Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10
31
General Religious Discussion / Re: Don't make me go!
« Last post by wheels5894 on Today at 12:14:32 PM »
I can't wait to know who did start Buddhism. I wonder, might it have been.... the Buddha, perhaps?

Come on, Skep, tell us who it was and break the suspense you have created!
32
General Religious Discussion / Re: Don't make me go!
« Last post by Hamsaka on Today at 12:03:07 PM »
Alrighty then, there is an afterlife, and since you've been so good, you get to go!

But what if heaven doesn't appeal? I bet you could find at least someone on this earth who would rather not go to heaven. Why? Who knows, that could be another topic. But the question remains...

...Do you have to go to heaven? Or can you opt out and just go the nothingness instead?

Why would anyone in their right mind ever choose not to go? Imagine the best day of your life, or your favorite thing to do. That feeling you get is multiplied by infinite! Imagine feeling that non-stop for all eternity. It's gonna be extraordinary.

The only people I ever see who don't want Heaven are the devil worshippers of this world.

That sounds like a baggie of X and a few of your closest friends. 

Can you imagine being deliriously happy . . . non-stop for all eternity? 

I am a fan of the Buddhist "heaven".  They don't really have one, but Nirvana ('the extinguishing') is their carrot/reward for all the hard work.  Apparently, you do not need to wait until after you've suffered your physical death and all that entails (family grief included) to be extinguished.  What gets extinguished?  Dukkha, an ancient dialect of Sanskrit word for when the center bore of the wheel gets gunked up around the axle and makes the wheel lock or roll poorly.  In other words, suffering, stress, discomfort of any kind, from cancer pain down to waking up on the wrong side of the bed.  Just feeling pissy, for no reason, or vaguely discomfited. 

I think simply being free of every kind of discomfort; physical, mental or emotional (hell, I'll throw in spiritual).  That sounds . . . reasonable.  It doesn't even sound happy. 

The only way this would work is if we got to have a say in what our Heaven would be like.  Spending time in Skep's heaven sounds great, but then I'd need to go get extinguished.  Visiting each other's Heavens would cause us all to get to know one another in surprising ways, but would some people meld their Heavens together and want ours, too?  It could all start over again.  If your dukkha is just extinguished . . . no chance of it.

Do you know who most likely invented Buddhism and started spreading it (based on my beliefs?)

The people on this forum who have known me long enough will know my answer. I am curious if you can figure it out.

I wouldn't want to presume, your actual answer will be SO much better entertainment .  Often you don't get things 'right' but you never fail to get it 'interesting' :)
33
General Religious Discussion / Re: The Princess Alice Experiment
« Last post by Asmoday on Today at 11:41:58 AM »
This is just further proof of Christianity that children are born drenched in sin. It's not surprising to us Christians, but I bet the atheists are dumbfounded.
Not dumbfounded at all. Humans are social animals but social rules and conventions are learned and not part of the genetic code.

On the other hand, your declaration here is certainly a perfect example of why religious thinking is the poison of this earth. And if you should be dumbfounded by that, just read your own post and think about it.
34
General Religious Discussion / Re: The Princess Alice Experiment
« Last post by wheels5894 on Today at 11:36:29 AM »

This is just further proof of Christianity that children are born drenched in sin. It's not surprising to us Christians, but I bet the atheists are dumbfounded.

Not really, Skeptic. Rather it shows that the are vulnerable to believe in invisible beings and alter their behaviour while 'being watched'. What the children in the experiment did was not evil - so far I have heard evil described, or even sinful - they just did the job the easiest was when they thought no one was watching.

What it does show is that children as liable to accept invisible beings as real and that explains why churches want to run schools for young children as they are easier to convert that older children and adults who can think things through. It means that young children should be protected from claims of invisible beings until such time that such claims can be evaluated by them in an adult manner though I can imagine religions would be happy with that!
35
General Religious Discussion / Re: The Princess Alice Experiment
« Last post by skeptic54768 on Today at 11:24:45 AM »
I stumbled across this Princess Alice Experiment after watching a Michael Shermer lecture.  It shows how vulnerable we are as children, and how this can shape us into adulthood.  Are you guys all familiar with it?  68 kids around age 6 are given three Velcro balls and told that the one that hits closest to the bulls-eye on the dartboard will win a special prize.  The kids had to throw the balls with their non-dominant hand, over their shoulder without looking, 6 feet away from the dartboard.  In one test study, the kids aren't supervised.  In another, the kids are shown an empty chair and told Princess Alice is sitting there - she's a friendly, magical, invisible princess, and she's watching your every move.

As you would suspect, there was way more cheating in the room with no supervision and no Princess Alice.  In the room with Princess Alice, kids were following the rules - interestingly though, there were a couple that were skeptical, and running their hands over the chair - even trying to talk with her.

I thought it was a really neat experiment, even if it shows what we already know - people will create magical beings in order to get people to behave better.  We're so vulnerable it's incredible - again something we already know based on how people fall into cults like Children of God, etc.

This is just further proof of Christianity that children are born drenched in sin. It's not surprising to us Christians, but I bet the atheists are dumbfounded.
36
Debate Room / Re: Macroevolution commentary
« Last post by wheels5894 on Today at 11:21:52 AM »
^^^ Hell, BS wouldn't work if it weren't true.

But I'm starting to think he may be gone. He hasn't even checked in (at least under his name) since his last post in mid June.

Clearly the challenge was too tough - or his is on holiday, I suppose.
37
Religion In The News / Re: This Is More Than About Gay Marriage
« Last post by Chronos on Today at 11:16:50 AM »
Did someone actually say that "public officials are ministers of god"? Did Alabama suddenly turn into Iran when nobody was watching?


Weren't they always?

38
Debate Room / Re: Macroevolution commentary
« Last post by ParkingPlaces on Today at 11:15:32 AM »
^^^ Hell, BS wouldn't work if it weren't true.

But I'm starting to think he may be gone. He hasn't even checked in (at least under his name) since his last post in mid June.

39
Debate Room / Re: Macroevolution commentary
« Last post by nogodsforme on Today at 11:00:01 AM »
Even a strange find in the rock strata would not disprove evolution. The DNA is enough, without a single fossil. Hell, a flu shot is enough. If the TOE was false, flu shots would not work.
40
It's not denial.  It is matter of reliability.  If those numbers are real, anyone who repeats the test or survey should find numbers in the same ballpark.  Go ahead.  Find them.  Only this time, look for less biased sources.  Like, the CDC.  Or the Kinsey institute.  Reality is inescapable.  Kinsey has no dog in the fight.  But your sources most certainly do.  So, who is more likely to fudge the numbers?

The Religious Right is the only one claiming that there is a Gay Agenda -- their own.

But that doesn't stop people who don't like the "gay nasty" agreeing with whatever source that suits that agenda.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10