Do you believe in fate?

[Lara]

Is our fate predetermined or do the choices we make choose our fate? If fate is predetermined then what is the point in sweating over those difficult life choices?

[star blue]

I don't know. the degree of free will that we have decreases with each choice we make. I don't feel free. perhaps I'm not in control of my own life? if I was, I'd either be playing video games or f-ucking, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, never growing tired . . . but unfortunately that's just a daydream and a waste of time.

[subterranean]

So Lara, do you think it'd be better than if people just laying around in the floor doing nothing and wait for the angel of death to come?

[star blue]

angel of what? c'mon, you don't actually believe in all that crazy mother goose bullsh-it, do you?

aw, what a bummer.

[subterranean]

Shut up tart..I'm not talking about me. I'm talking about (other)people

You and your attitude

[star blue]

ha ha ha.

[star blue]

I meant you're not a christian, are you?

[subterranean]

and how do you figure?

[star blue]

you sound like the preacher man talkin all that angel o' death nonsense.

[subterranean]

Now now, truth is a relative thing you know

[star blue]

that jesus will come swooping down on a giant cigar shaped ufo brand flying saucer . . .

[star blue]

ha ha ha.

[star blue]

ric-ockulous.

[subterranean]

So be it. I don't see any harm in it..

[Lara]

Subterranean,
Absolutely not. Making choices is one of the beauties in life. Personally, I believe the choices we make determine our path, but sometimes I wonder, because sometimes the choices seem so obvious, were we to choose different, what would happen?
Anyway, I was just trying to start an interesting conversation. So what are your views on the subject?

[subterranean]

If you ask me then my answer is yes. I do believe in fate. I wish I don't but things around me or things that I've experienced made me to. I could perhaps made a very long "things to do list" in my life, which I arrange so perfectly. But suppose there's a crazy lad shot me on the head tomorrow...?!
I never believed that man is really free

[crisaor]

Originally posted by Lara
Is our fate predetermined or do the choices we make choose our fate? If fate is predetermined then what is the point in sweating over those difficult life choices?
One of the eternal questions. Personally, I believe that both of the options you mentioned are true. Destiny is indeed set upon us: eventually, we'll all grow old and die. Death is our destiny and we can't do anything to change it. However, we can make some important decisions along the way. Of course, this degree of liberty is limited, but all things in the universe are. The choices we make in life will surely determine the way in which your destiny unfolds. You can die alone, sorrounded by a wife, kids and all that things, leave some sort of legacy or not, having enjoyed the ride, etc. One way or another, nothing can take that away from you.

Originally posted by star blue
I don't know. I don't feel free. perhaps I'm not in control of my own life? if I was, I'd either be playing video games or f-ucking, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, never growing tired . . . but unfortunately that's just a daydream and a waste of time.
LOL. I've had that fantasy before, but believe me, you DO get tired of it at the end. The fantasy lies in that you believe that you won't.

[sloegin]

It doesn't really matter. Why waste time thinking about it? I would rather be thinking, of how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop.

[fayefaye]

Fate is just the way I write off the bad things that happen in my life. Choice is the way I write off the good things. Guilt-free life. Not half bad. Fate? I don't think so. Even if there is something else in control of my life, if I really believed that, I'd feel inclined to klll myself. It's the illusion of freedom I live for, the little moments when I actually feel free. The fantasy and determination that pumps through my veins. If your life is predetermined, then what's the point of doing anything? Face it; you can never find the answer to this question-it lies in paradoxes and philosophy, and you just can't get it. So you might as well believe you control you're life, so you actually do something with it.

[star blue]

don't think; ask mr. owl.

[Lara]

I would like to clarify that there is a quote in Crisaor's post above, the second quote, is not mine, but that of someone else.

Lara

[crisaor]

Ooops. Sorry, Lara, I apologise.:)
It's corrected now.

[Lara]

No problem Crisaor.
Thanks for the correction.

Take Care,
Lara

[Stanislaw]

I believe in fate. God is all knowing so he knows what choices we are making and I believe that he can shape them to a certain extent, I thought once that I would take my life, but haven't, and I atribute that to some one else Driving the car of life, I am merely a passenger, Someone watching a film for the first time, not knowing whats going to happen next but knowing that I have no personall controll over it. Everything happens for a reason, even if we don't understand this reason yet.

I mat sound like a wakko, but that is how I feel.

Fate doesn't have to be a bad thing, it just means that we don't have direct controle over how our life goes, I think that concept frightens people and makes them scoff at the idea because they would rather not believe in a greater power... star person...

[star blue]

what is it exactly that you're disagreeing with me on, stanislaw? I don't believe in god, on the one hand, but on the other, I don't believe in free will. it seems like we share some common ground, at least.

[psycojones]

i tend to lean towards fayefaye. might i compliment you on your way of thinking. should we deside to believe in God, or the Son of God, or any type of God for that matter, or should we deside to believe in the way of science, in that we are all of bio-carbon base beings that were developed through the massive explosion of the universe 8 billion years ago in which balls of helium and hydrogen cooled off enough to create a rock which is located in a perfected location, not to close or to far from the sun, to generate life in which we are able to comprehend at this time, is something i am sure we ask ourselves a few times in our life. being that i love to read, i have gone through the bible a few times, and i am not going to challenge anyone on what they should believe or what they shouldn't. but, for those who do have a faith, and believe in the Holy Trinity, i am to wonder, regaurdless of God knowing everything, if he plans our life out for us, are we not puppets? if we are puppets, what is the reason to our being. if we are not puppets, then why are we here? is it to be tested? if so what for?

[star blue]

sounds like you've already excluded protestants, psyco . . .

[psycojones]

blue star, i love to read your thoughts and ideas. to answer your question, i try not to exclude anyone. i like to understand, and to understand, you must ask. if i ever think of a good protestian question, i will look for you.

[star blue]

don't worry about me, psyco, I'm no protestant.

[Stanislaw]

You could say we are puppets, we may not know why we should exsist, but I believe an answer to this will be discovered.

And Star... Sorry if I was being rude, I was in a rather foul mood yesterday, I am sorry.

[IWilKikU]

If you study "Macbeth" thinking purely about fate, you will never know if you believe in it or not again. That play, coupled with some revelations on Old Testament authors has nearly killed my faith in Christianity.

[subterranean]

I wonder...why discussions such these tend to be related with Christianity..

[crisaor]

Originally posted by IWilKikU
If you study "Macbeth" thinking purely about fate, you will never know if you believe in it or not again. That play, coupled with some revelations on Old Testament authors has nearly killed my faith in Christianity.
Why's that? Macbeth's only a play, and if you consider yourself christian, you shouldn't care very much about the old testament anyway.

[IWilKikU]

The questions about fate that the play poses are very real concerns, even if the play itself is a work of fiction.

And I'm not sure if I consider myself a Christian or not, but even if I do, the OT is very real and important. What I was talking about shaking my faith is the fact that the OT was written by PEOPLE, not God. Some of them were cool, but they all had specific agendas and biases. Oh well. Just somthing I've been thinking about.

[Stanislaw]

People with divine inspiration, atleast that is what we are told. I was taught to pray for dissernment before reading the bible so that I might learn the true words of God.

[Yeroptok]

I believe in fate, however it has nothing to do with believing in god or any religous idea whatesoever. Scientifically speaking we are in fact prisoners of a universe that is governed by rules. All the laws of physics prohibit us from actually making choices rather then just following a reaction.

It is like the idea of causality, action-reaction. We only react to the events around us and therfore are bound to our path with only the illusion of free will.

[star blue]

unless the only illusion is the illusion of free will . . .

then you're f.ucked.

[subterranean]

Originally posted by IWilKikU
The questions about fate that the play poses are very real concerns, even if the play itself is a work of fiction.

And I'm not sure if I consider myself a Christian or not, but even if I do, the OT is very real and important. What I was talking about shaking my faith is the fact that the OT was written by PEOPLE, not God. Some of them were cool, but they all had specific agendas and biases. Oh well. Just somthing I've been thinking about.


Well I don't know Kik, I think books in the New T were also written by people (I hope I'm not wrong in this one)..I mean all books in the bible were all written by ordinary people who were ispired by the Holy Spirit. At least, that's what they taught me in sunday school.

[IWilKikU]

Originally posted by subterranean
Well I don't know Kik, I think books in the New T were also written by people (I hope I'm not wrong in this one)..I mean all books in the bible were all written by ordinary people who were ispired by the Holy Spirit. At least, that's what they taught me in sunday school.

Yes but you'll notice that the NT authors have a MUCH different view on most issues than the OT. Some denomonations even do away with the OT all together and say that the NT directly contradicts the teachings of the OT. I don't neccasarily believe that, but the attitudes of the people of the NT are MUCH different. That much is impossible not to notice. Also, if you happen to not believe in the trinity, than whats the holy spirit doing? He's not there. Thats another one of my problems. I go no trinity (much to the chagrin of my christian friends and family) so for me, there was no holy spirit to take over the epostles writing hands, or Moses's hands for that matter. Damn, I hardly even remember where I started. Oh yeah.

The OT writers sound psychotically zealous in some writings. Issueing out death warrents for eating meat on Friday, strikeing people dead for looking directly at the ark of the covonant, ect. If some of the things that they write can be so skewed to follow there agenda of control on the people of Isreal, what else was skewed?

I posted an account of 9/11 as it may have been written about by an OT author. I'll try to find it to add more clarity to what I'm trying to say

[IWilKikU]

Originally posted by IWilKikU
And in the first year of the reign of George Bush, son of George Bush, son of George Bush, it came to pass that his daughters were caught drinking underage. They were found to be, in thy mercy, the bearers of false identification cards. So The Lord, in his wrath, finding The United States to be evil in his sight, sent 3 fully fueled jets to be the harbingers of doom upon the major economic strongholds within thy realm.


