That will be because you didn't - just having a little fun stitching two of your statements together with a 'so'. The point being it is arrogant to assume that one's life has purpose. Life can be fun, one can strive to further knowledge and understanding etc - as such one can get to the point of 'feeling' that one has contributed and label that 'purpose'. But that is a retrospective attribution - not an inherent property of life.Originally Posted by John Revolting
I am tending to agree with your sentiment.
All of this arose out of me stating I was agnostic. I am now starting to question my 'agnosticism'. I don't think I'm anything anymore - Just file me under 'miscellaneous'.
Now that the familiar 'atheisms' are appearing I think the discussion may have run it's course.
post deleted
Last edited by John Revolting; 10th October 2010 at 07:29 PM. Reason: no point
I never said life had to have a purpose.
People here are addressing me as if I am a 'believer' or a christian. I have already stated several times, I am neither of those things. In view of my publically aired loathing for organised religion, David Icke and conspiracy theorists on this very forum, I am starting to wonder what the problem is. Maybe I'm just not militant enough.
Not at all, you can glean from my previous posts that I am anything but militant - just like to stir things since it tends to stimulate discussion. Sorry if I got bothersome.
That's a relief.
I wasn't saying anyone else was militant by the way.
Hey John! Don't take it personally! A thick skin is useful around here. You'll find posts are picked apart and dissected, sometimes forcefully. No offence is intended. The idea is to be open to ideas, to clarify, and to be open to modifying your thoughts.
It's OK.Hey John! Don't take it personally! A thick skin is useful around here. You'll find posts are picked apart and dissected, sometimes forcefully. No offence is intended. The idea is to be open to ideas, to clarify, and to be open to modifying your thoughts.
I always base my beliefs on what I can or cannot prove. Certain arguments don't go anywhere - they are static. In such cases, I simply say 'I don't know' and move on.
There are issues which are indeed resolved. Organised religion will always be a hypocritical concept, the Loch Ness Monster does not exist & David Icke is a deluded man who creates peculiar fantasies in his own mind.
That is at the core of what I am saying.
Other issues are not so easy to attack in a confident way. This is largely because they have not been scientifically resolved or remain theoretical or philosophical debates. The reason I skate around such issues, is because the resulting debates are so exhausting and very little is proven or disproven. At the end of it all, you are left with a couple of good quotes and 30 pages/4 hours of rantinng. It is tiring, frustrating and induces headaches. I have seen friendships destroyed over these topics.
I just wish sometimes that forums were not strictly about 'winning'. It would be nice to see at least certain cases where people feel comfortable to back down. That is all I do. I surrender and freely admit that I am not qualified to resolve certain issues. I have no more belief in god than anyone else here. Certain areas of human consciousness are another matter.
When I am candid about my feelings towards issues such as death, all I am doing is discussing an emotional reaction to a very serious subject. I find the notion of my life ending to be a heavy topic. I think you will find a host of people on death row who feel very similar. There is nothing abnormal in that. It doesn't mean I believe in the grim-reaper or heaven & hell. In fact the prospect of finality of death is what daunts me most and that would suggest an atheistic perspective rather than a belief based on faith. It has nothing to do with ego, false realities or anything else. It just means that the prospect of not being able to go out for a pint anymore, or watch 'The Evil Dead' is a bit of a bummer.
I don't know whether any of this is making sense but that's my view on the matter.
Isn't there a bit of a gap in that reasoning?
How do you know what your abilities would have been in different circumstances?
How could you know the mind of someone who was exposed to all kinds of religious stuff but who never developed belief?
For all you know, they could have been acutely observing belief and the analysing the failings of various arguments underlying it from the outside, though possibly often from only just outside the boundary of belief.
Comparing yourself against *some* people in another group (presumably the least-good fraction of the group) and finding yourself superior may only be of limited use, even if it does feel nice.
Just for the record - I don't see myself as superior to anyone. In the quote you have chosen to use against me, I am merely stating that a person who has lived smack bang in the middle of a religious cult is far more likely to spot behaviour patterns and warning signs than someone who has merely read about it. The 'nice feeling' is the sense that you will never again be manipulated by the organised religion in question.
It may have escaped your attention, but the person I was replying to was indoctrinated into a religious cult at one point. He was attempting to wrestle with the realisation that the cult in question had manipulated his actions until his thirties. He was concerned that an awful lot of his years had been wasted supporting a corrupt organisation. As I have been victimised by such an organisation I was attempting to convey the positive aspects of the scenario and give some words of comfort.
I am now officially fed up with being misunderstood.
People are merely looking for arguments out of boredom.
I have better things to do with my time.
Done here.
Last edited by John Revolting; 11th October 2010 at 10:05 PM.
Says the guy who's not claiming to be any kind of expert on other people's minds.
No doubt that's all my fault for daring to ask questions of someone on a Skeptics' site.
You say you think that Family Guy is better than the Simpsons? You're mad!
Don't go, me'n'Polomint like you.
Don't be so sensitive, the issue is not boredom, rather exploring the detail of your proposals. Just a weird form of relaxation in the end of the day.
Then why are you so defensive and over sensitive?
No one is attacking you. Really!
Just kicking around ideas with a view to getting nearer to the truth....
Typical.
Someone has to try to start a fight.
Hmph!
Next you'll be saying that Cash in the Attic is better than Flog It.....
Cash in the Attic is better than Flog It.
(I've never watched them)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks