Suppose we have only dreamed...

[Abstract 831]

Because I don't want to exist to exist? I don't want to struggle through life just to die, finding solace only in comfort, believing my experiences will amount to nothing.

But how is believing in something may or may not exist, specificially, a better alternative?

 

 

 

I don't want to help others for self benefit, I don't see how I'm not achieving anything by that. My motivation is to be good and it's fueled by my dream of there being something greater. It may not be logical in this realm where you only believe whats right in front of your eyes but [again] that's what this thread is about - to say it's not a fool's errand to believe in such things.

I suppose we're just going to have to disagree on this. I believe you should live for yourself and for what exists on this Earth, not some greater purpose. Even if it were undeniably proven that one existed.

 

 

 

You sound so pretentious and self righteous. You think anyone who died doing something they believe in is in denial? I pity you. You don't know anything so stop acting as if you do. You don't know if there's anything more to the world than what's in front of us and neither do I for sure

I apologize if I come off that way, but those are not my intentions. I am stating opinion, not fact, as are all of us. People who died believing in a cause should be respected for that. Belief is not a cause.

frankly I don't care

This is the kind of statement that leads to my assumption of denial/willful ignornace. I'm not trying to be insulting, just stating what I see.

 

 

I don't know what to say to you anymore

 

My statement is simple; it's all fine and dandy to theorize and perhaps be hopeful of what you can't sense, but to straight out believe in it is just foolhardy. Edited August 28, 2012 by Abstract

[Titan Rising 2,156]

But how is believing in something may or may not exist, specificially, a better alternative?

It gives purpose to do things for a "good" cause. I should wonder if America and the foundation for a democratic-republic, or any government at all for that matter, would have been created in a society that did not hope for or believe in something more. Our "rights" have been given to us under the assumption they are "God given" for example - what would be the concrete argument for such rights if no one could imagine or believe in a God? There would be none, all you could argue is that it would bring the most happiness to the most number of people, and in such a Godless world there would be no reason for anyone who would end up having less happiness for one reason or another to promote such a notion.

 

People who died believing in a cause should be respected for that. Belief is not a cause.

It is to the person who believes it

 

This is the kind of statement that leads to my assumption of denial/willful ignornace. I'm not trying to be insulting, just stating what I see.

In that same sentence I acknowledged the possibility that there may be nothing more at all, I don't understand how you can assume I'm being willfully ignorant of anything?

 

My statement is simple; it's all fine and dandy to theorize and perhaps be hopeful of what you can't sense, but to straight out believe in it is just foolhardy.

 

I do not straight out believe. I am not pretending to know if anything happens after death. What I am saying is that even if nothing happens, I will live my life in a way that is synonymous with the greatest ideal world and person I can imagine because, even if I'm doing nothing but pretending, I believe there is more value in living such a life according to your imagination than according to the simple harsh reality of what we can see right in front of our faces. Without that hope of there being something more, there is nothing at all - least of all for the people that suffer more than are comforted in the world

Edited August 28, 2012 by Hollowshield

[Guest]

Ok, ok, you keep saying you want to to "good" without having a reason to do so. So how exactly do you do this, how does one act in such a way? What acts could you possibly do to exemplify this? What acts do you see as "inherently/intrinsically" good, and how can you justify something as truly evil? You might have it down in theory, but how could you put it in to practice?

 

Would you openly call some people evil?

[Titan Rising 2,156]

Ok, ok, you keep saying you want to to "good" without having a reason to do so. So how exactly do you do this, how does one act in such a way? What acts could you possibly do to exemplify this? What acts do you see as "inherently/intrinsically" good, and how can you justify something as truly evil? You might have it down in theory, but how could you put it in to practice?

 

Would you openly call some people evil?

 

How could I exemplify being "good" to you? Well I suppose I couldn't because if I were doing something to prove it to you I wouldn't exactly be doing "good" for the sake of "good" now would I? And If I were doing an act of "good" and you saw me you wouldn't be able to fully understand my motivation for it, even if you trusted me. But the way I see it is no one has to prove whether or not they're good to anyone but themselves.

 

I suppose you'll know when you do a "good" act when you don't have to ask yourself if what you're doing is good, you'll just inherently know. Perhaps that is impossible for humans to fully reach that point, but it is nevertheless part of my own dream and thus something I personally strive for it.

