another attempt to explain that there is no god
-
i would like to ask what is the god's opinion of people spending their money on restaurant, pleasure goods and luxury goods. Should we instead use these money to send to the sick and poor. What is the god's opinion towards these issues?
-
Why don't you pray to Him and ask?
But in all seriousness, there's no way anyone can truly answer those questions. Modern society is what us humans have made, any divine influence is probably not seen very well (but that doesn't prove it's not there.).
Likewise, I could encourage you to get off the com and get your butt to Africa to save the kids from malaria. I could tell you to go donate your money to those buskers on the streets. Why are you still doing what you call "wasting" your money on the electricity needed to run your household, your computer, your fans, your TV? -
so u actuali came to make a topic on this
-
you people pray everytime dun you? i dun pray because i dun believe in praying and god.Originally posted by SturmDerSchatten:Why don't you pray to Him and ask?
But in all seriousness, there's no way anyone can truly answer those questions. Modern society is what us humans have made, any divine influence is probably not seen very well (but that doesn't prove it's not there.).
Likewise, I could encourage you to get off the com and get your butt to Africa to save the kids from malaria. I could tell you to go donate your money to those buskers on the streets. Why are you still doing what you call "wasting" your money on the electricity needed to run your household, your computer, your fans, your TV?
i know that believers try to communicate with god and feel him right? so i would like to know what does god teaching tell us with regards to whether believers should spend extra earnings on saving sick or are you all allowed to spend on pleasure goods because of certain reasons.
Or do u mean that god has not given any instructions with regards to this matter, so its up to individual choice, and this issue has nothing to do with god's teaching, issit?
for me, i would say i am selfish, hence i prefer to spend on pleasure goods. -
if not lets just put god aside and just answer it from your own opinion.
Do you spend extra earnings on yourself or you try to send it to places where it can save lives? If you spend it on yourself, what is your reason? If you dun spend on pleasure goods and try to give it away to save lives, what is your reasons?
For me, i lazy and selfish in general, so i am those close one eye and just buy my ice cream to enjoy it. What about you people?
The second question is then, what would god expect us to do?
Issit something that has nothing to do with god? -
The point i am trying to bring across is this.
If religious people spend their extra earnings on themselves like crystal jade restaurant, nike shoe and mercedes car instead of saving these money for use of saving dying, is it considered a selfish actions or not?
If it is not a selfish act, then what is a selfish act to religious people?
Does being selfish or not affect whether one can heaven.
I know that believers can go to heaven right? When is the minimum amount of time you must be a believer before you can go to heaven? If a person is a non believer for 50 years and convert to a believer for one day and die after that, does he qualify to go heaven.
What if he become a believer for one hour only and then die?
As a science person and skeptic, my nature is to ask questions. -
If a non-believer does charity work throughout his life because he wants to help the poor and a thug who is a loanshark and everyday hang pig head and pour pain on people's house, who will go to heaven. Lets say that the loanshark truly repent and is remorse for his actions on his last day of life and become a christian believer while the charity worker continue his stance on his last day of life.
Secondly, for the priest who steal the money of the church in singapore, will he be be allowed to go to heaven if he express remorse? i guess he can still go heaven right because christians can confess their sins and seek forgiveness.
on the other hand, a law abiding citizens who is a non believer will have to go to hell by definition issit? -
you people pray everytime dun you? i dun pray because i dun believe in praying and god.
We pray because we confine in Him. We pray because of our worries, our fears. It's like having someone you can confide in all the time.i know that believers try to communicate with god and feel him right? so i would like to know what does god teaching tell us with regards to whether believers should spend extra earnings on saving sick or are you all allowed to spend on pleasure goods because of certain reasons.
You know what? If you are the hardworking intellectual you would like yourself to be, you'd go google the answer.
Or do u mean that god has not given any instructions with regards to this matter, so its up to individual choice, and this issue has nothing to do with god's teaching, issit?
for me, i would say i am selfish, hence i prefer to spend on pleasure goods.
The Bible teaches us to love our neighbour as we would ourselves. Treat the people around you as you would like to be treated. It's up to the person to do what he decides is charitable. Does everything have to be told by God, then we do it? He teaches us, and we have to learn and apply. Same with any teacher.
If you spend on what you term "pleasure goods", then that's not my problem. But think how much difference you would make to a beggar for a day, if you gave him enough money for his next meal.Do you spend extra earnings on yourself or you try to send it to places where it can save lives? If you spend it on yourself, what is your reason? If you dun spend on pleasure goods and try to give it away to save lives, what is your reasons?