See, it makes you wonder if the reasons that biblical authors gave for things happening were the real reasons that they happened. Thats what has been shaking my faith.

[papayahed]

I agree with Yeroptok. Awhile back there seemed to be a lot of coincidences going on around me and it lead me to wonder why that was, each incident was seemingly unrelated to the others, then I broadened it to a wider view, how come two people invented the light bulb at roughly the same time, why was fire discovered when it was, why not sooner? later? It lead me to think that fate had something to do with it, and it makes sense that the laws of nature and physics governs how and why things happen, scientifically speaking of course.

[star blue]

an anomaly exists in every system . . . no theory is true one-hundred percent. the hope of escape always exists, even from your own fate.

hehe, but you'll only find yourself bound to some other fate.

[Cassandra]

The reason the NT writers have such a different perspective is because Jesus introduced a new order. Neither seem to agree with fate. I personally don't, I think it's a matter of my choices and others around me, I hope so anyway! Even so if you read stuff like Macbeth and Sophocles' Oedipus Rex it really makes you question your beliefs. Some stuff is beyond controll to us, but that does not make it fate. REally confusing issue!!!

[subterranean]

Originally posted by IWilKikU
Yes but you'll notice that the NT authors have a MUCH different view on most issues than the OT. Some denomonations even do away with the OT all together and say that the NT directly contradicts the teachings of the OT. I don't neccasarily believe that, but the attitudes of the people of the NT are MUCH different. That much is impossible not to notice. Also, if you happen to not believe in the trinity, than whats the holy spirit doing? He's not there. Thats another one of my problems. I go no trinity (much to the chagrin of my christian friends and family) so for me, there was no holy spirit to take over the epostles writing hands, or Moses's hands for that matter. Damn, I hardly even remember where I started. Oh yeah.

The OT writers sound psychotically zealous in some writings. Issueing out death warrents for eating meat on Friday, strikeing people dead for looking directly at the ark of the covonant, ect. If some of the things that they write can be so skewed to follow there agenda of control on the people of Isreal, what else was skewed?

I posted an account of 9/11 as it may have been written about by an OT author. I'll try to find it to add more clarity to what I'm trying to say


I see your point about the two things, and isn't why that the NT is also called the Bible (means GOOD News)? Cause in the OT most of the writings are dominated by laws and punishments, and too much obligations. On the other hand, the NT was written in the spirit of love, mercy, and things like that . The laws and obligations are there but they are delivered in a softer way. I don't really see the contradiction between the laws in OT and NT, it's merely because the condition, cause NT was written after Jesus came and His foundation of teaching is love..
(IMO)

[Cassandra]

Originally posted by subterranean
I see your point about the two things, and isn't why that the NT is also called the Bible (means GOOD News)? Cause in the OT most of the writings are dominated by laws and punishments, and too much obligations. On the other hand, the NT was written in the spirit of love, mercy, and things like that . The laws and obligations are there but they are delivered in a softer way. I don't really see the contradiction between the laws in OT and NT, it's merely because the condition, cause NT was written after Jesus came and His foundation of teaching is love..
(IMO)

I agree. The OT has a different purpose and a different emphasis than the NT. The laws aren't different just some of the rules were no longer necessary, besides which people were getting so caught up with rules they forgot God! The Holy Spirit merely inspired in a different way.

[star blue]

inspired in a different way . . . but jews still burn in hell.

[crisaor]

Says who?
And anybody can burn in hell, depending on what they believe.

[atiguhya padma]

Why is belief so important that it can get you into hell? It sounds like a pretty sadistic little game to me. What a god of love he is!

It's just as well that we don't behave as God does, otherwise we would be nuking people all over the place, and casting people into the ovens for believing things that we don't, for being different to us.

Maybe God inspired Adolf and Josef.

[atiguhya padma]

If somebody believes in hell, and also believes in freewill, and that freewill can lead us to sin and eventually hell, then how can that person have children? Isn't child-rearing a terribly callous thing to do in such circumstances?

[subterranean]

I believe in hell, but I don't really believe in free will. I mean the real definition of free will can only be found in the concept of reincarnation of the Budhists/Hindus. That's really 'free will', cause uoi will have the changes to be a better person. If you're keep doing bad things that you'll be traped in the cirlcle of reicarnation. But the case is different in Christianity.

[Cassandra]

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
Why is belief so important that it can get you into hell? It sounds like a pretty sadistic little game to me. What a god of love he is!

Belief is the most important thing but I don't believe God would condemn everyone who is not Christian. Afterall Jesus tried to save people not kill them. I think even if you believe after death God would be pretty forgiving still.

[atiguhya padma]

Cassandra,

Why is belief the most important thing? I believe that Brazil won the last world cup. I don't think that's really important. Do you?

[hadji9]

beliefs are for goldfish.

[atiguhya padma]

<I think even if you believe after death God would be pretty forgiving still.>

I think that whatever you are after death, it cannot be compared to what you were before death. Belief is a concept that applies to living material things. Therefore, the whole question of belief after death becomes meaningless.

[fayefaye]

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
Why is belief so important that it can get you into hell? It sounds like a pretty sadistic little game to me. What a god of love he is!

It's just as well that we don't behave as God does, otherwise we would be nuking people all over the place, and casting people into the ovens for believing things that we don't, for being different to us.

Maybe God inspired Adolf and Josef.

ati, what a horrible thing to say. :( Beliefs are the most important things to people. If you believe in NOTHING than what's the point in anything? You know, a lot of people think that hell is a place without God. The theory goes that all the people who don't want to be around God don't have to be. It would just be considered 'hell' by a lot of people to live somewhere like that.

[fayefaye]

*deep breath* Do you really think THIS is all there is to the world? That there's nothing else out there? No greater meaning, no other purpose, no greater good? Why don't I just kill myself then? I'd rather die than believe in nothing, as if this is all there is. Beliefs are important because they are the quintessential essence of humanity. Love, faith, hope. It's what holds us together. Atheists sound so inhuman sometimes, standing there belittling things that others hold dear. what do you believe in? nothing?

and it's pretty darned important who wins the world cup!!!! :p :) [going to Germany. Just try and stop me]

~Goldfish. glub glub.

[fayefaye]

just off topic, I love soccer.

[fayefaye]

continuing my monologue, are you going to ask me if the world is hell then, because God isn't here? We can still reach him, in hell you probably can't.

[Cassandra]

God is here, just in a different form, that's what i think anyway. I agree with fayefaye, people have to believe in something. I guess I'm a goldfish too, oh well. I also have to say that the cup is a little different in my opinion, though many would disagree. That doesn't mean things like that aren't important, just that that particualr belief is different.

"I think that whatever you are after death, it cannot be compared to what you were before death. Belief is a concept that applies to living material things. Therefore, the whole question of belief after death becomes meaningless."

That depends on your beliefs. Having heaven implys a consciousness after death so faith can still apply. You probably would be different after death, hopefully better but their still must be some sone of you.

[IWilKikU]

It kind of annoys me that EVERY thread that has anything to do with the Bible becomes a Christians v. Non-Christians fight. All I was talking about was OT authors biases. Nevermind :(

[the captain]

cry, l'ttle baby.

[Cassandra]

it's not a fight, it's merely trying to see others views and putting accross your own.

[atiguhya padma]

<If you believe in NOTHING than what's the point in anything?>

Of course, it is impossible to believe in nothing. I can believe in something, it doesn't give a point to anything. Why do people seem to think that belief gives some kind of external meaning? You can believe all kinds of sh*t. It won't make your world any the more objective. Believe me!

<The theory goes that all the people who don't want to be around God don't have to be.>

Here's my theory: Hell is a world filled with well-meaning people who believe that God is around them, that he is looking after their interests, as all good parents would, who believe that God speaks to them, loves them, has plans for them; when in fact, sh*t happens indiscriminately, the good people of the Lord suffer as horribly as the rest of us, they dedicate themselves terribly unsuccessfully to Him, and deserve something for their efforts at least. Now all that would be purgatory, if it weren't for the fact that when hurricanes, volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, plagues, famines kill thousands of people, God-lovers and others, these believers still belief in their loving God. They even think that a return of 15 living survivors against say 25,000 dead is something to call a miracle. Now that is hell.

And IWilKikU, what is it with you and the Christian persecution complex? Don't you realise the debates that occur here regarding God are NOT about Christianity, they are about monotheism? Do you think Christianity = Monotheism?

<*deep breath* Do you really think THIS is all there is to the world? That there's nothing else out there? No greater meaning, no other purpose, no greater good? Why don't I just kill myself then? I'd rather die than believe in nothing, as if this is all there is. Beliefs are important because they are the quintessential essence of humanity. Love, faith, hope. It's what holds us together. Atheists sound so inhuman sometimes, standing there belittling things that others hold dear. what do you believe in? nothing?>

You wouldn't be belittling my beliefs now would you Fayefaye?

greater meaning? greater good? What on earth do you mean by that? Whose good? Whose meaning? Do you believe these terms are absolute? Why should anything that is the quintessential essence of humanity be important to the Universe? to God? I would say you have missed some essential elements that hold us together in your list. Try sex, power, ego, knowledge. These things hold us together too you know. Or do you consider them less worthy than love, faith, hope (btw this little list of yours does sound so Pauline, and old hat, sorry IWilKikU, but it does!). There are plenty of things to believe in Fayefaye. Things you can see everyday, the beauties, the peculiarities, the regularities and the subtleties of life. I believe in music, in art, in good literature. I believe in decay, and transition, and regeneration. See, I believe in lots of things. And they provide me with meaning that will die for me when I die. Which is just as well. I don't want permanence, or immutability. Change is all there is. Maybe we should be glad enough for that.

Still no-one has answered my question about why people who believe in Hell have children. I mean, one definite way of making sure that fewer people go there, is to stop creating so many people. That would surely be a loving, thoughtful and considerate way of dealing with the problem of hell wouldn't it?