 

My own personal thoughts on "evil" is that it is self abandonment, caving in to the 7 deadly sins. Would I openly call some people evil... yes, in accordance to that definition, but I would not call them inherently evil or beyond redemption or imply that they are somehow inferior to me

Edited August 28, 2012 by Hollowshield

[Abstract 831]

It gives purpose to do things for a "good" cause. I should wonder if America and the foundation for a democratic-republic, or any government at all for that matter, would have been created in a society that did not hope for or believe in something more. Our "rights" have been given to us under the assumption they are "God given" for example - what would be the concrete argument for such rights if no one could imagine or believe in a God? There would be none, all you could argue is that it would bring the most happiness to the most number of people, and in such a Godless world there would be no reason for anyone who would end up having less happiness for one reason or another to promote such a notion.

What exactly is, "something more" to you? A higher power? I'm just confused by what you are directly referring to. "Something more" in a loosely defined sense is what humanity hopes to aspire to. It is, for all intents and purposes, our reason for being. To better our situation that we call life, to make something out of nothing. But from what I gather this is not what you mean.

 

At the time, if you were not religious, you were considered an outcast from society, most likely tormented mentally and perhaps physically by everyone around you. At the time, religion was the concrete example by which moral and social standards were set. I will concede that perhaps they were needed, again, at the time, to give reason for such rights existing. But I believe we've progressed past that now, where we can define our own standards from our reasoning and logic, instead of needing some kind of outside source of validation.

 

 

 

It is to the person who believes it

If they devote their lives to it, sure. But there is a fundamental difference between believing in something, and fighting for that belief. Furthermore, I should have clarified earlier that I was not referring to all beliefs in my original statement; I was referring to specifically the belief of something more.

 

 

 

In that same sentence I acknowledged the possibility that there may be nothing more at all, I don't understand how you can assume I'm being willfully ignorant of anything?

I could very easily be misinterpreting your words, but the meaning I get from them is, "I acknowledge your point of view but I will not consider it because it goes against what I believe." Please correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps a better phrase to use would be "closed minded."

 

 

 

I do not straight out believe. I am not pretending to know if anything happens after death. What I am saying is that even if nothing happens, I will live my life in a way that is synonymous with the greatest ideal world and person I can imagine because, even if I'm doing nothing but pretending, I believe there is more value in living such a life according to your imagination than according to the simple harsh reality of what we can see right in front of our faces. Without that hope of there being something more, there is nothing at all - least of all for the people that suffer more than are comforted in the world

 

Why do you need to have a hope in something bigger than ourselves to life the best life you possibly can? I'm having trouble grasping my mind around this concept; that you need to have a reason to be a good person. Clearly you're already in the belief that you should be, why do you need something to validate how you feel?

[Guest]

How could I exemplify being "good" to you? Well I suppose I couldn't because if I were doing something to prove it to you I wouldn't exactly be doing "good" for the sake of "good" now would I? And If I were doing an act of "good" and you saw me you wouldn't be able to fully understand my motivation for it, even if you trusted me. But the way I see it is no one has to prove whether or not they're good to anyone but themselves.

 

I suppose you'll know when you do a "good" act when you don't have to ask yourself if what you're doing is good, you'll just inherently know. Perhaps that is impossible for humans to fully reach that point, but it is nevertheless part of my own dream and thus something I personally strive for it.

If you can't know what is a truly good act, then how can you do one? How could you differentiate from feeling good for helping the elderly lady for a reason, and helping the elderly lady "because it is good." And I don't ask you to actually do something to prove to me, but I am asking you to give me a way you could even do something purely for the good of it. Without having a basis for what is actually good (which you have yet to give me, so I don't even know what you consider "good" to be) how can you know you are doing it?

 

Do what you want I guess, I won't stop you, I'm just trying to understand the reasoning.

 

My own personal thoughts on "evil" is that it is self abandonment, caving in to the 7 deadly sins. Would I openly call some people evil... yes, in accordance to that definition, but I would not call them inherently evil or beyond redemption or imply that they are somehow inferior to me

Then what is the use of calling them evil? If it doesn't change them overly much, why label them that? Some people are that way due to their mind's wiring, does that still make them evil? Is the man who kills to save his family still evil? The world is all greys, you can't state that there must be a "black and white" way it works, but then treat it like a grey world. "Black and white" ideology claims there can be no middle ground, either they are to be condemned eternally unless they repent, or they are pure.

