Lots of plausible hypothesis that are being studied in this extremely hard to study area, while none of them involved god and none relate to Christian scripture.
I don't believe in Creationism but I also believe that Evolution isn't the entirety of the truth. There are things in this world that science CANNOT explain. There are quite a few things in this world that it CAN explain. Look at religion throughout history and then put it with the scientific advances throughout history and you will notice that things that the God(s) have done/are responsible for.
You also jumped into this thread and down people's throats who are expressing their beliefs going WRONG WRONG WRONG SCIENCE SAYS SO! Well guess what Science is wrong 90% of the time as well. I mean they don't call it trial and error testing for nothing. There are still things in the Bible that science hasn't disproved. There are also somethings in the bible that Science HAS proved. There is still a lot to learn from the bible and I am guessing the teachings of humility by Jesus has completely gone over your head.
"expressing their beliefs going WRONG WRONG WRONG SCIENCE SAYS SO!"
Well science does say there are wrong. Remember, Christians started this when they kicked down the door to the science classroom and started forcing scripture to be taught as science. I don't have a go at other religions because it doesn't try to corrupt science.
"Well guess what Science is wrong 90% of the time as well."
That defies the definition of science as it requires proof, repeatability, predictability and to be falsifiable. How could we have landed on the moon of 90% of the science was wrong. How can your GPS be so accurate. How are you able to use the internet to make such a claim??!?!
"There are still things in the Bible that science hasn't disproved."
Same with Harry Potter books. Both are JUST books. Why should something which there is no evidence for need to be disproven? That is not how the burden of proof works. You can't accuse someone without any evidence for a crime and say "huh! Well prove you didn't!".
"There are also somethings in the bible that Science HAS proved."
Some part of Harry Potter are true. Like parts of it take place in London, and London is a real city.
"I am guessing the teachings of humility by Jesus has completely gone over your head."
I think that applies much more to you both for how you act and how you are supposed to be following his ideals.
Also no where recently have Christians knocked down doors and started shoving creationism down peoples throats as fact besides at CHRISTIAN/CATHOLIC schools. The Creationist Museum? Yeah completely private venture. No one s saying that you HAVE to go there and you HAVE to believe it. Yes people latch onto what they are taught but there are more and more people questioning things.
To your statement that Science has proven them wrong. What is the point of saying you BELIEVE in something if you let somethings sway you the other way. I bet that if you did believe in Santa Clause that it took a little bit afterwards for you to actually realize that he wasn't real. Beliefs are something that people hold close to them it doesn't matter whether you like it or not. People will always believe in a higher power.
As for the 90% of science being wrong? Go look up all the debunked hypothesis and all the ones that were changed from their origin. Yeah there is your 90%. Science doesn't mean just the things that worked. Science includes EVERY experiment ever done. Be it by a PHD holder or by a kindergartener Science by definition can and will be wrong on multiple occasions.
As for the "Prove you didn't do it" statement if there is no evidence against the person. There would be no court trials if that were true. Most non-guilty verdicts are people proving that the evidence that is apparently against them is not evidence against them at all. Apparently science can prove and disprove anything. Well it hasn't disproved the existence of a God yet. It has disproved some of the teachings of what it states God has done. But there is a point where science will not prove or disprove it. It might eventually but for now there is no evidence to contradict a higher power.
Its not short sighted at all. There are things Science will NEVER be able to explain. EVER. No amount of testing will prove it. UNLESS like I said we are able to turn the laws that we already know in science on their heads and pretty much become gods.
Or as my Agnostic friend says. I can explain everything with science and what I cannot explain with science Doctor Who takes over.
Science is empirical. Anything that cannot in principle be empirically measured or tested can neither be verified or disproved through the scientific method. As such it belongs to the realm of metaphysics. Unfortunately, metaphysical inquiry is pretty much limited to arbitrary speculation, if it is possible at all. The fact that the scientific method cannot verify the truth values for some propositions does NOT entail the truth of those propositions. And even if one does allow for metaphysical inquiry, said inquiry would still be subject to the general rules governing reason.
Occham's razor, when applied to religious doctrine, becomes a broadsword. In order to accept creationism we must accept so many additional and arbitrary explanations (e.g., that fossils were planted in the earth by the devil) that the position becomes untenable when considered alongside Darwinian theory. Darwinian theory doesn't have to be complete or perfect to be the more rational choice.