I think you can tell what someone believes by the way they behave. It is a far better yardstick than words can ever be. Just look at the way religious people behave, that will tell you what they really believe.

[atiguhya padma]

<If you believe in NOTHING than what's the point in anything?>

Of course, it is impossible to believe in nothing. I can believe in something, it doesn't give a point to anything. Why do people seem to think that belief gives some kind of external meaning? You can believe all kinds of sh*t. It won't make your world any the more objective. Believe me!

<The theory goes that all the people who don't want to be around God don't have to be.>

Here's my theory: Hell is a world filled with well-meaning people who believe that God is around them, that he is looking after their interests, as all good parents would, who believe that God speaks to them, loves them, has plans for them; when in fact, sh*t happens indiscriminately, the good people of the Lord suffer as horribly as the rest of us, they dedicate themselves terribly unsuccessfully to Him, and deserve something for their efforts at least. Now all that would be purgatory, if it weren't for the fact that when hurricanes, volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, plagues, famines kill thousands of people, God-lovers and others, these believers still belief in their loving God. They even think that a return of 15 living survivors against say 25,000 dead is something to call a miracle. Now that is hell.

And IWilKikU, what is it with you and the Christian persecution complex? Don't you realise the debates that occur here regarding God are NOT about Christianity, they are about monotheism? Do you think Christianity = Monotheism?

<*deep breath* Do you really think THIS is all there is to the world? That there's nothing else out there? No greater meaning, no other purpose, no greater good? Why don't I just kill myself then? I'd rather die than believe in nothing, as if this is all there is. Beliefs are important because they are the quintessential essence of humanity. Love, faith, hope. It's what holds us together. Atheists sound so inhuman sometimes, standing there belittling things that others hold dear. what do you believe in? nothing?>

You wouldn't be belittling my beliefs now would you Fayefaye?

greater meaning? greater good? What on earth do you mean by that? Whose good? Whose meaning? Do you believe these terms are absolute? Why should anything that is the quintessential essence of humanity be important to the Universe? to God? I would say you have missed some essential elements that hold us together in your list. Try sex, power, ego, knowledge. These things hold us together too you know. Or do you consider them less worthy than love, faith, hope (btw this little list of yours does sound so Pauline, and old hat, sorry IWilKikU, but it does!). There are plenty of things to believe in Fayefaye. Things you can see everyday, the beauties, the peculiarities, the regularities and the subtleties of life. I believe in music, in art, in good literature. I believe in decay, and transition, and regeneration. See, I believe in lots of things. And they provide me with meaning that will die for me when I die. Which is just as well. I don't want permanence, or immutability. Change is all there is. Maybe we should be glad enough for that.

Still no-one has answered my question about why people who belive in Hell have children. I mean, one sure way of making sure that fewer people go there, is to stop creating so many people. That would surely be a loving, thoughtful and considerate way of dealing with the problem of hell wouldn't it?

[Cassandra]

"Just look at the way religious people behave, that will tell you what they really believe."

Religion doesn't equal belief.

"Still no-one has answered my question about why people who belive in Hell have children."

The way I see it people don't believe that their children would go to hell. If you believe in a heaven surely you would believe that your kids'll go there, at least when their born, and you raise in a way that will ensure this, it just doesn't always work.

[crisaor]

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
Try sex, power, ego, knowledge. These things hold us together too you know. Or do you consider them less worthy than love, faith, hope (btw this little list of yours does sound so Pauline, and old hat, sorry IWilKikU, but it does!).
Of course they are less worthy. Any shmuck can get a hold on sex, power or ego (in fact, power seems to revolve around idiots these times :mad: ). Have you read the Prince lately? That sounded a lot like Macchiavelli.

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
There are plenty of things to believe in Fayefaye. Things you can see everyday, the beauties, the peculiarities, the regularities and the subtleties of life. I believe in music, in art, in good literature. I believe in decay, and transition, and regeneration. See, I believe in lots of things. And they provide me with meaning that will die for me when I die. Which is just as well. I don't want permanence, or immutability. Change is all there is. Maybe we should be glad enough for that.
They aren't things to believe in. They're there, wether you like it or not.

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
Still no-one has answered my question about why people who believe in Hell have children. I mean, one definite way of making sure that fewer people go there, is to stop creating so many people. That would surely be a loving, thoughtful and considerate way of dealing with the problem of hell wouldn't it?
Because it's a stupid way. It's not about hell either. If your solution to any problem is reducing the number of people, then you're not making much sense.

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
I think you can tell what someone believes by the way they behave. It is a far better yardstick than words can ever be. Just look at the way religious people behave, that will tell you what they really believe.
That is not a bad measure method. If religion was followed properly (in this case, as I see how christianism should be follow, or more accurately, how I try to follow it), then behavior would certainly improve.

*Whispering*
BTW, you posted your post twice :)

[bbq13]

hmm... well, i think the choices we make and the things we do determine our fate...

[atiguhya padma]

Crisaor,

<Any shmuck can get a hold on sex, power or ego>

And what's wrong with sex, power and ego? Why do you have to denigrate them? I suppose you think love, faith and hope are elevated above these other human endeavours do you? Well, let me tell you this, without sex you wouldn't be here. Without power, you wouldn't be here and without ego you wouldn't be here. However, it doesn't take love, or faith, or hope for you to be here. Secondly, don't you think that in going around calling people shmucks you slip into that typical self-righteousness associated with your religious belief?

<They aren't things to believe in. They're there, wether you like it or not.>

I don't really understand what you mean here, Crisaor. It does rather sound like you are saying that real existences aren't things to believe in. I assume then, that you agree with me, that God doesn't really exist?

<Because it's a stupid way. It's not about hell either. If your solution to any problem is reducing the number of people, then you're not making much sense.>

Oh dear, more higher-than-thou condemnation. Well, I guess I get used to it from people with your way of thinking.

My solution is not for any problem at all. I said it was in relation to the problem of hell. Not having children is an absolute guarantee of not adding to the population of hell. Is that really difficult to understand?

And in answer to Cassandra: as long as there is anything less than 100% certainty of your child going to heaven, can you really take that gamble? After all, we are talking about an eternity of suffering here. Furthermore, how would you enjoy Heaven, knowing that there are billions of souls suffering endless torture? I mean what would that make you? How could you be happy, if you knew that even 1 person was suffering eternal pain? How could you? Have you ever heard of Williams Syndrome? It is the name given to a terrible affliction, where a person feels endlessly inanely happy. They can be told of the deaths of all their relatives, they can see the most horrific suffering, and still maintain a sense of bliss. Is this really the state you want to be in forever?

[IWilKikU]

Originally posted by atiguhya padma

And IWilKikU, what is it with you and the Christian persecution complex? Don't you realise the debates that occur here regarding God are NOT about Christianity, they are about monotheism? Do you think Christianity = Monotheism?


AP, first of all I don't consider myself a "Christian"... today. I might again tomorrow. I'm a little indecisive about it. But wether or not I am its not cool to come out swinging at Christianity so much. This particular thread does seem to be following the trend of monotheism rather than Christianity, but you specifically attack Christians in a good 50% of your posts. I was merely observing that you appear to have a common agenda within your forum personallity. Are you trying to convert the entire site to... whatever you are? Having people of varying religeous beliefs on the site is a bonus for everyone. Making your beliefs known is great. Keep it up. But deliberately picking fights based on religeous beliefs DOES NOT make this forum a better place. Check out Dyrwin, he runs an athiest discussion forum and I don't think I have ever once seen him trying to belittle people on this forum who's views he may disagree with. He respects the Christian users based on their literature discussions, so when we get into philosophical discussions he doesn't bash the Christians. He listens and dissagrees. All I'm trying to say is make your beliefs known, but don't be such a zealot!

[IWilKikU]

And for the record, I get just as frusterated listening to Christian zealots go on their tirades.

[atiguhya padma]

Crisaor,

<Any shmuck can get a hold on sex, power or ego>

And what's wrong with sex, power and ego? Why do you have to denigrate them? I suppose you think love, faith and hope are elevated above these other human endeavours do you? Well, let me tell you this, without sex you wouldn't be here. Without power, you wouldn't be here and without ego you wouldn't be here. However, it doesn't take love, or faith, or hope for you to be here. Secondly, don't you think that in going around calling people shmucks you slip into that typical self-righteousness associated with your religious belief?

<They aren't things to believe in. They're there, wether you like it or not.>

I don't really understand what you mean here, Crisaor. It does rather sound like you are saying that real existences aren't things to believe in. I assume then, that you agree with me, that God doesn't really exist?

<Because it's a stupid way. It's not about hell either. If your solution to any problem is reducing the number of people, then you're not making much sense.>

Oh dear, more higher-than-thou condemnation. Well, I guess I get used to it from people with your way of thinking.

My solution is not for any problem at all. I said it was in relation to the problem of hell. Not having children is an absolute guarantee of not adding to the population of hell. Is that really difficult to understand?

And in answer to Cassandra: as long as there is anything less than 100% certainty of your child going to heaven, can you really take that gamble? After all, we are talking about an eternity of suffering here. Furthermore, how would you enjoy Heaven, knowing that there are billions of souls suffering endless torture? I mean what would that make you? How could you be happy, if you knew that even 1 person was suffering eternal pain? How could you? Have you ever heard of Williams Syndrome? It is the name given to a terrible affliction, where a person feels endlessly inanely happy. They can be told of the deaths of all their relatives, they can see the most horrific suffering, and still maintain a sense of bliss. Is this really the state you want to be in forever?