 

There is no room for shadows in a world of purely light and dark spaces.

Edited August 28, 2012 by Guest

[Titan Rising 2,156]

What exactly is, "something more" to you? A higher power? I'm just confused by what you are directly referring to. "Something more" in a loosely defined sense is what humanity hopes to aspire to. It is, for all intents and purposes, our reason for being. To better our situation that we call life, to make something out of nothing. But from what I gather this is not what you mean.

It does not really matter what it is to me, I can only speculate with respect to my own thoughts and experiences. However in the general sense I suppose I might define it as reason to believe "good" is an objective concept.

 

I could very easily be misinterpreting your words, but the meaning I get from them is, "I acknowledge your point of view but I will not consider it because it goes against what I believe." Please correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps a better phrase to use would be "closed minded."

I acknowledge your point of view as a possibility, but I would rather live my life believing in a possibility that there is something more than give in to your view that there is not

 

Why do you need to have a hope in something bigger than ourselves to life the best life you possibly can? I'm having trouble grasping my mind around this concept; that you need to have a reason to be a good person. Clearly you're already in the belief that you should be, why do you need something to validate how you feel?

 

Because the only thing that we can live for if there is nothing bigger than ourselves is comfort and our own happiness. These are things that I do not care about or wish to struggle through life trying to get. They just don't matter to me at all.

Edited August 28, 2012 by Hollowshield

[Music Chart Fan 818]

How could I exemplify being "good" to you? Well I suppose I couldn't because if I were doing something to prove it to you I wouldn't exactly be doing "good" for the sake of "good" now would I? And If I were doing an act of "good" and you saw me you wouldn't be able to fully understand my motivation for it, even if you trusted me. But the way I see it is no one has to prove whether or not they're good to anyone but themselves.

 

I suppose you'll know when you do a "good" act when you don't have to ask yourself if what you're doing is good, you'll just inherently know. Perhaps that is impossible for humans to fully reach that point, but it is nevertheless part of my own dream and thus something I personally strive for it.

 

My own personal thoughts on "evil" is that it is self abandonment, caving in to the 7 deadly sins. Would I openly call some people evil... yes, in accordance to that definition, but I would not call them inherently evil or beyond redemption or imply that they are somehow inferior to me

I was thinking of responses to your previous statements, but first I think this new development warrants a response.

 

Why do you think that doing good for the sake of doing good is the ideal way to act in this world? Why not do good to make a better world for yourself and for others? I fail to see why "the sake of doing good" is superior to actual good outcomes in this world, which, to repeat myself, is the only world we know for sure exists.

 

If I am understanding your statements correctly, you think that if one THINKS (or in your words "inherently knows") one is doing good, then one IS doing good. But this view seems to dismiss the fact that our actions have consequences on others which can be evaluated. In this view, a person who tortures another person for his pleasure thinks/feels he is doing good, so therefore he is doing good. Does this seem correct to you?

[Titan Rising 2,156]

If you can't know what is a truly good act, then how can you do one? How could you differentiate from feeling good for helping the elderly lady for a reason, and helping the elderly lady "because it is good." And I don't ask you to actually do something to prove to me, but I am asking you to give me a way you could even do something purely for the good of it. Without having a basis for what is actually good (which you have yet to give me, so I don't even know what you consider "good" to be) how can you know you are doing it?

 

Do what you want I guess, I won't stop you, I'm just trying to understand the reasoning.

I feel like I do know what being "good" is - in a word I would call it selflessness. However, knowing what "good" is and actually following through with it are two different things. I don't know if I could do something "purely for the good of it", but I dream and hope for a world where it is possible, and so I will try.

 

Then what is the use of calling them evil? If it doesn't change them overly much, why label them that? Some people are that way due to their mind's wiring, does that still make them evil? Is the man who kills to save his family still evil? The world is all greys, you can't state that there must be a "black and white" way it works, but then treat it like a grey world. "Black and white" ideology claims there can be no middle ground, either they are to be condemned eternally unless they repent, or they are pure.

 

There is no room for shadows in a world of purely light and dark spaces.

 

I probably wouldn't use the word evil because it has a stigma attached to it that suggests someone isn't as good as someone else or beyond redemption. What I might say to someone is that I think they're forsaking themselves and that I believe they can change.

