When Christians use Science to prove Atheist wrong.

[Bodhi]

Maybe you should explain why you think that removing god from the equation wouldn't have any effect on society. Avoiding that is not a good look.

You stated that removing theism doesn't make anything better or worse.. then you proceed to claim that removing theism would make things worse, which contradicts what you said a sentence or two earlier. But had you not contradicted yourself with that second claim, you still would have contradicted your entire argument by stating that removing theism doesn't have any effect on our lives. When you say that, you infer that theism has no effect on us at all, which really means that belief in god has no effect on us at all, which really means that god has no effect on us at all, which really means that god doesn't exist.

 

[alissowack]

Someone may perceive "what is" to be whatever they want it to be and use "what is" as a front for their own selfishness.

No, by understanding "what is", you would be able to acknowledge whether or not you are or would be causing suffering in a situation. A murderer would be acting on "what is not". The universe does not follow your rules; it is delusion to think any different. WHAT IS, cannot always be whatever you would like it to be. That is WHAT IS NOT. Selfishness boils down to WHAT IS NOT; selfishness is delusion.

But, a gun can be a weapon to kill someone and it wouldn't be foolish to say what it wasn't used for if it was used for that purpose. Who is to ultimately determine the purpose of the gun? And like the world doesn't follow my rules, it doesn't follow yours as well...and if that is "what is" then there is no reason to think that people should follow rules especially if man supposedly made the rules.

 

[Bodhi]

But, a gun can be a weapon to kill someone and it wouldn't be foolish to say what it wasn't used for if it was used for that purpose. Who is to ultimately determine the purpose of the gun? And like the world doesn't follow my rules, it doesn't follow yours as well...and if that is "what is" then there is no reason to think that people should follow rules especially if man supposedly made the rules.

1. A pencil can be used to kill someone but WHAT IS prevents us from doing so. The user determines the purpose. That doesn't take away from any part of my argument. I don't see where you're going with this. Killing is delusion. It is WHAT IS NOT. This is not a rule, but a truth.

2. WHAT IS is not my own personal rules or anyone else's. It is viewing the universe for what it truly is. There is not a set number of rules we are expected to follow, but to prevent suffering, there is a view that exists. When you are not viewing the world for what it is, you are not breaking any rules but it is wrong view.

It's like closing your eyes while walking. You're not breaking a rule, but closing your eyes prevents you from seeing what's in front of you. If you trip and fall, you suffer, or you may walk into someone else and cause them to suffer. The right thing to do would have been to open your eyes while you were walking but again, it is not a rule that anyone has to follow.

 

[alissowack]

But, a gun can be a weapon to kill someone and it wouldn't be foolish to say what it wasn't used for if it was used for that purpose. Who is to ultimately determine the purpose of the gun? And like the world doesn't follow my rules, it doesn't follow yours as well...and if that is "what is" then there is no reason to think that people should follow rules especially if man supposedly made the rules.

1. A pencil can be used to kill someone but WHAT IS prevents us from doing so. The user determines the purpose. That doesn't take away from any part of my argument. I don't see where you're going with this. Killing is delusion. It is WHAT IS NOT. This is not a rule, but a truth.

2. WHAT IS is not my own personal rules or anyone else's. It is viewing the universe for what it truly is. There is not a set number of rules we are expected to follow, but to prevent suffering, there is a view that exists. When you are not viewing the world for what it is, you are not breaking any rules.

You think killing is a delusion? The killing of Trayvon Martin was not a delusion and his family don't think so and Zimmerman can't say that not what he did to him. Killings happen virtually anywhere and would be foolish to say "what is not" in this case. And if you still insist that it still is a delusion, then what is being done to stop these "delusions" from happening?

What reason does somebody have to view the world for what it truly is...when there are also reasons to view the world for what it truly isn't? For murderers, killing is their reality and if they can get away with it, they will.

 

[Bodhi]

read my post again, I edited it, and said:

It's like closing your eyes while walking. You're not breaking a rule, but closing your eyes prevents you from seeing what's in front of you. If you trip and fall, you suffer, or you may walk into someone else and cause them to suffer. The right thing to do would have been to open your eyes while you were walking but again, it is not a rule that anyone has to follow

Anyway, people find ways to justify murder and murder is not rare but that doesnt change the truth. You think killing is not acting on delusion? Causation of suffering is at the root, delusional thinking.

