d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Organized Religion Is The Bane Of Humanity
Prev11314151617Next
Closed New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 7,251
Joined: Oct 9 2021
Gold: 4,661.71
Nov 16 2023 10:15am
Quote (ofthevoid @ Nov 16 2023 04:46pm)
40 nukes, depending on yield (lets assume they will be big ones), would be an absolutely cataclysmic event, something probably coming close in scale (probably not that bad but really I can't think of a single other event that would be close to comparison) to when the asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs. It would result in the earth going into some form of an ice age, with many species, if not completely going extinct, significantly impacted, both plant mammals and everything in between. To say it wouldn't impact nature is silly, as it would alter large swaths of biome for a long time.

>I don't care about definitions.

You should dawg, because you sound like an utter idiot posting that incoherent gibberish above.


I didnt say it wouldnt impact nature, I said nature wouldnt care. Nature isnt conscious and it will recover, no matter how long it takes.
Member
Posts: 7,251
Joined: Oct 9 2021
Gold: 4,661.71
Nov 16 2023 10:16am
Quote (C4NTWO @ Nov 16 2023 04:58pm)
we really do, in the sense that we manipulate nature for the sake of our own benefit, and not necessarily to co-exist within it.

our fecal matter is natural, not our toxic waste, lol


Both is. Nature will still be there long after humans took their last breath.
Member
Posts: 28,870
Joined: Aug 11 2013
Gold: 10,712.00
Nov 16 2023 10:34am
Quote (Modulok2405 @ Nov 16 2023 11:15am)
I didnt say it wouldnt impact nature, I said nature wouldnt care. Nature isnt conscious and it will recover, no matter how long it takes.


Nature isn't a singular being but a concept we ascribe to the collective of the physical world around us. It "wouldn't care" because it's not conscious. But care vs not caring doesn't really matter in the context of the impact it would have on both the collective and the parts that make it up.

Parts of it would recover, other parts may not. If a black bear's population is wiped out due to the nuke impact, radiation or the subsequent cooling/food chain collapse, that bear species isn't magically going to sprout 200 years later when the dust settles and radiation gets tolerable. Many such cases would exist, with recovery to what it was before never to be really reachable.
Member
Posts: 14,515
Joined: Oct 2 2007
Gold: 25,500.67
Nov 16 2023 10:36am
Quote (Modulok2405 @ Nov 16 2023 11:16am)
Both is. Nature will still be there long after humans took their last breath.


sry man, cant agree with you since i dont agree with you about the definition of the word "both".
you see how ridiculous you are? lol


you dont seem to be able to comprehend the difference between nature and human nature, which are not the same.
Member
Posts: 34,186
Joined: May 25 2007
Gold: 21.00
Warn: 10%
Nov 16 2023 10:39am
Quote (C4NTWO @ Nov 16 2023 08:36am)
sry man, cant agree with you since i dont agree with you about the definition of the word "both".
you see how ridiculous you are? lol


you dont seem to be able to comprehend the difference between nature and human nature, which are not the same.


meaningless arbitrary distinction

humans are natural, part of nature

is a dam not natural because a beaver built it?
Member
Posts: 14,515
Joined: Oct 2 2007
Gold: 25,500.67
Nov 16 2023 10:47am
Quote (El1te @ Nov 16 2023 11:39am)
meaningless arbitrary distinction

humans are natural, part of nature

is a dam not natural because a beaver built it?


the definition is pretty clear.


nat·u·ral
/ˈnaCHər(ə)l,ˈnaCHr(ə)l/
adjective
1.
existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

This post was edited by C4NTWO on Nov 16 2023 10:47am
Member
Posts: 29,431
Joined: Mar 24 2011
Gold: 840.00
Warn: 40%
Nov 16 2023 10:47am
Quote (Modulok2405 @ 16 Nov 2023 10:14)
Before you make statements like the one you just made, you have to understand that most of it is not more than a bunch assumptions that you make.

Let me go over what you wrote and add a layer of perspective to your thoughts:
Before I talk about your definition of god, let me say that it is one of the better ones imho.

To simplify it, dumb it down in a way, I try to summarize it.
The unknown truth out there is what you call "god", is that right? Thats fine, because there is an unknown truth and I as an atheist do not doubt that.

Where we separate is consciousness.
The whole concept of thinking that the unknown you call god is conscious is when I step aside and refuse to believe you. You say people who say they know god are fools while you call god a consciousness, which - with all due to respect - makes you a fool.