If I have the ability, why not? If I can help someone, why not? Help is not always measured in monetary terms, and you'd be a fool to think so.
What are my reasons for helping? Because I believe it is God's will that we are here to help others.If religious people spend their extra earnings on themselves like crystal jade restaurant, nike shoe and mercedes car instead of saving these money for use of saving dying, is it considered a selfish actions or not?
How would you define "selfish"? When a person decides to keep all for himself and not share? When a person has the ability to share but does not want to?
If it is not a selfish act, then what is a selfish act to religious people?
Does being selfish or not affect whether one can heaven.
Ultimately, humans do not determine if they go to Heaven. God does. I cannot answer that question, because I am not God. We just try to live according to the laws and guidelines set down by the Bible.
I know that believers can go to heaven right? When is the minimum amount of time you must be a believer before you can go to heaven? If a person is a non believer for 50 years and convert to a believer for one day and die after that, does he qualify to go heaven.
What if he become a believer for one hour only and then die?As a science person and skeptic, my nature is to ask questions.
Asking questions that cannot be properly answered by both sides is as good as not asking at all. -
God will say "Take care of yourself, conduct yourself in a manner that pleases me, do not be too concerned for the poor, for the poor will always be around."
-
So according to what you say, we do not need to be too concerned for the poor, and all the charities campaign throughout the world and in singapore are not necessarily because we do not need to be too concerned for the poor.Originally posted by mancha:God will say "Take care of yourself, conduct yourself in a manner that pleases me, do not be too concerned for the poor, for the poor will always be around."
Do christian have charities? i am sure they do have some charities for the poor. Why are they concerned with the poor?
So you mean the singapore government do not need to be too concerned for the poor issit? They just need to conduct in a manner that pleases god? -
Ultimately, humans do not determine if they go to Heaven. God does. I cannot answer that question, because I am not God. We just try to live according to the laws and guidelines set down by the Bible.
why the bible and not other religious books?
How do you know that what the bible say is true? -
another attempt to explain that there is no god
Attempt failed.
Next.
-
No, what he is saying is, poverty is a problem we can never fully eradicate, because it results from humans abusing resources. We should care for the poor, but we should not let destroying poverty become our life.Originally posted by january:So according to what you say, we do not need to be too concerned for the poor, and all the charities campaign throughout the world and in singapore are not necessarily because we do not need to be too concerned for the poor.
Do christian have charities? i am sure they do have some charities for the poor. Why are they concerned with the poor?
So you mean the singapore government do not need to be too concerned for the poor issit? They just need to conduct in a manner that pleases god?
Of course Christians have charities. Why do you think there are so many churches and congregations extending their reach into the impoverished and war-torn countries of the world? We are concerned with the poor like anyone would be when he sees someone suffering. But the thing is, we cannot eradicate it, like mentioned, but we can make a difference to that someone we find.
...are you baiting again? -
Hehe...Originally posted by Cool-gal:Attempt failed.
Next. But I've a feeling that's what they want Christians to say. -
Yes.Originally posted by january:So according to what you say, we do not need to be too concerned for the poor, and all the charities campaign throughout the world and in singapore are not necessarily because we do not need to be too concerned for the poor.
Do christian have charities? i am sure they do have some charities for the poor. Why are they concerned with the poor?
So you mean the singapore government do not need to be too concerned for the poor issit? They just need to conduct in a manner that pleases god?
Yes.
Yes.
If you feel guilty you are not doing enough, that is your problem.
Individually, you are only required not to harras the poor. You are only required to give them some assistance, if you can. If a beggar ask for water, give some water, not poison. But if the whole village want to give a bucket of water each to the poor beggar, and he is overwhelmed. Whats that to you, you're only required do your minimal part.
What God wants to see in you is your sense of compassion. Do you have sincerly have it? Giving to the poor to show, God and your neighbours that you are a good soul, is self defeating. Give out of the goodness of your heart, and it need not be much.
Do not be too concern for the poor, for they will always be around.
But if you want to do more, its none of my concern, of for that matter anybody's else.
-
so you donate a little bit of money, then spend the bulk of the money on yourself like cable television, cafe cartel and takopochi while you could have further save the lives of dying people, that is fine with god issit?
-
If fact you do not have to give even a little at all.
You don't have to save the lives of people who are dying.
God understands that it is not your responsibility.
(unless it is your occupation to save lives)
But if you give a little out of the goodness of your heart, He will be happy with you.
So go ahead and dig into that US$500 Kobe steak.
Its alright with God.
Honest. -
I still don't see how this can constitute as an attempt to deny the existence of God.