[atiguhya padma]

<you specifically attack Christians in a good 50% of your posts>

I respond to Christian posts. If there were more Muslim posters I would respond to them too. How can you say that I specifically attack Christians? How many times do I actually refer to Christianity? I respond to what I think is incorrect. I try my best not to make statements like <Because it's a stupid way>. That reads as a statement of fact. Read some of my postings again, IWilKiku, and you will see that I frequently make statements of opinion. I oftenpose questions. Rarely do I write something that reads as a factual statement, unless I can make a pretty sound logical case for it. Whilst I will often respond to ideas I disagree with, most of my responses have been to these opinionated statements that masquerade as facts. Now if it is the Christians that are most guilty of making these types of statement, that is hardly my fault, is it?

You call me a zealot, but if that is the case, I would like to know what you think my zealous beliefs are? I am not trying to convert anyone. I don't have any systematic set of beliefs to convert them to. When I am asked to provide alternative views I try my best to give something.

You say that you are frustrated by Christian zealots. I suppose, the fact that you have singled me out for a lecture on moderation, means that in your eyes, not only am I a zealot, but I am the only zealot here. Have you ever given this lecture to Christians on this site? Or don't you think there are any Christian zealots here? Because it would appear that if I am the only focus of your criticism in this respect, then you would appear to have some bias against atheism. In which case, it should be me that should lecture you.

[subterranean]

I once said in one of my post that somehow I think that most of the topic related to such matters (like fate, purpose of life, etc) are dominated with the discussion about christian values. I agree with you on that Kik . But I also agree with AP that it happened becoz most of the peeps here refered their opinions to Christianity. If there were any Budhist, Hindus, Muslims, members also participate, I'm sure the discussion will develop a whole lot more..

I have to say that I like AP's posts coz I think it broadened my horizon as a believer. Things that AP posted encouraged me to discover the answers from the prespective of Christianity (since this is my belief). So instead of seeing AP's posts as attack to Christian faith, I see them as somethings that can encourage me to learn more about Christian teaching. If this is the right belief for me, then I'll surely find those answers

And by the way I see a new member (the captain) and he/she was already banned ???

[Cassandra]

"And in answer to Cassandra: as long as there is anything less than 100% certainty of your child going to heaven, can you really take that gamble? After all, we are talking about an eternity of suffering here. Furthermore, how would you enjoy Heaven, knowing that there are billions of souls suffering endless torture? I mean what would that make you? How could you be happy, if you knew that even 1 person was suffering eternal pain? How could you? Have you ever heard of Williams Syndrome? It is the name given to a terrible affliction, where a person feels endlessly inanely happy. They can be told of the deaths of all their relatives, they can see the most horrific suffering, and still maintain a sense of bliss. Is this really the state you want to be in forever?"

I'm not happy about it, but it is not my decision, if it was everybody would be able to go to heaven, guess that's why it's not my choice. People have to be free to chose their own beliefs and fate, and if they cannot accept God even after death that's their decision, I can only give my children (when I have some) the opportunity and knowledge to make that choice.

[pretty eyes]

that's called indoctrination.

[IWilKikU]

Originally posted by atiguhya padma

I respond to Christian posts. If there were more Muslim posters I would respond to them too. How can you say that I specifically attack Christians? How many times do I actually refer to Christianity? I respond to what I think is incorrect. I try my best not to make statements like <Because it's a stupid way>. That reads as a statement of fact. Read some of my postings again, IWilKiku, and you will see that I frequently make statements of opinion. I oftenpose questions. Rarely do I write something that reads as a factual statement, unless I can make a pretty sound logical case for it. Whilst I will often respond to ideas I disagree with, most of my responses have been to these opinionated statements that masquerade as facts. Now if it is the Christians that are most guilty of making these types of statement, that is hardly my fault, is it?

AP, you have a way with words that not many other people do. You are really really good at forming logical, well structured arguements. I know that its a tendancy of people that have strong beliefs in anything to shout out things like 'Thats stupid!' And you DON'T do that... quite like that. The thing I have a problem with is the way you use your gift of words to patronize and belittle other posters who arn't as gifted writers as you. Rather than a punch in the face, you deliver a constant tickle in the armpit until it chafes and turns red and irritated and gets infected until someone gets pissed and blows up at you, like I did. It's like you set people up to get mad and than when they do get mad and yell at you, rather than thinking through thier post, you give this innocent little girl approach like, 'Oh no, its not my fault... I was just saying... You don't need to get so mad at me...



You say that you are frustrated by Christian zealots. I suppose, the fact that you have singled me out for a lecture on moderation, means that in your eyes, not only am I a zealot, but I am the only zealot here. Have you ever given this lecture to Christians on this site? Or don't you think there are any Christian zealots here? Because it would appear that if I am the only focus of your criticism in this respect, then you would appear to have some bias against atheism. In which case, it should be me that should lecture you.

You got me. I don't think I have ever jumped down a Christian zealots throat... ON THIS FORUM ... Most of the people on this forum that I respect are sensative to other people's beliefs. There have been debates, but the only person that I respect that constantly turns intellectual discussions into belief bashing sessions is you (note that I threw in respect so Star Blue doesn't count). I go to school at a very conservative Seventh-Day Adventist College. I get into fights with ignorent zealous Christians who just regurgitate bible verses at me all day every day. So trust me, I don't need a lecture in moderation or toleration. I have some very good friends who are Atheists, and I even dabbled in Atheism myself. I wouldn't ever jump down an Atheists throat just for being Atheist. Did you miss all the stuff I said about Dyrwen in my last post?

[pretty eyes]

you're unintelligable.

[Cassandra]

Originally posted by pretty eyes
that's called indoctration.

That's why I'm not God. And what do you think parents, teachers etc... do?

[IWilKikU]

I'm not sure I follow you Cass.

[amuse]

ap, i put you on my ignore list. it became hard to read your belittling comments; there was too much cruelty in your subtlety.

[IWilKikU]

my point exactly. Azmuse, how did you fit my whole post into one sentence?!?!?!

[crisaor]

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
Crisaor, what's wrong with sex, power and ego? Why do you have to denigrate them? I suppose you think love, faith and hope are elevated above these other human endeavours do you? Well, let me tell you this, without sex you wouldn't be here. Without power, you wouldn't be here and without ego you wouldn't be here. However, it doesn't take love, or faith, or hope for you to be here. Secondly, don't you think that in going around calling people shmucks you slip into that typical self-righteousness associated with your religious belief?
There's nothing wrong with them (specially sex ;) ) But I do feel that the other concepts are more elevated, because they're harder to attain.
I do try to be self-righteous, and as a matter of fact I believe in a religion that encourages that kind of behaviour, but that doesn't obscure my judgement as to who's an idiot. And you know who are the ones I was referring to.

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
I don't really understand what you mean here, Crisaor. It does rather sound like you are saying that real existences aren't things to believe in. I assume then, that you agree with me, that God doesn't really exist?
I don't know if he (or she, or it) exists. Hell, if we're talking straight, as Socrates said, the only thing I know is that I don't know anything. But I don't think that is important. I believe that he exists, and believing it is important in itself. Wether he really exists or not (something we'll never be able to tell for certain, at least not in this life), I'll found out someday, and you'll too.

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
My solution is not for any problem at all. I said it was in relation to the problem of hell. Not having children is an absolute guarantee of not adding to the population of hell. Is that really difficult to understand?
No, I understood you quite fine, that's why I think your theory is lame. You know, that was one of Malthus preferred arguments, and he was a priest. What do you know, you do have things in common with those you attack.

[amuse]

um...i dunno, IWilKikU - ?? - a well-laid foundation, my need to be brief. a growing discomfort with what i was reading.

the semicolon :)

[atiguhya padma]

IWilKiku,

I have yet to see a religious argument on this site from Dyrwen. Now I wonder why that is? Could it be, that Dyrwen understands that some people cannot handle religious argument? It is a great shame for dissent to be silenced.

Amuse,

You are too subtle with your cruelty. Bury your head in the sand if you like. I would never willingly ignore someone in the way you do.

One of the reasons why the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead disliked the Bible, was because of its profound lack of humour. It would seem that some aspects of the Bible can become infectious. Do the world a favour, try not to take yourselves so seriously! I mean just look at you, a single solitary voice has organised you all like a pack of wolves, even to the extent that one of you cannot even recognise me anymore, as if I had no human status at all. That is extremely sad. Only a very few people here have made me laugh. Those that have know who they are.

[Cassandra]

Originally posted by IWilKikU
I'm not sure I follow you Cass.

I put in the wrong quote, do you follow now?

[IWilKikU]

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
IWilKiku,

I have yet to see a religious argument on this site from Dyrwen. Now I wonder why that is? Could it be, that Dyrwen understands that some people cannot handle religious argument? It is a great shame for dissent to be silenced.


I think that everyone taking part in this thread has proved that they CAN "handle" an arguement. I already stated why I think we don't see religeous arguement from Dyrwen here. Go back and read my post again until you can grasp what I said.

And by the way, Azmuse/Amuse has you on INGORE! Someone needs to let you know how this works since you obviously don't get it. It means that all that stuff you said about him/her in this post went unheard. All you were doing was talking behind his/her back. Sorry Amuse, I cant remember if your a guy or a girl. :D

[atiguhya padma]

So you thought I was addressing Asmuse directly did you? Seems like you didn't get it.

[atiguhya padma]

Its called a rhetorical device.

[the ring]

live it. learn it. love it.

[atiguhya padma]

IWilKiku,

I'm glad you are back online. Because, I really would like a Christian to answer my question:

<Furthermore, how would you enjoy Heaven, knowing that there are billions of souls suffering endless torture?>

I really am serious. I would like to know how you or any other Christian is preparing to enjoy their eternal life with this kind of knowledge.

Please give me an honest answer. I am asking in all sincerity.

[Cassandra]

I answered and I'm a Christian. i can't speak for us all obviously just myself.

[atiguhya padma]

So your answer, Cassandra, is that you wouldn't be happy in heaven, isn't it? Or did I miss something?