Low key questions like "is a tree a tree" are also not helping a lot. Yes a tree is a tree, but the name tree is just a name we gave it to describe the object. So its not one or the other its both.

Some even ask if chicken or egg were there first, when its obviously the wrong question to ask, because life just isnt as simple as that.

By the way I do not deny the existence of god, cause denial would mean I am able to prove the opposite, which I cannot. I just dont believe any god claims I heard so far. Thats about it.


God and consciousness are one and the same. I'm not saying God is "consciousness" what I'm saying is that the only way to experience this reality is through consciousness. You can't just turn your mind on and off when you please. It is a free flowing state that will never stop. It existed before you existed so to deny consciousness and God "i.e the mind of God" is to deny "creation" or this "universe"/ "existence" itself. The whole goal of Vedanta/Buddhism/Eastern philosophy is to realize this simple truth.

This is not which came first the chicken or the egg. This is God and consciousness coming into existence simultaneously. How could God know itself through any other means EXCEPT consciousness. Take the big bang or the genesis from the Bible and what you realize is that both events happened simultaneously. You can't have one without the other. Consciousness is the gift God(existence) gave to know itself or to prove it(God) exists. The only way for God to know it's God is for it to give "thought/consciousness" to another living entity to affirm itself. Philosophers/Theist/Atheist/etc. have argued this at nauseum and they all have great ways of seeing it. For me personally the ultimate goal is what is known as "Pure-bliss-consciousness". This is when you come to a place of ZERO thought and become silent to the very core of your being. Buddhist would say at this exact point you've reached "nirvana" / "samadhi" / "enlightenment" and that there is NOTHING left to be said or done. I partially agree with that because once you realize you and God(existence) are ONE there is nothing left to be explained. No science to prove. No God to search for. You found that inner peace and that cannot be taken away from you in this human form. A Buddhist would say if after experiencing that you have "questions" then you "don't get it". There is no higher purpose then that and anything that comes after is your own Ego. You still yearning to find an answer that was always there from the get go. Some people realize "God" in 3 seconds. Some realize it in 30 years. No ones path is wrong or right because the destination is the same for all regardless of religion/belief/etc.

edit: I should note that western religions have a different take on "consciousness". In Hinduism "consciousness" is what "all things" exist "on". From a physics perspective that's more so or less "atomic particles" and other forms of matter. The hindu will say "Ok that's great" but what does all of that "exist on". What is holding "all of this" together. What is that primordial force that acts without acting and exists without existing? Consciousness. It cannot be quantified or examined. If you take a part a human brain will you find the consciousness? No. You'll find the brain. All that remains is the consciousness(the vessel). This is why during birth/death it is consciousness that is the "animating force" that you(as this being you are right now in this moment) experience. On death where does this "consciousness" go? Atheist struggle with this one because they say "it simply ends" but how can that be if ALL living things are experiencing consciousness simultaneously. Physics says "matter is neither created or destroyed it is simply changing states". Then how can death be the end? It can't its just more comfortable for beings to believe "there is an end".

This post was edited by SwamiVivekananda on Nov 16 2023 11:12am
Member
Posts: 34,186
Joined: May 25 2007
Gold: 21.00
Warn: 10%
Nov 16 2023 10:47am
Quote (C4NTWO @ Nov 16 2023 08:47am)
the definition is pretty clear.

here is the definition of natural...

nat·u·ral
/ˈnaCHər(ə)l,ˈnaCHr(ə)l/
adjective
1.
existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.


who is the authority on the definition of words? whose definition?
Member
Posts: 14,515
Joined: Oct 2 2007
Gold: 25,500.67
Nov 16 2023 10:51am
Quote (El1te @ Nov 16 2023 11:47am)
who is the authority on the definition of words? whose definition?


lol, ill use that one next time im loosing an argument... :rofl:


is there a dictionary elsewhere which has a different definition for the word nature? link it, im curious.

This post was edited by C4NTWO on Nov 16 2023 10:52am
Member
Posts: 46,945
Joined: Sep 5 2016
Gold: 100.00
Nov 16 2023 02:36pm
Quote (C4NTWO @ Nov 16 2023 06:03am)
wasnt Hitler a christian?

or is it a case of he isnt a christian anymore once it makes christians look bad? haha


hahaha hitler makes atheists look bad so lets say he was a chritian...........
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev11314151617Next
Closed New Topic New Poll