Zimmerman acted on what is not. This is obvious if you have been following the case. Delusional thinking. What has to be done to cease delusion is right view. This is completely up to the people and does not leave it in the hands of some supernatural entity.

 

[alissowack]

read my post again, I edited it, and said:

It's like closing your eyes while walking. You're not breaking a rule, but closing your eyes prevents you from seeing what's in front of you. If you trip and fall, you suffer, or you may walk into someone else and cause them to suffer. The right thing to do would have been to open your eyes while you were walking but again, it is not a rule that anyone has to follow

Anyway, people find ways to justify murder and murder is not rare but that doesnt change the truth. You think killing is not acting on delusion? Causation of suffering is at the root, delusional thinking.

Zimmerman acted on what is not. This is obvious if you have been following the case. Delusional thinking. What has to be done to cease delusion is right view. This is completely up to the people and does not leave it in the hands of some supernatural entity.

My response to the previous post was not on the reason for killing, but for the act of killing. You said "Killing is a delusion", which leaves room to assume you think killings don't happen or don't exist. So, I use the Trayvon Martin case to enforce that point. Now, it's possible for the cause of killing to be a delusion, but to think that killing someone is always as a result of a delusion would be to deceive ourselves. Some kill so they won't get killed.

Speaking of "what is", delusions are "what is" as well. They happen. For without delusions, you wouldn't consider "what is not"...or in this case...reality. But, what place do you have to say what is real or what is a delusion is respect to everybody else? What authority would you have to keep somebody from partaking in a delusion?

 

[Bodhi]

read my post again, I edited it, and said: "It's like closing your eyes while walking. You're not breaking a rule, but closing your eyes prevents you from seeing what's in front of you. If you trip and fall, you suffer. The right thing to do would have been to open your eyes while you are walking but again, it is not a rule that anyone has to follow"

Anyway, people find ways to justify murder and murder is not rare but that doesnt change the truth. You think killing is not acting on delusion?

Zimmerman acted on what is not. This is obvious if you have been following the case. Delusional thinking. What has to be done to cease delusion is right view. This is completely up to the people and does not leave it in the hands of some supernatural entity.

read my post again, I edited it, and said:

It's like closing your eyes while walking. You're not breaking a rule, but closing your eyes prevents you from seeing what's in front of you. If you trip and fall, you suffer, or you may walk into someone else and cause them to suffer. The right thing to do would have been to open your eyes while you were walking but again, it is not a rule that anyone has to follow

Anyway, people find ways to justify murder and murder is not rare but that doesnt change the truth. You think killing is not acting on delusion? Causation of suffering is at the root, delusional thinking.

Zimmerman acted on what is not. This is obvious if you have been following the case. Delusional thinking. What has to be done to cease delusion is right view. This is completely up to the people and does not leave it in the hands of some supernatural entity.

My response to the previous post was not on the reason for killing, but for the act of killing. You said "Killing is a delusion", which leaves room to assume you think killings don't happen or don't exist. So, I use the Trayvon Martin case to enforce that point. Now, it's possible for the cause of killing to be a delusion, but to think that killing someone is always as a result of a delusion would be to deceive ourselves. Some kill so they won't get killed.

Speaking of "what is", delusions are "what is" as well. They happen. For without delusions, you wouldn't consider "what is not"...or in this case...reality. But, what place do you have to say what is real or what is a delusion is respect to everybody else? What authority would you have to keep somebody from partaking in a delusion?

killing is based on delusion. Not that they don't exist. Your Martin point was weak and enforced what I was telling you. Regardless of the reason, it can be traced back to delusion.

Give me an example where "what is" is a delusion. Without "what is not", there wouldn't be delusion. True. Neither is reality.

I told you already, it's not my authority or anyone else's. If you walk around with your eyes closed, you may fall. Neither I nor anyone else is making you walk with your eyes open, but if you don't, there may be consequences. Acting on what is not is like walking with your eyes closed.