-
so you are saying that GOD is okay with u if you do not give money to dying? Because you did not donate, the dying died as a result and that is nothing wrong in that. Is that what you say?Originally posted by mancha:
If fact you do not have to give even a little at all.
You don't have to save the lives of people who are dying.
God understands that it is not your responsibility.
(unless it is your occupation to save lives)
But if you give a little out of the goodness of your heart, He will be happy with you.
So go ahead and dig into that US$500 Kobe steak.
Its alright with God.
Honest.
Would i be right to say that therefore it is nothing wrong with being selfish according to what you say? -
"There are two ways of dealing with nonsense in this world. One way is to put nonsense in the right place; as when people put nonsense into nursery rhymes. The other is to put nonsense in the wrong place; as when they put it into educational addresses, psychological criticisms, and complaints against nursery rhymes or other normal amusements of mankind.
The pessimist is commonly spoken of as the man in revolt. He is not. Firstly, because it requires some cheerfulness to continue in revolt, and secondly, because pessimism appeals to the weaker side of everybody, and the pessimist, therefore, drives as roaring a trade as the publican. The person who is really in revolt is the optimist, who generally lives and dies in a desperate and suicidal effort to persuade all the other people how good they are. It has been proved a hundred times over that if you really wish to enrage people and make them angry, even unto death, the right way to do it is to tell them that they are all the sons of God. " -
"Spiritual doctrines do not actually limit the mind as do materialistic denials. Even if I believe in immortality I need not think about it. But if I disbelieve in immortality I must not think about it. In the first case the road is open and I can go as far as I like; in the second the road is shut.
The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues. When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful.
It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all.It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all." -
There is an alternative view and that is, "It is possible to understand and explain why one's thoughts, other people, life, eternity and the universe are utterly unreal. There is no need to "assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all". Therefore it is wrong to say that "Reason is itself a matter of faith."Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:"Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all."
The trick is know how to find meaning in life in the face of utter reality and not cling on to "beliefs". That is manifestly a very difficult thing to do for most people and so I do not begrudge people having a religion but I urge people to live in reality. -
That's an interesting notion, and in fact if I was a party in power would love to think that way... but there is just a catch.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:There is an alternative view and that is, "It is possible to understand and explain why one's thoughts, other people, life, eternity and the universe are utterly unreal. There is no need to "assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all". Therefore it is wrong to say that "Reason is itself a matter of faith."
The trick is know how to find meaning in life in the face of utter reality and not cling on to "beliefs". That is manifestly a very difficult thing to do for most people and so I do not begrudge people having a religion but I urge people to live in reality.
If indeed there is no need to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all, then there is indeed no need or reason to believe that any one way of thinking ought to be more reasonable or "living in reality" then the next.
Hence Atheism or Theism are both equally absurd, and neither can be trusted to give any picture of things at all. Everything is truly an utterly unreal.
In such a world or “it’s just a matter of how you relate to reality” , it would indeed be a world of see-as-you-want to those who have mastered the trick of accepting the absurdism of reality.
Through of course, in order to make such a claim that our reason be relevant to reality at all, we are indeed making an absolute observation on reality, as well as reason itself, and from where we derive such a principle does not seem to be birthed of any logic but simply a presupposition accepted without question- for indeed it is unquestionable- yet again on faith.
But supposing we are all truly deluded and stumble around reality with no way to relate to it. Then it would seem that we have abandoned all hope of assuming any moral stance over any oppressive or despotic powers that lay claim to our rights- for indeed, our rights are simply constructs with no relation to reality beyond what we wished for- and by what law shall what we wish for should not be taken away from us if we accept such a universe?
For such a universe only accepts the law of power, the ability to play out by delusion over yours.
Hence, oppressing somebody for my own (in my opinion) benefit is palatable as long as I convince myself that all these appeals to freedom, justice and virtue are simply human constructs with no relation to reality- and indeed, my own thoughts. If I have the power to override or suppress them then there is really no wrong in doing so.
As long as I convince myself of the unreality of others, and find my own meaning at any cost (even at that of others), and have the power to do so... then all is well.
I find it hard to eloquently argue against any despotic powers in Speakers Corner unless I have indeed, rejected such a worldview. In fact this would pretty much mean that whatever point of view we take on politics are actually all equal, and just a result of our upbringing or digestion to come to whichever faction we have chosen... but neither really justifies itself more then the other. -
It is upon the Trunk that a gentleman works.