If you're going to be a creationist then you might as well subscribe to the Tertullian school of thought: "I believe because it is absurd!"
NEWSFLASH: BORED STUDENT PLAYS SOME VIDEO GAMES, GETS QUOTED ON THE ESCAPIST
Oh, and...
thethird0611 said:
So this thread is EXACTLY why you cant have an open-minded discussion about religion. Ill just point that out real quick, because if a thread even mentions religion, its all 'OUT OF CONTEXT QUOTE', 'RAGE AGAINST CHRISTIANITY', when the topic doesn't even have a motive to talk about religion specifically.
Did you really just put "open-minded" and "religion" in the same sentence?
Anyway, there's plenty of motive. The topic is religion and violence and... stuff. Therefore we have a license to bash religion some more. Until it dies. Forever.
I realllllyyyyyy have to hope you were being sarcastic there. Because if not, you seriously just proved my point, and talk about how religion is open minded, though many of my buddies are big Christians and study Biology, Mathematics(i.e. number theory and the such), Neuro/Social/Behavioral Psychology (my own), and even genetics.
Wowzer.
Though, if your first statement wasnt so unprofessional, I would agree with you. Theres not much substance to this study, not very many real world implications, and very basic.
"...and talk about how religion is open minded, though many of my buddies are big Christians and study Biology, Mathematics(i.e. number theory and the such), Neuro/Social/Behavioral Psychology (my own), and even genetics."
Annnnd thank you for proving my point. That you apparently see the study of sciences as proof of the open-mindedness of some Christians demonstrates how staggeringly closed-minded you, specifically, are. That's not your fault, of course. Indoctrination works, and it works well. Fortunately the internet is here to save future generations from its effects. Hurrah! Go internet!
Well of course religion is violent, it's comprised by humans. And what are humans? A miserable pile of--cough- excuse me, going Castlevania there for a second.
But in the end, Religion is violent and it isn't. The problem is that religion wether it teaches peace or not, it's open. It's kind of like Anonymous, if it lets in the right people, they'll drag down they name of it. A lot of the time, Religion is used by people who wanted to justify their hate or use religion to scare their enemies.
Religion also varies between person to person. Just because there's terrorist who kill in the name of their religion, doesn't mean that all the people who follow that religion are gone to be violent.
I think the Westboro Baptist church is proof of idiots hiding behind 'religion' to try and justify their sick and demented minds.
But in the end, it's not the religion that's violent it's the people who follow it. Unless the religion itself directly teaches violence and hate, then in most cases it's the people 'following' the religion, doing all the violence. And as video games find violence usualy to be their 'blood', it's not hard to see why video games would focus on those who use religion for violent acts, wether they be for the sake of mankind, or for dark porpoises.
And as video games find violence usualy to be their 'blood', it's not hard to see why video games would focus on those who use religion for violent acts, wether they be for the sake of mankind, or for dark porpoises.
Lots of plausible hypothesis that are being studied in this extremely hard to study area, while none of them involved god and none relate to Christian scripture.
I don't believe in Creationism but I also believe that Evolution isn't the entirety of the truth. There are things in this world that science CANNOT explain. There are quite a few things in this world that it CAN explain. Look at religion throughout history and then put it with the scientific advances throughout history and you will notice that things that the God(s) have done/are responsible for.
You also jumped into this thread and down people's throats who are expressing their beliefs going WRONG WRONG WRONG SCIENCE SAYS SO! Well guess what Science is wrong 90% of the time as well. I mean they don't call it trial and error testing for nothing. There are still things in the Bible that science hasn't disproved. There are also somethings in the bible that Science HAS proved. There is still a lot to learn from the bible and I am guessing the teachings of humility by Jesus has completely gone over your head.
"expressing their beliefs going WRONG WRONG WRONG SCIENCE SAYS SO!"
Well science does say there are wrong. Remember, Christians started this when they kicked down the door to the science classroom and started forcing scripture to be taught as science. I don't have a go at other religions because it doesn't try to corrupt science.
"Well guess what Science is wrong 90% of the time as well."
That defies the definition of science as it requires proof, repeatability, predictability and to be falsifiable. How could we have landed on the moon of 90% of the science was wrong. How can your GPS be so accurate. How are you able to use the internet to make such a claim??!?!
"There are still things in the Bible that science hasn't disproved."
Same with Harry Potter books. Both are JUST books. Why should something which there is no evidence for need to be disproven? That is not how the burden of proof works. You can't accuse someone without any evidence for a crime and say "huh! Well prove you didn't!".