 

[alissowack]

@JadeRighteousness. I could be wrong, but maybe you need to backtrack. On the one hand, you give the definition of "what is not" as something that is not there. Then in your "pencil" explanation you say ""Killing is delusion. It is "What Is Not"". Now if I'm piecing this correctly, what I conclude is...Killing = Delusion = What Is Not...all from what you posted. Is that what you meant? Probably not given your response, but based on what I found, it suggests that you do.

 

[BlackxChild]

The Bible nev er says in the beginning there were only Adam and Eve.

Go have a look.

In Genesis 1 God creates mankind.

Then in Genesis 2 he rests, then after he rested does he create Adam and Eve.

Adam and Eve were created on the eigth day, which we know was roughly 6,000 years ago. We know this because the bible gives us Adam's geneaology, but we also know that the earth is much older than that. Thus Adam was not the first man.

The trees in the garden of Eden represent other nations. The Bible explains this to us.

It says for example that the Seders of Lebanon were in Eden.

It says also that the Pharaoh was in Eden. etc. etc.

Ezekiel 31:9

I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God, envied him.

Trees do not feel envy

There were other nations on the earth that were not in Eden.

This is where Cain found a wife and built his cities. If yu do not understand the bible it is because the holy spirit has not shoen you the truth.
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1747560/pg1

lmao there's so much wrong with this quote....ugh time for work

actually...i read, write and speak hebrew and thats exactly what the bible says in its original hebrew form. both sides are wrong and full of shit. notice the argument is allways about shome shit thats neither here nor there. how things began, age of the earth, meaningless equations etc. but when it comes to solving what is here and now without causeing problems later nobody has shit to say of any substance. religious people and atheist can kiss my ass if they have nothing to say other than shit about a past or future that we have no direct incfluence over or experience with. niggas talking about proving this or that. youre fucking dumb. you cant prove or disprove god anywhere but in your own fucking mind and heart. all this shit is a waste of energy. what the hell happened to people having a difference of opinion and actuall demonstrating the benefits of what they on? stupid humans really dont get it......

According to you theres no way to disprove that the cookie monster is god as long as i believe it in my heart. Your argument is stupid with the religous argument.

 

[Bodhi]

@JadeRighteousness. I could be wrong, but maybe you need to backtrack. On the one hand, you give the definition of "what is not" as something that is not there. Then in your "pencil" explanation you say ""Killing is delusion. It is "What Is Not"". Now if I'm piecing this correctly, what I conclude is...Killing = Delusion = What Is Not...all from what you posted. Is that what you meant? Probably not given your response, but based on what I found, it suggests that you do.

"What is not" is... things that do not exist. Believing in what is not causes delusion and suffering.

There is no such thing as self. Killing someone is an action made in supposing that a self exists. That is why it is tied to delusion. It causes suffering.

Sorry, I might be skipping over explanations sometimes. What you read from me is heavily influenced by Buddhism. Like I said earlier, you may want to read about it.

So,

WHAT IS NOT = things that are not reality; things that do not exist

Self does not exist. It is what is not.

Believing in what is not is delusion and causes suffering

Believing in a self causes delusion

Killing is a form of delusion

Killing causes suffering, as expected from believing in what is not

The following is not part of my argument but I find it important (or at least possibly interesting to you) to add:

This is how we recognize the harmony within the universe. This is where "law" and our religion come into play. They are not my "laws" or anyone else's but the end of suffering lights the way to truth. This is our relationship to all, to the Higher Force, the Infinite

 

[alissowack]

@JadeRighteousness. I could be wrong, but maybe you need to backtrack. On the one hand, you give the definition of "what is not" as something that is not there. Then in your "pencil" explanation you say ""Killing is delusion. It is "What Is Not"". Now if I'm piecing this correctly, what I conclude is...Killing = Delusion = What Is Not...all from what you posted. Is that what you meant? Probably not given your response, but based on what I found, it suggests that you do.

"What is not" is... things that do not exist. Believing in what is not causes delusion and suffering.

There is no such thing as self. Killing someone is an action made in supposing that a self exists. That is why it is tied to delusion. It causes suffering.

Sorry, I might be skipping over explanations sometimes. What you read from me is heavily influenced by Buddhism. Like I said earlier, you may want to read about it.

So,

WHAT IS NOT = things that are not reality; things that do not exist

Self does not exist. It is what is not.

