition of the question is elaborated. This might not make sense but bare with me. Real, consciousness, awareness and reality are misleading words that lull us to a security of thought; what we can touch, view or feel is real and the collective aspirations of social reality and our adherence to it, a gauge of our sanity.
But all that we can see touch or experience is not all that IS. Our senses are our containment to understanding the primordial truth, our truth above all truths in that; our essence is omniscient and without physical form. Our minds and perceived 'self' are an illusory projection.

 

[reddan1981]

What if... the intelligence that drives observable matter to form, IS our essence (our sense of self). Our body's, the containment of our essence from the unobserved world?

 

[New Age United]

What if... the intelligence that drives observable matter to form, IS our essence (our sense of self). Our body's, the containment of our essence from the unobserved world?

Yes this a belief I hold myself but I have never put it into words so perfectly before. The only thing I don't agree with is that our essence and our sense of self are the same, like you said our perceived self, the ego is illusory, unless you do mean our bare essence as awareness, the witness, the I amness and that is what you mean by sense of self.

 

[reddan1981]

Yes this a belief I hold myself but I have never put it into words so perfectly before. The only thing I don't agree with is that our essence and our sense of self are the same, like you said our perceived self, the ego is illusory, unless you do mean our bare essence as awareness, the witness, the I amness and that is what you mean by sense of self.

Our essence is all knowing already, it made us (in the physical sense) and brought matter to the observable world. Our sense of 'self' is the collective communication between our senses and is NOT what we are, if that makes sense?

 

[New Age United]

Our essence is all knowing already, it made us (in the physical sense) and brought matter to the observable world. Our sense of 'self' is the collective communication between our senses and is NOT what we are, if that makes sense?

Makes perfect sense, thank you for putting it so eloquently, hope you don't mind but I may have to quote you in the future.

 

[Heisenberg]

"Consciousness is simply the real time processing of sensory input and internal communication and monitoring. Our experience of reality is demonstrably constructed by the brain. When you alter the underlying brain function, you alter that construction. People can be made to feel as if they do not control their own limbs, or that they have extra limbs, or that sound has a color, that parts of the world do not exist, that their spouse has been replaced by an imposter, or that they are one with the universe. We can do all this by poking around in the brain." -Steven Novella

 

[reddan1981]

With honesty in your heart, anyone that reads this please ask yourself, where did your worldview come from? When you envisage your position in this universe you will probably view your self standing on a spinning ball spiraling through an expanding vacuum called space. The greater ambition of your destiny, to populate the universe through space travel.
What if I told you that this position was given to you through an organised deception, carried out by those you hold to be worthy of complete trust. This deception is that gross that a condition in man will not allow himself to break free of it.
We - live - on - a - flat - earth. We are born into a system of control. We are conditioned to accept hierarchical order. In this hierarchical system those at the top, have always been at the top. They have designed a system that keeps us in servitude to the system. This system of esoteric control, uses images and shapes which have an observed affect on our psychology. I could attempt to disprove everything that you hold true but will you let go of that which you don't need?
Go to a river a lake a sea, wait for a clear day, watch the clouds. Are they moving together? Do they move independently? Considering they are water VAPOUR being held in relative AIR why does the spin of the earth not disrupt their movement? Why do they move on their own current of air, if air is supposed to be held relative? You can Google obviously but what does your heart say? Listen to your heart and it will whisper Copernicus, the founder of the heliocentric (note helio) world view, was an mystery school initiate and merely a pawn used for passing on this new control system of information. Prove me wrong by all means but question the origin of the proof you use, with the full capacity of your criticisms. I believe you will find the truth.

 

[Heisenberg]

When trying to establish objective facts, it's not a very good sign that you have to caution those who would doubt to "listen to your heart." People's hearts lead them astray everyday. You also seem to be setting up a canard similar to creationists when they assume that if they can poke a hole in evolution, then their pet theory must be the only alternative. It's not enough to point out an apparent anomaly in observation. You first have to examine it an verify that it is a true anomaly that no one can explain. Do we expect the rotation of the Earth to affect cloud movement? If so, is observing cloud movement from the ground an accurate way to measure that effect? I'm not convinced that a human's inability to observe what they assume to be proper cloud movement is sufficient to establish any sort of anomalous phenomenon. Even so, it still wouldn't necessarily stand that that this anomaly can only be explained by a flat-earth hypothesis.

It's easy to try to get people to shoot holes in your claim and then come up with ad hoc excuses of why it doesn't count. Did I mention I have a dragon in my garage? It becomes especially easy when you are willing to play the conspiracy card. What you should be doing is figuring out a way to test your hypothesis. A test that will allow reality to be the judge. A test that attempts to disprove the hypothesis. If it survives that attempt, that's a good sign. The explanation that the Earth is a spheroid has survived many such attempts at falsification. Further, the theory has been utilized in the real world as a means of gaining control over nature. If the theory was not highly accurate then we would be in a lot of trouble anytime we try to launch a satellite, as the calculations used are based on it. Even if we don't understand those calculations ourselves, we can witness with our own eyes the satellites passing overhead nightly. If you value parsimony, which has proven its worth in helping us reach accurate answers, then the flat-earth hypothesis has a lot of catching up to do.

 

[reddan1981]

When trying to establish objective facts, it's not a very good sign that you have to caution those who would doubt to "listen to your heart." People's hearts lead them astray everyday. You also seem to be setting up a canard similar to creationists when they assume that if they can poke a hole in evolution, then their pet theory must be the only alternative. It's not enough to point out an apparent anomaly in observation. You first have to examine it an verify that it is a true anomaly that no one can explain. Do we expect the rotation of the Earth to affect cloud movement? If so, is observing cloud movement from the ground an accurate way to measure that effect? I'm not convinced that a human's inability to observe what they assume to be proper cloud movement is sufficient to establish any sort of anomalous phenomenon. Even so, it still wouldn't necessarily stand that that this anomaly can only be explained by a flat-earth hypothesis.

It's easy to try to get people to shoot holes in your claim and then come up with ad hoc excuses of why it doesn't count. Did I mention I have a dragon in my garage? It becomes especially easy when you are willing to play the conspiracy card. What you should be doing is figuring out a way to test your hypothesis. A test that will allow reality to be the judge. A test that attempts to disprove the hypothesis. If it survives that attempt, that's a good sign. The explanation that the Earth is a spheroid has survived many such attempts at falsification. Further, the theory has been utilized in the real world as a means of gaining control over nature. If the theory was not highly accurate then we would be in a lot of trouble anytime we try to launch a satellite, as the calculations used are based on it. Even if we don't understand those calculations ourselves, we can witness with our own eyes the satellites passing overhead nightly. If you value parsimony, which has proven its worth in helping us reach accurate answers, then the flat-earth hypothesis has a lot of catching up to do.

I am not aiming to publish my theory brother, I am communicating my thoughts for discussion, unformatted on a weed forum. For your sceptical assertion;
Ayres failure
Sagnac experiment
Michelson- Morley experiment
Zig zag argument
Bedford canal level test.
I also asked that you use your own critical thinking when countering.