"There are also somethings in the bible that Science HAS proved."
Some part of Harry Potter are true. Like parts of it take place in London, and London is a real city.
"I am guessing the teachings of humility by Jesus has completely gone over your head."
I think that applies much more to you both for how you act and how you are supposed to be following his ideals.
Also no where recently have Christians knocked down doors and started shoving creationism down peoples throats as fact besides at CHRISTIAN/CATHOLIC schools. The Creationist Museum? Yeah completely private venture. No one s saying that you HAVE to go there and you HAVE to believe it. Yes people latch onto what they are taught but there are more and more people questioning things.
To your statement that Science has proven them wrong. What is the point of saying you BELIEVE in something if you let somethings sway you the other way. I bet that if you did believe in Santa Clause that it took a little bit afterwards for you to actually realize that he wasn't real. Beliefs are something that people hold close to them it doesn't matter whether you like it or not. People will always believe in a higher power.
As for the 90% of science being wrong? Go look up all the debunked hypothesis and all the ones that were changed from their origin. Yeah there is your 90%. Science doesn't mean just the things that worked. Science includes EVERY experiment ever done. Be it by a PHD holder or by a kindergartener Science by definition can and will be wrong on multiple occasions.
As for the "Prove you didn't do it" statement if there is no evidence against the person. There would be no court trials if that were true. Most non-guilty verdicts are people proving that the evidence that is apparently against them is not evidence against them at all. Apparently science can prove and disprove anything. Well it hasn't disproved the existence of a God yet. It has disproved some of the teachings of what it states God has done. But there is a point where science will not prove or disprove it. It might eventually but for now there is no evidence to contradict a higher power.
You talk about "the Bible" being true without a shred of evidence, you're a Christian. You may claim to not be a creationism yet you espouse creationist ideals of god creating things rather than natural processes.
Christians HAVE forced secular public schools to kowtow to this theory, not just private religious schools and even then those private religious schools have a public responsibility to - if they want the reputation as teachers to standards of national curriculum - should teach SCIENCE in the science classrooms!
"What is the point of saying you BELIEVE in something if you let somethings sway you the other way."
So you admitting to wilful ignorance? To believe in holy scripture and damn everything else, just dismiss, ignore and reject. Typical creationist stance.
The fact that even the majority (you seem to have pulled 90% figure out of your ass) of science experiments going against expectation does NOT make science wrong, that adds to its strength that so many lines of enquiry have been tested and keeps adjusing theory to fit WITH ACTUAL PRACTICE! It's not about dogma, it's about the hard results of experiments and studies, Science get excited when the results go AGAINST expectations!
"Most non-guilty verdicts are people proving that the evidence that is apparently against them is not evidence against them at all."
Yes but there must be SOME prima-facie-evidence to analyse and weigh. Bible doesn't have that. It's just baseless ancient rumour.
"Well it hasn't disproved the existence of a God yet."
Well, no more than science has not yet disproved the existence of Santa Clause either. Really, science has disproved both by their claims being impossible.
It has disproved almost every one of the claims of natural providence to the point of making the work wholly unreliable. If you know a man has been caught out lying over and over and over and over again... would you still ask for more of his outlandish and unsupported claims to be "proven wrong" before thinking it might be a bad idea to start forcing his lies on education and public policy.
It is intellectually insulting to treat the Bible as fact or even remotely reliable.
So a Journalism student in Missouri has concerns that video games are too down on religion?
Huh.
And here, I get frustrated because I don't think they're nearly down enough; there is so much more room for intolerance, bigotry, dogma, superstition, honor-killing and broad-stroke divisiveness (a la John Carter of Mars (here's hoping Disney stays true to the subject matter), His Dark Materials (again, hoping to see more adherence to the original subject matter in the future), and many other semi-satirical works) in video games, and it seems like whenever religion comes up, you really get the sense that the writer really, really wanted to go further with the whole thing, but got nixed by marketing, who was afraid that it would offend faith-heads.
I know that around here it's preaching to the choir, but it still bears mention that video games don't 'problematize' religion; religion simply is a problem, and games lately seem to be more likely to give that fact a nod, even if they do handle the topic with kiddy gloves most of the time. I'll admit that I share Perreault's concern about games habitually emphasizing the violent side of religion, but for what I suspect are exactly opposite reasons from his: it's not that religions don't traditionally bear the most responsibility for human suffering and violence in the world -- it's that the violence and suffering are symptoms of the root cause of faith.