Believing in what is not is delusion and causes suffering

Believing in a self causes delusion

Killing is a form of delusion

Killing causes suffering, as expected from believing in what is not

The following is not part of my argument but I find it important (or at least possibly interesting to you) to add:

This is how we recognize the harmony within the universe. This is where "law" and our religion come into play. They are not my "laws" or anyone else's but the end of suffering lights the way to truth. This is our relationship to all, to the Higher Force, the Infinite

Woah...you are scaring me. Now you are saying that self does not exist. Now, I wonder if I need to say the same about you. When I think of the self not existing, I think of what it means in relating to the self. If yourself doesn't exists, then there is no reason to agree or disagree, to love or hate, to win or lose because there is nothing to engage with. You won't have a reason to say that anything that you post (or my posts) is of importance because the self is not important. There is no reason to say that my arguments are "weak" if there is no reason to think that I'm making an argument at all.

It makes me wonder what you think about suffering. Is suffering a delusion to you?

 

[Bodhi]

When I say "self" I mean a permanent soul or spirit. The energies that make up who we are produce the illusion of a self within our minds. Much like a wave in the ocean, the wave has no soul but it is its own wave that is born and dies, much like all of nature. Humans also have no soul but are within the infinite. We do not get rid of our emotions but there is no "attachment". Love for one is love for All.

This is truth and truth points the way to right view, which is not a law of any god or man or beast but is the correct view of WHAT IS. Our relationship to the Infinite is right view and right view itself is the cessation of suffering and the upholding of morality.

 

[alissowack]

When I say "self" I mean a permanent soul or spirit. The energies that make up who we are produce the illusion of a self within our minds. Much like a wave in the ocean, the wave has no soul but it is its own wave that is born and dies, much like all of nature. Humans also have no soul but are within the infinite. We do not get rid of our emotions but there is no "attachment". Love for one is love for All.

This is truth and truth points the way to right view, which is not a law of any god or man or beast but is the correct view of WHAT IS. Our relationship to the Infinite is right view and right view itself is the cessation of suffering and the upholding of morality.

But, isn't love about "attachment"? Why love if there is no reason to express, whether through action or emotion, that even though we are not one with someone or something, we want to be one with someone or something? It might as well not be love. I'm still baffled by this "Human having no soul" part. It's the difference between living and just existing and you say we don't have it. You must not care whether or not what you have to say has any importance. You are trying to get me to believe something and there has to be some sort of drive to do this. It's not void or empty...and yet I feel like you want me to get excited about...not getting excited about something. It's like...I would love "not to love" or I really hate "not hating". That is the vibe I get.

 

[Bodhi]

Through realization of emptiness, we let go of delusion. To love is to love all equally although we don't avoid loving different entities differently. Love does not cause suffering unless attachment is involved. Attachment is where delusion sets in.

 

[alissowack]

You must have a very shallow view on love. I just have this feeling that you are that person who is looking for every opportunity to turn a frown upside-down...even if it is not meant to be done so. There is a quote by someone that goes, "Without struggle, there is no progress". The struggle is a part of life. You can't even appreciate love if there isn't reason to think that love can't be challenged or tested. And...the emotions are not going to let you get away with being numb to the world. The postings you make are not "sweet nothings" to you. You may need to catch some feelings just to say that you can. Maybe I need to bring up God again to see if I can light a fire.

 

[Bodhi]

Not saying that we should be unrealistic in human relationships. Everything is to be tested but positivitiy is to be cultivated. Still, we should not become attached to any one thing because the truth is that nothing is permanent. With impermanence, naturally it is recognized that struggle is a part of life if you are attached and attempting to place permanence on something that is not permanent. With non-attachment, we take every moment for what it is as it presents itself. It's not pessimistic. It's realistic.

 

[alissowack]

...but if your perspective on love is "true", then there are no exceptions. Everything is affected including relationships. You have no choice but to be detached. We can't enjoy the relationship or even hate it if we can't even engage ourselves in the relationship. It makes me wonder if there is a certain fear associated with why people want to detach themselves...or whether you think that people can get too "attached" to the notion of being detached.

When I said the struggle is a part of life, it is as exactly as it says..."a part". The struggle is not life...like a lot of things. But, people do trying to make it that way.

 

[Bodhi]

read it again