[Cassandra]

I would be happy in heaven but I would be sad fort hose in Hell, again hard to explain, it's like when someone dies and you're sad their dead but you're happy their in heaven. Have you read the first part of inferno where Virgil says he pities those in hell and where beatrice pities Dante although she's in heaven she is sad for him. Maybe once you're in heaven things change though, I don't know. God's in heaven and he feels sad for us often.

[atiguhya padma]

Cassandra,

Don't you think that makes Heaven sound a little bit like Earth?

[Cassandra]

A little although you're closer to God. Nobody knows what heaven is so it's impossible to say what it is like other than God is there. Earth has some pretty great things as well you know, I don't think that we lose ourselves in heaven, maybe it just helps us become better, but we should still be essentially us so our sympahies would remain the same, if you were in heaven and didn't care maybe that would mean heaven was not perfect, again thinking on screen. Pity seems to me to be a chief virtue. If you're Christian it's one of the things you believe helped save you, Christ's pity for us.

[amuse]

I'm a girl, Kik. No biggy.

[crisaor]

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
Furthermore, how would you enjoy Heaven, knowing that there are billions of souls suffering endless torture?
I really am serious. I would like to know how you or any other Christian is preparing to enjoy their eternal life with this kind of knowledge.
Please give me an honest answer. I am asking in all sincerity.
There isn't a definite answer to this. Talking about heaven or hell is always somewhat relative, for obvious reasons. I think that if you go to heaven, you would enjot it, because of its own definition. Everything that makes you happy is there. So, one possible scenario is that while you're being happy, you woulldn't care about anything else (and this has happen to me in the past, when I was involved in relationships mostly). Another possibility would be that you're not conscious of it ("igno rance is bliss", as the saying goes). Yet another explanation could be that you know that people are burning in hell, but you don't resent that, because it's their fair punishment for what they did in life (and I do wish for some people to burn in hell, because that would do the justice that hasn't been served on Earth). Also, maybe some of the people in hell don't resent it either, because they prefer that ("better to rule in hell than serve in heaven", as Lucifer said in Paradise Lost). Enduring torment could be desirable for some (no matter how stupid I find that), and others could manage it if that meant that they could inflict pain on others in the future.
Again, it's a very debatable topic, and has a lot of possible answers, this is just my 2 cents.

[Cassandra]

I know what you mean. As I said I think we would get a chance to believe after death so maybe these are really really eveil people or they did not want to be with God.

[Cassandra]

Either way I still pity them.

[atiguhya padma]

I find this statement incredibly offensive:

<Yet another explanation could be that you know that people are burning in hell, but you don't resent that, because it's their fair punishment for what they did in life (and I do wish for some people to burn in hell, because that would do the justice that hasn't been served on Earth).>

Fayefaye thought I was horrible for comparing the actions of Stalin and Hitler to some of God's actions. Yet the burning of people in Auschwitz, in the act itself, is, as an act, incomparable to eternal burning of a human being. Forever suffering 1st degree burns is fair punishment???? For what? What could possibly deserve this? And this is something you wish for Crisaor!! You are inhuman. Why don't you burn a few people who deserve it here on earth? Why wait til they get to hell. I guess you would have been one of those Christians celebrating at the burning of the witches during the inquisition.

And now what's going to happen? IWilKiku, are you going to castigate me for daring to declare how Crisaor's views disgust me? Or are you going to say that it is permissable for someone to profess their desire that people suffer the pains of melting flesh without end?

You are unbelievable Crisaor. Just unbelievable. This is why I find it so difficult to respect all beliefs. Because some people, like you, harbour the most dark and atrocious desires. I can have no faith in a profession of belief that can engender this kind of inhumanity.

[Cassandra]

Not critising either's views but isn't inhumanity is often because of the person not the belief system.

[atiguhya padma]

Cassandra,

My last statement was made with regard to Crisaor's personal belief, not with regard to Christianity in general. Although I can quite understand how it could be seen otherwise.

I have not yet found a Christian belief system that I could agree with or respect enough to adopt. I find more negatives in Christian thought than would suit my personal beliefs. Likewise, I see no reason to raise Christian belief above any other religious belief. Atheism, for me, is the most honest of beliefs about religion.

For now, I will have to disconnect from this site, as the night is drawing on.

Atiguhya Padma

[the ring]

I've heard the observation before from protestants that, in accordance with biblical creed, hitler himself might be in heaven.

though, I'm convinced he was an atheist (at best), I still think it's really awful that someone like him could make it to heaven while a jew or a muslim couldn't. morally, I just can't accept that.

[fayefaye]

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
Fayefaye thought I was horrible for comparing the actions of Stalin and Hitler to some of God's actions. Yet the burning of people in Auschwitz, in the act itself, is, as an act, incomparable to eternal burning of a human being. Forever suffering 1st degree burns is fair punishment???? For what? What could possibly deserve this?

went over this 'hell' thing before.

[fayefaye]

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
[B]greater meaning? greater good?
Today I had a terrible today. Tomorrow will be better. I don't know that to be true, but I believe it. that is what I mean by a belief in the greater good. Believing in a better tomorrow, or that people in the world are basically good, that there is a God looking out for us. A meaning to life. A meaning for me to get out of bed tomorrow rather than curl up into the foetal position and die.


I would say you have missed some essential elements that hold us together in your list. Try sex, power, ego, knowledge. These things hold us together too you know. Or do you consider them less worthy than love, faith, hope (btw this little list of yours does sound so Pauline, and old hat, sorry IWilKikU, but it does!). Faith, love, hope is a reference to a part of Corinthians. 'These three remain, faith, love hope. But the greatest of these is love' Something like that. If you're held together by sex, power and ego you gotta be a pretty screwed up person.

[atiguhya padma]

Says you with the pretty screwed up attitude towards other people. Says you that defends the idea of forever burning people. You sound extremely screwed up.

[fayefaye]

AHHH! I had a lousy day! I can't write properly now, leave me be. I DON'T defend it, that's my point. That hell isn't eternal fire. That it's a place without God. THAT'S MY POINT. [didn't mean you were screwed up]

[fayefaye]

*sigh* didn't clarify my point properly anyway... forget about it.

[atiguhya padma]

Fayefaye,

Sorry you had a terrible day. I'm sure things will eventually get better:)

[Cassandra]

Originally posted by the ring
I've heard the observation before from protestants that, in accordance with biblical creed, hitler himself might be in heaven.

though, I'm convinced he was an atheist (at best), I still think it's really awful that someone like him could make it to heaven while a jew or a muslim couldn't. morally, I just can't accept that.

I don't see why Muslims, Jews or anyone can't go to heaven, especially jews before christ, how were they supposed to know?! I suppose if Hitler really repented he might go to Heaven but I personally can't see it happening. It could God works miracles but one more naturally thinks of Hitler trying to send God down for being the originator of Jewish faith or something.

[Cassandra]

Originally posted by fayefaye
AHHH! I had a lousy day! I can't write properly now, leave me be. I DON'T defend it, that's my point. That hell isn't eternal fire. That it's a place without God. THAT'S MY POINT. [didn't mean you were screwed up]

Precisely.

[IWilKikU]

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
IWilKiku,

<Furthermore, how would you enjoy Heaven, knowing that there are billions of souls suffering endless torture?>

I really am serious. I would like to know how you or any other Christian is preparing to enjoy their eternal life with this kind of knowledge.


OK. First of all, there are two pages of posts on this thread that I havn't read yet. I just wanted to respond to this question before I got sidetracked, so I may be repeating someone.

I am Christian, from time to time :confused: :confused: however, most prodestant denomanations, including mine, do not believe in a literal hell. In fact if you look at the original Greek and Hebrew, the bible doesn't even use the word "hell" or any word that has the concept of eternal suffering. The idea of hell came from a verse in Rev. Where John says something about the Devil being cast into a lake of fire with all his minions to suffer eternally. People quote this out of context all the time. He was describing what he saw in his vision. He also saw beasts coming out of the sea and brainwashing people, but no one believes that that is literally going to happen. The translaters of the KJV put "Hell" in for lack of a better word. The Greek word is actually more like "Nothing, or Void" but a void that only the dead exist in. The translater's "Hell" came from the Greek "Hades" which does not appear in the Greek New Testament. He was also bitten by a deadly poisonous snake before dictating this book to his scribe. He was dying and could have just been hallucinating (I mentioned this in a religeon class and was nearly burnt at the stake as a heratic :eek: ). You'll have to ask someone who believes in a literal hell, ie. Roman Catholic, Anglican, or Orthodox. But most prodestants don't buy it.

[crisaor]

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
I find this statement incredibly offensive:
<Yet another explanation could be that you know that people are burning in hell, but you don't resent that, because it's their fair punishment for what they did in life (and I do wish for some people to burn in hell, because that would do the justice that hasn't been served on Earth).>
Fayefaye thought I was horrible for comparing the actions of Stalin and Hitler to some of God's actions. Yet the burning of people in Auschwitz, in the act itself, is, as an act, incomparable to eternal burning of a human being. Forever suffering 1st degree burns is fair punishment???? For what? What could possibly deserve this? And this is something you wish for Crisaor!! You are inhuman. Why don't you burn a few people who deserve it here on earth? Why wait til they get to hell. I guess you would have been one of those Christians celebrating at the burning of the witches during the inquisition.
I'm sorry you felt offended, but now you know how I felt with some of your posts, too. There's a lot of things that could deserve burns forever, and a lot of people too. Personally, I have in mind people of the quality of Videla, Massera, Galtieri, Onganía, Pinochet, Margaret Thatcher, Saddam, Hitler, Bush, Stalin, Neron, Mussolini, and others when I wish that there was a hell. I don't think that what they did to other people (most of them completely innocent) is incomparable to them burning for eternity. If you can't relate to this, too bad.
I'm very human, of course. And I wouldn't burn anyone. And obviously, I don't approve the Inquisition. But then again, this pathetic assumptions you keep making don't surprise me anynmore. I hope you end up quitting them.