What a really good game narrative needs, is a focus on how faith has a habit of shitting all over reason and reasonable thought, leads people to form conclusions rather than informed conclusions, and ultimately often results in dogmatic soldiery and an us-versus-them mentality. Obviously this would work better in the context of a sci-fi universe than it would in that of a fantasy universe where, for instance, Tiber Septim really is a god, per the definition of the Elder Scrolls universe. Obviously, once your universe includes historical documents of supernatural entities and their powers, and once you can actually interact with them, then you're not dealing with faith anymore, yanno?
Anyway, this is already entirely too much writing about a paper I didn't even read -- not for lack of trying. I'd really like to see how he made his case now.
Everyone, just ignore Treblaine. Click on his name, then click on the rest X icon. Nothing you say is going to convince him of anything and he's just going to continually insult the religious and derail this topic with his ranting.
Stop, ignore him, and let the mods deal with the matter if he continually acts problematic.
To Treblaine specifically... take your issues to the Religion board and stop derailing this topic.
And as video games find violence usualy to be their 'blood', it's not hard to see why video games would focus on those who use religion for violent acts, wether they be for the sake of mankind, or for dark porpoises.
I think I'd laugh if there was a game in which you played a pacifist and had to avoid fighting, while the world was out to kill you, because they don't like your fashion sense.
I think that the article's statements are mostly fair, but that its angle is a bit skewed. Why should fiction avoid having motifs of religious violence when it is so common in the world today? Yes, some religions espouse peace, but many of these same systems have self-described followers who resort to murder and maiming to communicate that "message of peace".
I do find it amusing that in the article's semantics, you can "problematise" something that is already a problem. The abuse of religion to create violence and control others is a real problem in the world. Imitating reality is a natural part of fiction. That's why most novels aren't about worlds with no gravity and where everyone is a literal carrot or lettuce leaf.
You can't "problematise" religion unless you specifically state that religion is a problem, or blatantly use motifs to state that it is one. These games used historical figures and groups that caused real problems involving religion - without caricature or exaggeration, I wouldn't consider this a motif, simply a device.
Even if you consider all the examples listed as truly anti-religion (and I'd question your objectivity if you did), there's certainly pro-religious games out there as well. (Left Behind is one, perhaps disturbing, example.)
No, religion appears to get ties in with violence because it's that fuckin' easy. All you have to do is turn on the TV and watch the news every once in a while, or read a fuckin' history book. Or even better, read one of the Holy Books. There's more evil in those books than in Al-Qaeda suggestion box.
Everyone, just ignore Treblaine. Click on his name, then click on the rest X icon. Nothing you say is going to convince him of anything and he's just going to continually insult the religious and derail this topic with his ranting.
Stop, ignore him, and let the mods deal with the matter if he continually acts problematic.
To Treblaine specifically... take your issues to the Religion board and stop derailing this topic.
That seems to be an open admission of wilful ignorance. Typical.
Religions shouldn't be insulted by someone stating there is no factual basis to their faith, nor should they be insulted when it is pointed out how their dogma harms and otherwise negatively affects other people either inherently in scripture or by exploitation.
How am I being problematic when I answer questions that you ask? Did you assume I'd be unable to answer them? As to your false and fallacious claims about religion and science it is not the duty of other forum members to kowtow to the first to make claims so as not to cause a "problem". I have been civil. You cannot go off topic and expect no challenge by hypocritically expecting others to not follow in challenge of those claims. Discussion is not "problematic". It however IS a "problematic" to say that religious claims about the natural world cannot be challenged, that is the path to censorship.
And to keep this so on topic, why is challenge to religion a problem rather than religion itself being the problem?
You accuse me of derailing when you start making claims biblical scripture has precedence over scientific method and a load of other false and fallacious claims. Do you expect to preach to this thread and we should all just be silent? That would give it the impression of acceptability if it wasn't challenged.
"take your issues to the Religion board"
What?!?!? You concoct these false and fallacious claims about science and religion, Yet you tell ME TO LEAVE?!!?!?
This is already a topic about religion, the titles is: Study Says Videogames "Problematize" Religion as Violent
You CAN convince me. Just not with baseless claims (goddidit), logical fallacies (prove He didn't) nor hollow threats and blackmail (Pascal's Wager).