 

If a person does not know what they're doing then I can not call them evil, that would be like calling someone evil for accidently crashing into my car - I think evil (using my definition again) requires a person to intentionally or purposefully disregard being good. Though your example does require such a person whose mind is wired a certain way to indeed be unable to control themselves and have no concept of right and wrong.

 

I believe there is nothing wrong with killing if it is not done out of anger, greed, gluttony, lust, pride, envy or sloth.

 

Also I have never suggested that I believe in a hell where you go to burn if you don't do what I believe is right, because I dont. And you assuming the world is grey is just as much an assumption as anyone else who would say they believe it is black and white. I hope for a world that is black and white because I want good to be objective.

Edited August 28, 2012 by Hollowshield

[Guest]

I feel like I do know what being "good" is - in a word I would call it selflessness. However, knowing what "good" is and actually following through with it are two different things. I don't know if I could do something "purely for the good of it", but I dream and hope for a world where it is possible, and so I will try.

 

 

 

I probably wouldn't use the word evil because it has a stigma attached to it that suggests someone isn't as good as someone else or beyond redemption. What I might say to someone is that I think they're forsaking themselves and that I believe they can change.

 

If a person does not know what they're doing then I can not call them evil, that would be like calling someone evil for accidently crashing into my car - I think evil (using my definition again) requires a person to intentionally or purposefully disregard being good. Though your example does require such a person whose mind is wired a certain way to indeed be unable to control themselves and have no concept of right and wrong.

 

I believe there is nothing wrong with killing if it is not done out of anger, greed, gluttony, lust, pride, envy or sloth.

 

Also I have never suggested that I believe in a hell where you go to burn if you don't do what I believe is right, because I dont. And you assuming the world is grey is just as much an assumption as anyone else who would say they believe it is black and white. I hope for a world that is black and white because I want good to be objective.

 

The thing is, a black and white world needs evil. You can't have just a "happy gooey world" with no evil and only good. You can't say "there is good, but people aren't really evil they just do bad things." Also, I am intrigued to hear what you think "killing in a good way," so if I killed a man just because I felt like it, I wasn't angry, wasn't lustful, or anything like that, I just did it, would that be evil? I don't want to kill them, but I do it anyway without reason, it wasn't an accident though.

 

What is the use of having a "good" if there is no punishment for those who do not be "good?" If there is no hell and everyone goes to heaven, why be good? That is why there must be evil, with punishment, if there is to be any sort of good. Otherwise there is no reason other than "making you feel good for being good." Which, if everyone makes it to heaven, or at the very least doesn't go to hell, why would they worry about it?

 

Also, the seven deadly sins are just alterations of natural feelings, am I evil because I enjoy food overly much, I envy my neighbors having a pool, I am a lazy butt, I want more money, I get pissy sometimes, I take pride in my poetry, and I would like to enjoy myself in the bedroom? Do those things make me evil? Draining yourself of natural emotions in the name of "good" is just draining yourself of the ability to feel. Yes, some have negative affects, but so can feelings like "happiness" and "sadness" should I not wish to experience those too? Its all a part of being human.

[Titan Rising 2,156]

The thing is, a black and white world needs evil. You can't have just a "happy gooey world" with no evil and only good. You can't say "there is good, but people aren't really evil they just do bad things." Also, I am intrigued to hear what you think "killing in a good way," so if I killed a man just because I felt like it, I wasn't angry, wasn't lustful, or anything like that, I just did it, would that be evil? I don't want to kill them, but I do it anyway without reason, it wasn't an accident though.

If someone killed because they felt like it that would fall under lust i think lol... If they just did it (and I knew they did it) with no other reason but to do it I would say they had no sense of right and wrong to begin with, they would be no different than an animal at that point and so I could not call them evil

 

Also, I'm not saying that a black and white world could ever be completely without evil, but I would like to live in a world that strives to be good. In the case of something like heaven, I imagine it would be filled with people who do good simply for the sake of good, despite having knowledge of evil. And I don't see why I can't believe that "there is good, but people aren't really evil they just do bad things."

 

What is the use of having a "good" if there is no punishment for those who do not be "good?" If there is no hell and everyone goes to heaven, why be good? That is why there must be evil, with punishment, if there is to be any sort of good. Otherwise there is no reason other than "making you feel good for being good." Which, if everyone makes it to heaven, or at the very least doesn't go to hell, why would they worry about it?