Originally posted by atiguhya padma
You are unbelievable Crisaor. Just unbelievable. This is why I find it so difficult to respect all beliefs. Because some people, like you, harbour the most dark and atrocious desires. I can have no faith in a profession of belief that can engender this kind of inhumanity.
This kind of "inhumanity" is simply the desire to have some justice in the afterlife, when it hasn't been served on earth (none of the people I mentioned ever went to jail to serve time for the horrible crimes they commited). Yeah, now I'm guilty of you not respecting religion. Right. Take some responsability for your actions.

[atiguhya padma]

Can't you get away from this eye for an eye rubbish!! Can't you see how this kind of thinking, your kind of thinking has screwed the world up??

Tell me do you think it has really helped in the war torn places of the world?

A person by definition in my book does not deserve eternal burning. I am an atheist, and yet even I can see how that such a punisher is inhuman. How can you inflict pain on someone because they themselves have inflicted pain? The world seems to run on your fine principles Crisaor. You must feel quite happy with the world.

If you think what your list of despots did to people deserves eternal suffering, then I can only assume you fail to understand the terms 'eternal' or 'suffering'.

<I'm very human, of course. And I wouldn't burn anyone.>

Well you could always get someone to do your dirty work for you. Why is it that after death you can feel fine about someone eternally burning, but can't seem to stomach the idea in life? Tell me what's the difference? Because if there is a difference, then somebody killing someone in life surely just deserves death in this life don't they? not eternal suffering. I am glad to see that people like Cassandra and Fayefaye don't share your disgusting views.

[crisaor]

<Sigh>
For the eleventh time, you keep misunderstanding me, deliberately, or so it seems. If I agreed with the eye for an eye thing, I would shoot them myself. And getting someone to do it for me enters that categorie. Again, I don't think like that. If we can't punish the guilty ones that commited crimes against humanity (with jail for life, I don't support the death penalty), then I hope God does, otherwise, they'll get away with it. Maybe to you justice isn't important, to me it is.
And how come you speak of tolerance to me? You've mocked anyone who dared to say "I believe in God". Your double rethoric doesn't fool anyone. If you consider my views disgusting, I guess I'm right.

[atiguhya padma]

Crisaor,

You don't support the death penalty but do support eternal suffering???

Man you are some scary creature!

[atiguhya padma]

Crisaor,

Don't you think you should forgive that hate list of yours? I am not saying you should respect them or accept them and their actions, but shouldn't you forgive them?

[crisaor]

Yes. I don't feel that anyone is capable (everyone is capable, actually, what I mean is that no one has the right) of taking another life, no matter what the other did.
Eternal suffering is a judgement made by God, and the God I believe in happens to be perfect, so, I don't see anything wrong with it.
Aren't you asking for much? Forgiving Hitler??? or Videla? or Pinochet? Surely you're teasing me...
If I had seen them rot in jail, probably I wouldn't hate them that much, though.

[atiguhya padma]

Hate isn't the kind of four letter word I would normally associate with Christians. But for you Crisaor, I will make an exception.

[atiguhya padma]

So what do you mean by perfect? Are you trying to say all his actions, all his creations are perfect?

I'm now looking out of the window on Crisaor's perfect world!

[crisaor]

<Yawn>

[atiguhya padma]

Very instructive.

[atiguhya padma]

<Yawn>

You must have stayed up all night thinking of that one!

[crisaor]

Actually, all it took was another one of your insipid posts.

[atiguhya padma]

I see you've got the dictionary open.

[crisaor]

Initially, I was going to post another funny response, but I'm getting tired of it. If you have something meaningful to say to me (either good or bad), say it. Otherwise, I'd be done with this .

[psycojones]

war is created through ignorance,
peace is found through understanding.
got to love that albert einstien.

[knives]

not ignorance, but senseless truth.

[atiguhya padma]

Hey knives,

that is so true.

Unfortunately, too many of the world's political leaders have enough understanding to go to war.

[fayefaye]

Ok, I'm going to totally digress, partially because I'm too lazy to read what just happened, partially 'cause I was thinking about what you wrote earlier about respect for religious belief, and what isaqel wrote about how you talk to Christians. We're not so different. I believe in subtle irregularities, finding beauty in life in the least likely places, music, etc. I just believe there's something bigger behind the good things in the world. I don't know if you see my point, but I'd like for you to see where I'm coming from here, so maybe you won't compare my God to a nazi? Though I know what you mean. Religion isn't about genocide. It's about love, not hate, life not death, peace not war, good not evil. About believing there's something else out there. I wonder if this makes sense? In real life, I like to speak in half sentences, gestures and sounds. :) real primitive. mlargghh!! blarggh! meh bleh!

Actually, I was thinkin'. [dum dum dummmm!!] [shock, I know] my friend thinks that whenever you lose something, if you sing to it, you'll find it. It's a bit of a joke, but I tried it, and it actually works. I wouldn't respect it as a serious belief though. She's also a Hindu. That isn't my personal belief, but I do respect that. Why? And, strangely enough, I also know a rain dance. Someone taught it to me when I was about eight or nine. I've done it maybe three times in my life [as a kid, I assure you], but it's never failed, ever. It's still not something I believe in, or would respect if someone else did. It's a relationship between cause and effect that makes no sense. So... what am I trying to say? Maybe to respect something you need to see the reason behind it. Or it needs to be something where it can conform to your own attitudes and values to some extent. I'm trying to show the reason behind religion.

[fayefaye]

Oh, the cause and effect thing ties in with what someone else said. That religious people will hold God accountable for thing when there's no real relationship between what happens. Which got me thinking about the rain dance thang. So. ok, I'll sound like an idiot, and I don't care; I still think there's a relationship there. Between when you pray and when something happens. That one's never failed me either. But, you know, you really don't wanna hear me sing. Why do I get the sinking feeling I give Christians a bad name??

[Cassandra]

I don't think your giving Christians a bad name. I van see what your talking about. And your right, our faith is about love etc... Religious people can't always hold God accountable for bad things. We have free will so some bad things come as a result. Other things are inevitable ie death or maybe for our own good ie Job's suffering showed his true faith in god. I also agree that to repect something it helps to see a reason behind it. I can accept and kinda respect abelief I don't understand but it is really hard and not proper respect just confused acceptance of other people, unless I really disagree strongly.

[fayefaye]

Don't you normally hold God accountable for good things, and the world accountable for bad things?

There appear parallels between these sorts of behaviour, but I don't think there REALLY are. I wrote that because I draw the parallels without knowing quite how to disprove them. Which I should be able to do. damn!! There's something there. Something rather inexplicable... some reason why people will still believe. There's no connection between dancing and rain.. there's no driving force. There must be something between God and what happens... I think, anyway. [not helping my argument. I wish I were a better debater]

[Cassandra]

God does answer prayers and cause things to happen however sometimes the answer is no and bad things happen. maybe it's partly down to what we perceive as 'bad', Maybe what we see as bad God doesn't. And the world can be accountable for good things otherwise we'd all be going to hell in handbasket. If you say what parrallels you're thinking of maybe others can disprove them. By the way my sister once prayed for rain to stop while we went to this outdoor place and as we pulled up to the door the rain stopped and we had glorious sunshine, as we left two hours later and got back in the car it tipped it down again :) coincidence or God? Maybe dancing and child's trust can be like prayer.

[fayefaye]

That's my point. urgghhh. I was talking to somebody about this.. and she wouldn't stop drawing those parallels. Like, what makes one reasonable and the other ridiculous? And I don't have an answer, other than it's what I think and feel. Which is ...just plain tacky as an answer or an argument. What can I say? Dancing and prayer aren't supposed to be similar. They shouldn't be. I know, ati'll have a field day ripping this apart when he reads this. I sure am giving him a lotta material. ;) ah well. AND I have no rebuttles!! :(

[Cassandra]

Why can't dancing be prayer? I see your point about only being able to defend things with feelings which is useless in an argument cus you can't share. That's why it's belief I guess. It's also why I lose a lot of arguments.

[fayefaye]

Maybe that's just it though. You have to be able to take a leap of faith. To believe it even though there's no proof, no evidence. In spite of that. maybe that gives it meaning. ati, you'll rebut that too, I'm sure. ;)

Dancing could be prayer, but raindancing compared to prayer-there's a difference. [yes, there IS a difference, even if I'm unable to pinpoint what it is]

[Cassandra]

I know what you mean though I still think it depend son how the dance was meant. I don't think god would randomly stop rain for dancing people because then it'd never rain and we'd all die :( !
Faith by definition seems to imply no physical evidence and thta makes it hard to accept as proof in an arguement for a lot of people. I think it woould depend on whether you really trusted the person arguing through faith.

[fayefaye]

No matter what you believe, everything you see will justify it. People are incredibly narrow-minded. I see good things that happen as proof there must be a God, others would take it to be proof there isn't a God. We all think we're right; everyone else is wrong. I just want to share my perspective. I mean, I can see it from both sides, can't others?

[Cassandra]

I can. I'm entitled to my beliefs and others are entitled to theirs. We can disagree and discuss it but that doesn't mean I will change my mind necessarily or try to change theirs.

[amuse]

Just to throw in my two pennies...i think part of having a relationship with God is either one does or doesn't have that leap of faith. Yes, I wrote that before seeing your phrase up there, faye :). But, I think having taken it, one trusts/surrenders and lives life on the other side of where that leap has taken him/her. And if one hasn't, then it's more a matter of intellect.