While I can see where this is coming from, I would still disagree. Yes, baddies are often religous in games, but it is almost never meant to comment on real beliefs(save Yevon and the Catholic Church). Besides, most of the time, calling the stuff in games "religon" is a strech, cause most of the time its just a variant on a Scientologist death cult.
I think this guy has an interesting point. Like he said, video games don't say religion is bad (which is what I originally thought this was going to be about), he just spoke of how they are excessively "problemized". I see where he's coming from. I can't think of one game off the top of my head that includes a religion that isn't directly involved in the conflict of the story in which it is included. As he said; they create interesting moral and physical conflicts.
3 - Nah, forget Schopenhauer and Epicurus and Nietzsche and generations of writers, philosophers, scientists, artists and film-makers who have spoken out negatively against Religion - VIDEO GAMES ARE INDOCTRINATING THE YOUTHS.
From what I gathered from the post, the writer never portrayed video games' depictions of religion as being bad or "indoctrinating our youths," and that they were simply used as an interesting means of conflict and portrayed as violent, never that it causes kids to become anti-religious or anything.
But he also stated that despite the common presence of those themes, he doesn't believe game makers are trying to "purposefully bash" religion. "I believe they are only using religion to create stimulating plot points in their story lines. If you look at videogames across the board, most of them involve violence in some fashion because violence is conflict and conflict is exciting," he continued. "Religion appears to get tied in with violence because that makes for a compelling narrative."
Lots of plausible hypothesis that are being studied in this extremely hard to study area, while none of them involved god and none relate to Christian scripture.
I don't believe in Creationism but I also believe that Evolution isn't the entirety of the truth. There are things in this world that science CANNOT explain. There are quite a few things in this world that it CAN explain. Look at religion throughout history and then put it with the scientific advances throughout history and you will notice that things that the God(s) have done/are responsible for.
You also jumped into this thread and down people's throats who are expressing their beliefs going WRONG WRONG WRONG SCIENCE SAYS SO! Well guess what Science is wrong 90% of the time as well. I mean they don't call it trial and error testing for nothing. There are still things in the Bible that science hasn't disproved. There are also somethings in the bible that Science HAS proved. There is still a lot to learn from the bible and I am guessing the teachings of humility by Jesus has completely gone over your head.
"expressing their beliefs going WRONG WRONG WRONG SCIENCE SAYS SO!"
Well science does say there are wrong. Remember, Christians started this when they kicked down the door to the science classroom and started forcing scripture to be taught as science. I don't have a go at other religions because it doesn't try to corrupt science.
"Well guess what Science is wrong 90% of the time as well."
That defies the definition of science as it requires proof, repeatability, predictability and to be falsifiable. How could we have landed on the moon of 90% of the science was wrong. How can your GPS be so accurate. How are you able to use the internet to make such a claim??!?!
"There are still things in the Bible that science hasn't disproved."
Same with Harry Potter books. Both are JUST books. Why should something which there is no evidence for need to be disproven? That is not how the burden of proof works. You can't accuse someone without any evidence for a crime and say "huh! Well prove you didn't!".
"There are also somethings in the bible that Science HAS proved."
Some part of Harry Potter are true. Like parts of it take place in London, and London is a real city.
"I am guessing the teachings of humility by Jesus has completely gone over your head."
I think that applies much more to you both for how you act and how you are supposed to be following his ideals.
Also no where recently have Christians knocked down doors and started shoving creationism down peoples throats as fact besides at CHRISTIAN/CATHOLIC schools. The Creationist Museum? Yeah completely private venture. No one s saying that you HAVE to go there and you HAVE to believe it. Yes people latch onto what they are taught but there are more and more people questioning things.
To your statement that Science has proven them wrong. What is the point of saying you BELIEVE in something if you let somethings sway you the other way. I bet that if you did believe in Santa Clause that it took a little bit afterwards for you to actually realize that he wasn't real. Beliefs are something that people hold close to them it doesn't matter whether you like it or not. People will always believe in a higher power.
As for the 90% of science being wrong? Go look up all the debunked hypothesis and all the ones that were changed from their origin. Yeah there is your 90%. Science doesn't mean just the things that worked. Science includes EVERY experiment ever done. Be it by a PHD holder or by a kindergartener Science by definition can and will be wrong on multiple occasions.