In my opinion, being evil is punishing yourself. You create your own lonely abyss and you throw yourself into it, that is the punishment. I don't think anyone should necessarily worry about it... They should just try the best they can to be good. But that is also not to say that people should be good simply because being bad would cause them to punish themselves either

 

Also, the seven deadly sins are just alterations of natural feelings, am I evil because I enjoy food overly much, I envy my neighbors having a pool, I am a lazy butt, I want more money, I get pissy sometimes, I take pride in my poetry, and I would like to enjoy myself in the bedroom? Do those things make me evil? Draining yourself of natural emotions in the name of "good" is just draining yourself of the ability to feel. Yes, some have negative affects, but so can feelings like "happiness" and "sadness" should I not wish to experience those too? Its all a part of being human.

 

Yes I think they do, but I do not think of you less for them. I simply think you have potential to be better than what you currently are. The exception is "enjoying food" - I don't think it is evil for enjoying food, or gaining enjoyment or comfort from doing things when they are side effects of being good for the sake of good. If you were to stuff your face because you enjoyed food then I think it would be evil.

 

I dont think Im draining my emotions either, I simply try not to let them control me. Emotions will still come as a side product of being good for the sake of being good. You can still know happiness being selfless, you just shouldn't seek happiness through trying to be selfless

Edited August 28, 2012 by Hollowshield

[Guest]

If someone killed because they felt like it that would fall under lust i think lol... If they just did it (and I knew they did it) with no other reason but to do it I would say they had no sense of right and wrong to begin with, they would be no different than an animal at that point and so I could not call them evil

 

Also, I'm not saying that a black and white world could ever be completely without evil, but I would like to live in a world that strives to be good. In the case of something like heaven, I imagine it would be filled with people who do good simply for the sake of good, despite having knowledge of evil. And I don't see why I can't believe that "there is good, but people aren't really evil they just do bad things."

I am an animal, I am no better than an animal, merely different in what sort of animal I am.

 

But then where do the bad people who don't repent go? What's the use, you have missed my point. What is the use of having a systematic labeling of inherent good and evil if there is no point to it? If we all die, and we all end up in the same place, it is a useless system with no actual goal. The killers, rapists, and the like get in with people like Mother Theresa simply because there is no punishment.

 

In my opinion, being evil is punishing yourself. You create your own lonely abyss and you throw yourself into it, that is the punishment. I don't think anyone should necessarily worry about it... They should just try the best they can to be good. But that is also not to say that people should be good simply because being bad would cause them to punish themselves either

You aren't answering my question, you are working around it. What does it matter if you temporarily punish yourself while alive by being evil if it doesn't amount to any sort of punishment in an afterlife? And also, a lot of people who do "bad acts" are not lonely, and they probably don't feel bad. They probably have friends who also enjoy those acts, like gang-members who beat the crap out of people because they think its funny. If there is no reason to worry, the point of good and evil is moot, good and evil only function if there is a reason to worry about being bad that drives you to do good. Otherwise doing good has no purpose other than being good.

 

Yes I think they do, but I do not think of you less for them. I simply think you have potential to be better than what you currently are. The exception is "enjoying food" - I don't think it is evil for enjoying food, or gaining enjoyment or comfort from doing things when they are side effects of being good for the sake of good. If you were to stuff your face because you enjoyed food then I think it would be evil.

 

I dont think Im draining my emotions either, I simply try not to let them control me. Emotions will still come as a side product of being good for the sake of being good. You can still know happiness being selfless, you just shouldn't seek happiness through trying to be selfless

 

Ok, so I'm evil then, because all those things accurately described me. What is the use of saying I'm evil though if you don't look down on me, or at the very least pity me for not taking the "correct path." Am I not somehow more loathsome because of it? If not, then why even say I'm evil at all? Calling me evil would be to set me apart from others who are "good," which I assume you are or at least strive to be "good" in your sense of the word.

 

I've never considered myself evil, I help others, I love people with all my heart, I do volunteering and charity when I can, I look for beauty and cherish it, I laugh, I live, am I despicable?

 

Yes, I have failings, but am I evil? Do I feel bad about some-things, yeah, all people feel bad about somethings, does that mean I think what I did was evil? No, I thought it was stupid.

 

You have this big elaborate system setup, that you want to give you purpose, yet you have it setup in a way that in itself has no purpose because it accomplishes nothing. It doesn't set apart the bad from the good, it equally awards the bad and good in the end, and it doesn't make you feel better than those who do "evil."