[amuse]

Hm. One more cent. If one has experienced God's love, be it in the "real world," the dream state, heard God's sounds/seen God's lights, nothing can take that away. And if someone hasn't had it, or just has knowledge of it, they may refute it, and that's fine, too, where they're at with it. But when people go around poking at each other I think when we have to stop and say, wow, is this what I really want to do? Is this really how I want to treat and maybe even limit others/myself.

[atiguhya padma]

Amuse wrote:

<If one has experienced God's love, be it in the "real world," the dream state, heard God's sounds/seen God's lights, nothing can take that away>.

Time has already taken it from you I'm afraid. All you have left is a memory of it. You might have new experiences based upon your memories, but let's not confuse a continued presence of a past experience with a remembered, recreated, refashioned experience of a past experience.

<And if someone hasn't had it, or just has knowledge of it, they may refute it, and that's fine, too, where they're at with it. But when people go around poking at each other I think when we have to stop and say, wow, is this what I really want to do? Is this really how I want to treat and maybe even limit others/myself>

As I continually stress, there is a difference between attacking beliefs and attacking people. Most people who cannot see this, are those that cannot be at ease with their beliefs. Just let go and let your beliefs, ideas, etc breathe. If they are good enough, they can stand on their own. If they are bad, you don't have to fall with them.

[fayefaye]

You say that without writing about what your beliefs are. ie, you can write with complete impunity, whereas we cannot. It's a lot easier to stand there and criticize than to try to defend something.

[atiguhya padma]

Fayefaye,

Do you think I would be able to write anything without revealing a set of beliefs? You speak as if belief is concrete, instead of a transient thing. That is my whole point. We make beliefs. They serve a purpose for us. We are not made by them. But some people act as if they and their belief are the same thing.

When you criticise my beliefs or my views, I can step back and assess what you say. If I feel what you say is pertinent, then I may drop that particular belief. I don't feel that part of me is lost when a belief I once held is lost. On the contrary, part of my is free, or part of me may have grown. Look at Bertrand Russell, he changed his views and beliefs repeatedly, with good reason. And as he once said, no respectable physicist of his day would seek to hold onto views held by say Lord Kelvin or his contemporaries.

[Cassandra]

Some beliefs are set in stone for those that believe them, this gives people a firm place to stand if you will. Some beliefs should not be changed, especially if they're right. Beliefs are part of people AP, we base our lives on them and some you cannot stand back and look at objectively cus with the most basic beliefs there is no room for interpretation. Some beliefs should be dear enough to us that we are part of them. However one has to change or modify some of one's beliefs as it is through that that we can learn things and grow. My beliefs and perceptions change every day. You say all beliefs should be transient but some need to be concrete for stability and cus they're true.

(Yes I know that was somewhat rambleing.)

[Lara]

<Some beliefs should not be changed, especially if they're right.>

Who's to say what is right? My beliefs in my mind are right. To someone else they may be wrong or stupid.

[atiguhya padma]

Exactly, Lara.

I believe in athesim, but certainly would not recommend it to everyone (some people obviously can't handle it).

[Cassandra]

One cannot say what is right, one has to believe it. However something could be right so you have to look very carefully at your beliefs cus you don't want to keep wrong ones or change right ones.

[Lara]

I agree Cassandra, that it is okay to evaluate our own beliefs, but again I ask you, who is to say what is right and what is wrong? What is right and wrong comes from our own opinions, beliefs and morals.

[Cassandra]

I guess we have to evaluate our own. sometimes it's OK if we think one thing is right and others think the opposite but at other times it can't work. Then you just seem to have to trust to reason and instinct ie most of us think murder is wrong but clearly many people believe it can be justified.

[Sancho]

Hello,

I think I'm starting to tune in to this discussion. Are we saying that morals are relative?

Hows about ethics? or Values.

Do you suppose that there is at least one thing under the sun that is always right?

--no matter what.

Kant's categorical imperative

[Lara]

Good questions Sancho. I suppose that could be one way to describe my point of view. I don't think there is one thing that is always right because there will always be someone to disagree.

[atiguhya padma]

But is it in the agreement / disagreement of a human mind that makes something wrong / right?

Kant's categorical imperative is rather inflexible to my mind. I'm sure there are many situations where it would be best to do what you would not will to become a universal law. Lying is a good example. In some cases, it is right to lie, in others not. The categorical imperative does seem to treat people as types rather than individuals. It is far too restrictive in my opinion.

[Sancho]

Where ethics, values, and morals are concerned, rightness, I would think has to be in the agreement/disagreement of the human mind.

Ethics, values and morals are afterall a uniquely human endevour.

I think.

[Sancho]

Always telling the truth is a good example of why Kant's Categorical Imperitive doesn't work.

The classic example is: When the Nazis are at the front door demanding to know where you've hidden the Jews, It'd be a great time to tell a fib.

I think Kant would say, "Well you just don't say anything at all." But I don't think that would work too well in practice either.

[Sancho]

But I'm still holding hope that there is at least one ethical dilemma under the sun that everyone can agree on.

[Lara]

*embarassed*
I am not familiar with Kant's categorical imperative. Please enlighten me.

[Sancho]

I’m not so sure I totally understand it either. But since I’m sitting here in the middle of the night, a hopeless insomniac, and Kant’s “Critique of Practical Reason” is a well known insomnia cure, I’m willing to give it a go. Trying to explain it may help me to better understand it.

Immanuel Kant was an 18th century German (Prussian) Enlightenment Thinker. His theories are best described as “rationalist” as opposed to David Hume’s “sentimentalist” thought.

Kant first described a “hypothetical imperative;” which is sort of a natural causation of actions. It’s like the old Fortran programming commands: IF – THEN – ELSE. It can even be reflexive. IF I am hungry THEN I should eat that cheese burger ELSE I will remain hungry. Or less reflexive, IF I always tell the truth THEN people will think of me as a trustworthy person.

A Categorical Imperative by contrast is a moral action that is always right in and of itself; no IFS ANDS or BUTS. Simply stated: “Act in such a way that the maxim of your action would be instituted as a universal moral law.” As you can see the categorical imperative can be problematic in practice.

And it’s kinda hard to say with a straight face after a couple of whiskies.

[Cassandra]

I think there must be some absolute truth. Majority thinking does not make a thing true or not. Some truths are true no matter what others depend on the situation which is why the law always changes. As people we have to decide as best we can what truth is true and relevent when, just cus we can't agree doesn't mean that some of us aren't right. Therefore for each situation there must be a truth.

[Lara]

Thank you Sancho. I think I understand. I will ponder over it further and maybe even find some more reading material. This is interesting.

[Sancho]

Whoohooo, the insomnia cure worked again.

Cassandra, I think you summed that up beautifully, much unlike my incoherent ramblings.

“The truth is just the truth and you can’t really have an opinion about the truth.” While that works for mathematics, it’s hotly debated in ethics. There may be an undiscovered Stone Age tribe of folks in the Andes who don’t believe in the equilateral triangle, but A-squared plus B-squared still equals C-squared regardless of their opinion.

With ethics it’s a whole new ball game. If there is a Categorical Imperative, a Universal truth or an Absolute truth -- who gets to decide what it is? (Agreement/disagreement in the human mind) There seems to be too many variables to prove it mathematically correct for all situations. So (as you said) we’re back to a situation dependent truth.

Now I’m going to try to extricate myself from this philosophic quagmire I’ve gotten myself into to and try to tie this discussion back into literature. I once read somewhere that Hemingway, in order to deal with writer’s block, would sit down and write the first true sentence that he could think of. As he got older it became more and more difficult for him to think of one true sentence. Ultimately, this frustration may have had a hand in leading to his decision to commit suicide.

[atiguhya padma]

As I understand it, the Pythagoras Theorem might not apply to quadrilateral triangles in non-Euclidean geometry.

[Sancho]

Good one!

[Lara]

AP, English please? :-))

Sancho, that's interesting, I didn't know Hemingway committed suicide.

[atiguhya padma]

Well, I'm not actually a mathematician, but I remember the physicist Paul Davies saying something about how an equilateral triangle on a large oval shape would not strictly obey the principles of Pythagoras' Theorem, or something like that. Any mathematician, please feel free to correct me, or improve on my description.

[Cassandra]

Thanks Sancho. That must be the first time I've been coherent in my life! :) I never realised how hard it is to think of absolute truths (without resorting to maths) but it is, you always find some way around a lot of them.

I agree with Lara, in english please, and I take maths (by the way a2 + b2 = c2 is with right-angled not equilateral but I still don't understand AP)

[atiguhya padma]

Oops. Yes, I meant right angled triangle.

[Sancho]

Heh heh heh, oops,

I should proof read my posts better. “Equilateral”-- I guess the math is in the English. If all sides of the triangle are equal, it’d be a real trick to get the sum of the squares of two sides to equal the square of the third.

“Ya know this kinda reminds me of time back in reform-school….”

A.P., sorry, thought you were just fooling around. I sat here trying to picture a “Quadrilateral Triangle” but I just kept coming up with a trapezoid. If I don’t know the difference between a right triangle and an equilateral triangle, what are the odds that I know anything about Euclidian Geometry? About the only two things I remember from college math is the Law of Partial Pressures “PIVNERT” that is PV=nRT and the Taylor Expansion Theorem. With Taylor you never really had to solve an integral equation, but you could get close enough just by taking it out a bunch of iterations.

[atiguhya padma]

So did I for a moment. But what's even worse, is I think I might have been serious for once. I might be talking complete nonsense. However, let me see if I can rescue some sensibility from all this:

The properties of right-angled triangles on planes may be different to the properties of right-angled triangles on shapes.

If you maintain a right angle, and have two sides that bend across a sphere, and the third side is a straight plane, then, I think, a2 + b2 may not equal c2. But of course, I may be completely wrong.

It could be I was thinking of angles and their properties. But my brain is too tired to go there!:)

[Sancho]

Mathematicians do dance to a different beat don’t they?