As for the "Prove you didn't do it" statement if there is no evidence against the person. There would be no court trials if that were true. Most non-guilty verdicts are people proving that the evidence that is apparently against them is not evidence against them at all. Apparently science can prove and disprove anything. Well it hasn't disproved the existence of a God yet. It has disproved some of the teachings of what it states God has done. But there is a point where science will not prove or disprove it. It might eventually but for now there is no evidence to contradict a higher power.
You talk about "the Bible" being true without a shred of evidence, you're a Christian. You may claim to not be a creationism yet you espouse creationist ideals of god creating things rather than natural processes.
Christians HAVE forced secular public schools to kowtow to this theory, not just private religious schools and even then those private religious schools have a public responsibility to - if they want the reputation as teachers to standards of national curriculum - should teach SCIENCE in the science classrooms!
"What is the point of saying you BELIEVE in something if you let somethings sway you the other way."
So you admitting to wilful ignorance? To believe in holy scripture and damn everything else, just dismiss, ignore and reject. Typical creationist stance.
The fact that even the majority (you seem to have pulled 90% figure out of your ass) of science experiments going against expectation does NOT make science wrong, that adds to its strength that so many lines of enquiry have been tested and keeps adjusing theory to fit WITH ACTUAL PRACTICE! It's not about dogma, it's about the hard results of experiments and studies, Science get excited when the results go AGAINST expectations!
"Most non-guilty verdicts are people proving that the evidence that is apparently against them is not evidence against them at all."
Yes but there must be SOME prima-facie-evidence to analyse and weigh. Bible doesn't have that. It's just baseless ancient rumour.
"Well it hasn't disproved the existence of a God yet."
Well, no more than science has not yet disproved the existence of Santa Clause either. Really, science has disproved both by their claims being impossible.
It has disproved almost every one of the claims of natural providence to the point of making the work wholly unreliable. If you know a man has been caught out lying over and over and over and over again... would you still ask for more of his outlandish and unsupported claims to be "proven wrong" before thinking it might be a bad idea to start forcing his lies on education and public policy.
It is intellectually insulting to treat the Bible as fact or even remotely reliable.
Someone hasn't been reading their Kant. Perfection is not a predicate. I hope we aren't giving an ontological argument for the existence of God. Those went out of style in the 1700s.
BrotherRool said:
Pascal's wager I'll talk about more, because it's something i particularly joy because it suits my world view very well. The point about pascals wager isn't actually about hell as such. It's simply if life is finite, than ultimately there is nothing to be won or lost. It happens, you die, you don't even get to know what happens. The most important thing you care about now will be more than nothing. You could punch someone today and in the blink of an eye no-one will be around to remember it happened. Whereas something eternal will always be infinitely more important than something finite. If you aim for ever and you miss, you won't be around to know and if it is true then you'll have done something that actually has meaning.
Pascal's wager only works if there are two options: materialism and Christianity. But in actuality there are multiple, mutually exclusive options in the form of each religion. So if you're going to buy into pascal's wager you're going to end up looking like this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDWR5RkWRTY
There's an even bigger problem with Pascal's wager, that neither belief nor faith work that way. You can't just decide to worship God because its got to do with what you really think, not just what you've concluded is most beneficial for yourself. The correct approach would be to find a religion that places worth purely on some material thing, say sacrificing Broccoli and yet still promises eternal reward and follow that. Even with multiple religions it's still better to aim for the hope of one eternal thing because you'll either be better off or just the same as you would have been if you continued on a non-atheistic path.
I still think finite existence is worthless though. It's hard to describe because its something I've been sure of from a very young age but it wasn't at all involved with how I eventually ended up as a christian. Even now as I am, it's not that I think 'oh a finite existence sucks, better believe in God' but 'a finite existence sucks, lucky for me that's not the case though'. I can say it didn't influence because I'll be honest it's only really recently that I even liked the sound of heaven. For the other 4 years I was afraid of it, put off by it or at best apathetic to it.
The idea that existence is futile didn't even depress me, or scare me or anger me, because reacting in that way is equally pointless. I was less motivated to do charity work because even the people you help would just die, but I don't think it affected my life much either way. I couldn't work up a passion about anything so much and I guess I might have done some more non-sequitor things, because hey, if you're free from consequence why not make life a bit weirder?
Hmm I don't know. I don't think that the people around me share my opinion, but I've never seen a reason not to have it. I'd be interested if you've got some counter-arguments.
I didn't reply to your Kant bit, because tbh you clearly know a lot more philosophy/theology than I do, so I'll just take from it that I've got a lot more learning to do before I think stuff.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