—Analects of Confucius, I.2
The practical result of education in the spirit of The Green Book must be the destruction of the society which accepts it. But this is not necessarily a refutation of subjectivism about values as a theory. The true doctrine might be a doctrine which if we accept we die. No one who speaks from within the Tao could reject it on that account: 'åà äå öáåé êáé 'äëåóóïõ. But it has not yet come to that. There are theoretical difficulties in the philosophy of Gaius and Titius.
However subjective they may be about some traditional values, Gaius and Titius have shown by the very act of writing The Green Book that there must be some other values about which they are not subjective at all. They write in order to produce certain states of mind in the rising generation, if not because they think those states of mind intrinsically just or good, yet certainly because they think them to be the means to some state of society which they regard as desirable. It would not be difficult to collect from various passages in The Green Book what their ideal is. But we need not. The important point is not the precise nature of their end, but the fact that they have an end at all. They must have, or their book (being purely practical in intention) is written to no purpose. And this end must have real value in their eyes. To abstain from calling it good and to use, instead, such predicates as 'necessary' or 'progressive' or 'efficient' would be a subterfuge. They could be forced by argument to answer the questions 'necessary for what?', 'progressing towards what?', 'effecting what?'; in the last resort they would have to admit that some state of affairs was in their opinion good for its own sake. And this time they could not maintain that 'good' simply described their own emotion about it. For the whole purpose of their book is so to condition theyoung reader that he will share their approval, and this would be either a fool's or a villain's undertaking unless they held that their approval was in some way valid or correct.
In actual fact Gaius and Titius will be found to hold, with complete uncritical dogmatism, the whole system of values which happened to be in vogue among moderately educated young men of the professional classes during the period between the two wars.1 Their scepticism about values is on the surface: it is for use on other people's values; about the values current in their own set they are not nearly sceptical enough. And this phenomenon is very usual. A great many of those who 'debunk' traditional or (as they would say) 'sentimental' values have in the background values of their own which they believe to be immune from the debunking process. They claim to be cutting away the parasitic growth of emotion, religious sanction, and inherited taboos, in order that 'real' or 'basic' values may emerge. I will now try to find out what happens if this is seriously attempted. -
Let us continue to use the previous example—that of death for a good cause—not, of course, because virtue is the only value or martyrdom the only virtue, but because this is the experimentum crucis which shows different systems of thought in the clearest light. Let us suppose that an Innovator in values regards dulce et decorum and greater love hath no man as mere irrational sentiments which are to be stripped off in order that we may get down to the 'realistic' or 'basic' ground of this value. Where will he find such a ground?
First of all, he might say that the real value lay in the utility of such sacrifice to the community. 'Good', he might say, 'means what is useful to the community.' But of course the death of the community is not useful to the community—only the death of some of its members. What is really meant is that the death of some men is useful to other men. That is very true. But on what ground are some men being asked to die for the benefit of others? Every appeal to pride, honour, shame, or love is excluded by hypothesis. To use these would be to return to sentiment and the Innovator's task is, having cut all that away, to explain to men, in terms of pure reasoning, why they will be well advised to die that others may live. He may say 'Unless some of us risk death all of us are certain to die.' But that will be true only in a limited number of cases; and even when it is true it provokes the very reasonable counter question 'Why should I be one of those who take the risk?'
At this point the Innovator may ask why, after all, selfishness should be more 'rational' or 'intelligent' than altruism. The question is welcome. If by Reason we mean the process actually employed by Gaius and Titius when engaged in debunking (that is, the connecting by inference of propositions, ultimately derived from sense data, with further propositions), then the answer must be that a refusal to sacrifice oneself is no more rational than a consent to do so. And no less rational. Neither choice is rational—or irrational—at all. From propositions about fact alone no practical conclusion can ever be drawn. This will preserve society cannot lead to do this except by the mediation of society ought to be preserved. This will cost you your life cannot lead directly to do not do this: it can lead to it only through a felt desire or an acknowledged duty of self-preservation. The Innovator is trying to get a conclusion in the imperative mood out of premisses in the indicative mood: and though he continues trying to all eternity he cannot succeed, for the thing is impossible. We must therefore either extend the word Reason to include what our ancestors called Practical Reason and confess that judgements such as society ought to be preserved (though they can support themselves by no reason of the sort that Gaius and Titius demand) are not mere sentiments but are rationality itself; or else we must give up at once, and for ever, the attempt to find a core of 'rational' value behind all the sentiments we have debunked. The Innovator will not take the first alternative, for practical principles known to all men by Reason are simply the Tao which he has set out to supersede. He is more likely to give up the quest for a 'rational' core and to hunt for some other ground even more 'basic' and 'realistic'.