 

What's the point then, a system that gives you purpose that yields no purpose and no gain or loss? When we die it would be just like the system was never there then.

Edited August 28, 2012 by Guest

[Titan Rising 2,156]

I am an animal, I am no better than an animal, merely different in what sort of animal I am.

Indeed, very different.

 

But then where do the bad people who don't repent go? What's the use, you have missed my point. What is the use of having a systematic labeling of inherent good and evil if there is no point to it? If we all die, and we all end up in the same place, it is a useless system with no actual goal. The killers, rapists, and the like get in with people like Mother Theresa simply because there is no punishment.

The goal [i think] is enlightenment, and enlightenment for everyone. Those who forsake themselves will not be enlightened and will create their own hell for themselves.

 

You aren't answering my question, you are working around it. What does it matter if you temporarily punish yourself while alive by being evil if it doesn't amount to any sort of punishment in an afterlife? And also, a lot of people who do "bad acts" are not lonely, and they probably don't feel bad. They probably have friends who also enjoy those acts, like gang-members who beat the crap out of people because they think its funny. If there is no reason to worry, the point of good and evil is moot, good and evil only function if there is a reason to worry about being bad that drives you to do good. Otherwise doing good has no purpose other than being good.

Maybe it's hard to see that they feel bad but I think they do, at least on some level, I certainly can't imagine them actually being satisfied with themselves. I don't want to punish anyone, me punishing someone because of something they did is revenge and that requires me to bare negative feelings against them. Thinking that anyone has the moral authority to punish someone else is also cause to put themselves on a pedestal and think highly of themselves by acting as though they are superior and not capable of certain actions

 

The reason I don't think people should worry is because I believe everyone is capable of finding redemption, and eventually finding enlightenment. I also think only by punishing yourself can you help to reignite the spark of wanting to be enlightened

 

Ok, so I'm evil then, because all those things accurately described me. What is the use of saying I'm evil though if you don't look down on me, or at the very least pity me for not taking the "correct path." Am I not somehow more loathsome because of it? If not, then why even say I'm evil at all? Calling me evil would be to set me apart from others who are "good," which I assume you are or at least strive to be "good" in your sense of the word.

 

I've never considered myself evil, I help others, I love people with all my heart, I do volunteering and charity when I can, I look for beauty and cherish it, I laugh, I live, am I despicable?

 

Yes, I have failings, but am I evil? Do I feel bad about some-things, yeah, all people feel bad about somethings, does that mean I think what I did was evil? No, I thought it was stupid.

Just to remind you my definition of evil was something like not doing good. I'm not calling you satan or anything.

 

To look down on you is to put myself on a pedestal and I don't think that is right, it implies I am not capable of those shortcomings (and let me assure you, I am). I suppose it would be fine to pity someone for their shortcomings, I don't see why it wouldn't be. No you are not more loathsome because of your acts. Calling you evil is just a way to say you're not doing good, like I said before it is not to label you as satan or anything. In fact maybe it's not appropriate to call you evil, maybe it's only appropriate to call an act that you did as evil.

 

You have this big elaborate system setup, that you want to give you purpose, yet you have it setup in a way that in itself has no purpose because it accomplishes nothing. It doesn't set apart the bad from the good, it equally awards the bad and good in the end, and it doesn't make you feel better than those who do "evil."

 

What's the point then, a system that gives you purpose that yields no purpose and no gain or loss? When we die it would be just like the system was never there then.

 

I wouldn't call it elaborate lol, I would actually call it deceptively simple. It is the most simple thing I could come up with and it makes sense to me.

 

The purpose like I said before is to be enlightened. To temper our souls. The reason behind being good and enlightened is something I cannot provide, it is just a way I believe we ought to be, and it is from that that I believe there must be something more to life that we are perhaps incapable of understanding. Or maybe we are and it's just so simple that we look right passed it. I don't know for sure, but it is what makes me want to believe and live my life as though there is something more.

[Guest]

You aren't answering my question, if I don't have to be enlightened, why should I attempt to be? You keep avoiding the actual question. So what, what is enlightenment? You can't define that, it makes no difference. You are veiling your words, and not answering my question.

 

What is the point? The word enlightenment is just a different name for what you were saying earlier. Its a re-skinning of your argument. You say you cannot provide an answer, therefore the argument is going to become entirely cyclical with you stating the same thing of having no actual answer.