Here’s an interesting tid-bit I stumbled across. Apparently Bertrand Russell’s brother had given him a copy of “Euclid’s Elements” when he was 11 years old. He became very interested in mathematics and it occupied him through an otherwise miserable childhood. At the age of 17 he was contemplating suicide but was so absorbed in mathematics that he decided to stay alive to find out more about it. Possibly the only person in the history of mankind saved from suicide by math – instead of the other way around.

That was paraphrased from a lecture series given by Dr. Robert Kane from U. of Texas.

[Sancho]

The geometry you're thinking of may be elliptical or hyperbolic geometry.

[IWilKikU]

When I started my BA in humanities I forgot how to do math.

[Cassandra]

Originally posted by Sancho
Mathematicians do dance to a different beat don’t they?

Here’s an interesting tid-bit I stumbled across. Apparently Bertrand Russell’s brother had given him a copy of “Euclid’s Elements” when he was 11 years old. He became very interested in mathematics and it occupied him through an otherwise miserable childhood. At the age of 17 he was contemplating suicide but was so absorbed in mathematics that he decided to stay alive to find out more about it. Possibly the only person in the history of mankind saved from suicide by math – instead of the other way around.

That was paraphrased from a lecture series given by Dr. Robert Kane from U. of Texas.

Thanks, now when people say to me 'why ya doing maths A level to do law, you'll never use it' I can bring this up. Isn't it strange what small things can so alter a life or indeed lots of lives.

[fayefaye]

I think truth is all relative. Every part of it. What's true to you can be a lie for somebody else, because people can't think outside their own heads, their own worlds, if that makes any sense. Like, if I REALLY believed the moon was cheese, for me, that WOULD be an absolute truth. It's completely relative to the person.

[Cassandra]

But it wouldn't be an absolute truth, the moon would not therefore be cheese for you and something elese for everyone else. Absolute truths should be true regardless of what peole think.

[atiguhya padma]

Sir Arthur Eddington used to talk about how he found the life of a physicist a bit like the life a schizophrenic (I think he didn't know much about schizophrenics, but that is another matter).

He would walk into a room and see chairs and tables and walls etc. He would slip into that macro-reality view, where these things are solid and textured and colourful. And the next moment, he would know that they are mostly empty space, with atoms flying through, into and off of them. He would know that they had no real discernible boundaries in the quantum world, and that there is a possibility that everyting on the table might fall through it as if there was nothing there.

So what could possibly have been true for Arthur Eddington?

And what would we mean by 'true'?

[Lara]

Well, I was going to agree with Faye but decided to look up the 'true' defintion of true. Agreeing with fact;not false. AP you do have a knack of bringing up questions to make people think. I still agree with Faye that truth is relative, although Cassandra does provide valid disagreement as well. Which brings me to the question, who is to say that the facts are accurate? Yes, as far as the moon goes, it is a proven fact. My argument is that the facts presented mostly to society are that of the media, or a book which may only provide an authors opinion. So, as individuals, we must seek out the sources of so-called facts and make a choice pertinent to the truth.

[Cassandra]

And even supposedly proved facts have been wrong in the past. A lot of what we believe we believe out of trust in those who told us it.

[Sancho]

I think we may have worked ourselves around to Rene Descartes. A man who at some point in his life realized that almost everything he had been taught was false. He became so skeptical and questioning that he even questioned his own existence.

Of course he finally decided that he did exist. Famously: “Cogito ergo sum” - “I think therefore I am”

Which reminds me of a bad joke, but I’ll spare you all.

[Cassandra]

Which is possibly very bad, but if we didn't base knowledge on something society would never evolve (I think I'm linking to another thread). Truth is relative to a situation and we can create truth but that doesn't mean that truth is wholely from human perspective. Yes I know I'm making no sense. I think I'm kinda agreeing with faye and myself (don't ask) If one is saying truth is relative does that make facts relative as true is agreeing with fact?

[atiguhya padma]

<I think we may have worked ourselves around to Rene Descartes. A man who at some point in his life realized that almost everything he had been taught was false. He became so skeptical and questioning that he even questioned his own existence.>

Unfortunately, Descartes chickened out. Rather than let his reasonings follow their logical course, he came up with the idea that God wouldn't fool him into believing in a world that was an illusion. He also stole the ontological argument from St Anselm, to provide himself with a rational starting point for reality. However, the argument is flawed.

<Of course he finally decided that he did exist. Famously: “Cogito ergo sum” - “I think therefore I am”>

The usual translation of Descartes' famous dictum does not really work very well. As Bertrand Russell said, the start does not bode well, as he is already presupposing the conclusion. Then there is the problem that RD is making a big leap from the idea of a process (thinking) to the idea of a processor (I). In its purest sense, it should really read: thinking therefore existence. This however tells us nothing of what it is that exists, other than thinking. And what is thinking?

Rene Descartes was generally much better at asking questions than answering them.

Cassandra, tell me, what would truth mean outside a mind? When does something become true?

[IWilKikU]

man AP you ask the tuffies!

[Cassandra]

And the rotten person expects me to compete with ancient philosophers and answer them! :(

I'm personally better at confusing points than answering questions.

I guess I'm acctually agreeing with plato (never thought I'd say that) and his idea of forms. People are often arrogant enough to believe that truth revolves around humanity and that we are the only things that matter, and that therefore we invent truth. Even if there were no people there would still be truth therefore truth must exist outside the mind. If truth only exists in the mind then truth does not exist for minds are so diverse and complicated that truth would be so different it would contradict itself and ceese to be truth.

I'm not saying this very well. I will come back to it later when I've had time to think.

[fayefaye]

Originally posted by Cassandra
But it wouldn't be an absolute truth, the moon would not therefore be cheese for you and something elese for everyone else. Absolute truths should be true regardless of what peole think.

but people have no way of knowing outside of what they think-my original point. In which case, couldn't there be no absolute truth? Since how would you know?

As for facts... well, 75% of people know that 68% of statistics are totally made up.

[Cassandra]

You wouldn't know. Just cus I don't know something doesn't mean it is not true. People didn't know the world was round hundreds of years ago but that does not make it any less true. (and before some smart mouth says so I know its not 'round' I meant it in general aproximation terms)

[fayefaye]

No, I'm just saying how would you know if it is true? Since everything is relative to what you know, if something is 'true' to you, you must know it. You wouldn't think the world being round WAS true, if you lived hundreds of years ago. And this is drifting dangerously into that 'and how do you really know it's round today' kind of territory. MAYYYYBBEEE it's not, and all those satellite photos are fake. [stupid idea, but you get my point]

[Cassandra]

Yup, again trusting and faith is half of the 'truth' we know. Just cus you don't think somethings true doesn't mean its not otherwise opposites would have to be true simulataneously which is logically impossible. You cannot know truth. Truth is in belief.

[faith]

Sometimes I believe in fate and sometimes not. Well, its not like we could stop making choises just becuse our fate already was desided, because our fate is to make choises!!!

[faeirian]

You can catch 'glimpses' of the paths you are next to. Everything seems to lead up to a 'peak' or the'fork-in-the road'. There always seems to be a choice for the occassion. What choice will bring you further along? As for sweating over it I have No idea for I am in the same predicament. I am sweating over it but you really shouldnt have to. Good Topic:)!

[gamel]

I think we make fate by the decisions we make. Only we don't know where these decisions will take us, as they're influenced by other people's decisions too. So, we all make destiny, but this doesn't men we can make things go the way we want, as it's a collective and not totally controllable creation. That's what I think.

Internet Gambling (http://www.cyberspacegambling.com)

[Lily Adams]

I believe in both the power of fate and the power of choice.

[markallman]

Considering that your very personal Fate leads your life, I must be a real cursed boy ! No, seriously, I think things do not happened only because we acted to make them happened. Sometimes you met someone because you had to and that's what 's magic about living here.
If it do exist, fate is for small events. You decide about big stuffs and fate about the rest. This way, fate is not irreversible- not at all at least-.

[atiguhya padma]

I think the world is determined. There are no real choices. We have developed the idea of choice and freewill in order to maintain sanity in a pre-determined world. Our brains follow certain patterns and microseconds later our consciousness creates the idea that we have made a choice, when in fact we have been fooled into this belief: our brains have merely responded in an unconscious way to physical stimuli and then generated the conscious experience of freewill.

[Pendragon]

Fate is an excuse given by people who finally have to accept things as they are and not how they wish them to be...

[atiguhya padma]

Choice is a myth indulged in by those who cannot accept the way the world works

[ShoutGrace]

I think the world is determined. There are no real choices. We have developed the idea of choice and freewill in order to maintain sanity in a pre-determined world. Our brains follow certain patterns and microseconds later our consciousness creates the idea that we have made a choice, when in fact we have been fooled into this belief: our brains have merely responded in an unconscious way to physical stimuli and then generated the conscious experience of freewill.

I agree (given certain assumptions).

As far as I can tell, moreover, this is the consensus of modern science.

"Finally, free will as it is traditionally conceived - the freedom to make uncoerced and unpredictable choices among alternative courses of action - simply does not exist. There is no way that the evolutionary process as currently conceived can produce a being that is truly free to make choices." - William Provine

AP, have you any reading suggestions on this topic (as it relates to free will in particular)? Free will especially and consciousness more generally are of great interest to me.

[librarius_qui]

Is our fate predetermined or do the choices we make choose our fate? If fate is predetermined then what is the point in sweating over those difficult life choices?

Let's say we don't have the slightest idea on whether there is fate or not ...

There may be such a thing as fate; only, you don't know the end of the story. Or, as mr. Tom says in his role in The Last Samurai: "a man does what he can, until his fate is revealed to him". (As an answer to "do you believe a man can change his fate?")

This is, by the way, to me, a more .. logic question: if there is fate, can a man change it?

Fact: no man knows the future. Nor about his own fate. (Except for the cyclops, in Krull ...)