 

What is the point if it changes nothing, if it has no actual effect beyond some unseen enlightenment which from what you say alters nothing beyond attaining enlightenment? It is a goal within itself, it produces nothing, it gains nothing, those who don't attain it lose nothing. Why need a tempered soul if you get to enjoy eternity anyway?

[PonyEcho 1,610]

You aren't answering my question, if I don't have to be enlightened, why should I attempt to be? You keep avoiding the actual question. So what, what is enlightenment? You can't define that, it makes no difference. You are veiling your words, and not answering my question.

 

What is the point? The word enlightenment is just a different name for what you were saying earlier. Its a re-skinning of your argument. You say you cannot provide an answer, therefore the argument is going to become entirely cyclical with you stating the same thing of having no actual answer.

 

What is the point if it changes nothing, if it has no actual effect beyond some unseen enlightenment which from what you say alters nothing beyond attaining enlightenment? It is a goal within itself, it produces nothing, it gains nothing, those who don't attain it lose nothing. Why need a tempered soul if you get to enjoy eternity anyway?

 

Dude just ignore all this its what i'm doing now after getting mad that hollow pretty much said i'm not better then to homophobes who attacked me and that i'm in the wrong for not forgiving them

he doesn't care

[Titan Rising 2,156]

You aren't answering my question, if I don't have to be enlightened, why should I attempt to be? You keep avoiding the actual question. So what, what is enlightenment? You can't define that, it makes no difference. You are veiling your words, and not answering my question.

You didn't ask that... And to answer that question it's because I suspect we all inherently want to be enlightened whether or not we think we do or not. By enlightened I mean be good. If you want me to tell you the point of being good I can't and I've already said I can't - I believe that might be beyond our comprehension.

 

What is the point? The word enlightenment is just a different name for what you were saying earlier. Its a re-skinning of your argument. You say you cannot provide an answer, therefore the argument is going to become entirely cyclical with you stating the same thing of having no actual answer.

I don't know if you realized this, but in my very first post I admitted I can't argue with facts. This is philosophy, not science. This is an appeal to why we should hope there is something more, not a debate one whether or not there actually is something more.

 

What is the point if it changes nothing, if it has no actual effect beyond some unseen enlightenment which from what you say alters nothing beyond attaining enlightenment? It is a goal within itself, it produces nothing, it gains nothing, those who don't attain it lose nothing. Why need a tempered soul if you get to enjoy eternity anyway?

 

I already said I don't know the point, only that I think it is the right way to be and so I follow it. It makes no sense to me for such a notion as good and evil to exist within a world of random chance and spontaneous existence and so I hope for there to be something greater and live according to that hope

 

Dude just ignore all this its what i'm doing now after getting mad that hollow pretty much said i'm not better then to homophobes who attacked me and that i'm in the wrong for not forgiving them

he doesn't care

 

Please don't spam my thread with your inability to fully understand what I said....

Edited August 28, 2012 by Hollowshield

[Guest]

It isn't my inability to understand, its my desire to find reason, but regardless, I learned more about myself through the debating so I found it a positive experience. I'm going to have to pull out, mainly because I believe we have exhausted all possible routes of discussion.

 

Thank you for the debate, and I admire your ability to stick to your beliefs regardless of what others say, you've got your's I've got mine, nothing wrong with that. Nothing of what I said was meant in any disrespect, to learn, not hinder, so I hope no hard feelings ensue.

[Titan Rising 2,156]

It isn't my inability to understand, its my desire to find reason, but regardless, I learned more about myself through the debating so I found it a positive experience.

 

That's what I like to hear ol chap! It has helped me think and more intensively look at my thoughts also so it has been a positive experience, with all of you. And even if I sounded a bit hostile at times I mean nothing by it, it's just something that comes out in my writing when I try hard to explain a point.

[bagelbass 29]

While I do believe in a higher power, I can't help but agree with all you've said. Absolutely brilliantly written. I tip my hat off to you.

[Music Chart Fan 818]

I'm going to have to pull out, mainly because I believe we have exhausted all possible routes of discussion.

Agreed. We all have tried to convince each other of the merits of our beliefs, but it seems to me that we approach these issues from fundamentally different viewpoints, so perhaps the best course of action at this point is to agree to disagree.

 

I learned more about myself through the debating so I found it a positive experience.

Again, agreed.