Round 6 Elections: Let's hear your thoughts...

Joseph Murphy10 said:You're dreaming if you think there's common ground there. A bunch of Catholic individuals is really just a collection of people with their own separate opinions. The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches don't operate that way—and honestly, I doubt most Protestant denominations do either, though I'm no expert on their specific doctrines since the core theology is basically the same as the first two mentioned.
Getting even a tiny bit of consensus out of the individuals present on this specific issue is going to be nearly impossible.

Sent from my Galaxy S10 using Reddit

It’s that classic tug-of-war between your own internal compass and whatever doctrine the Church hands down to you. If you decide to follow their script to the letter, you basically trade away your authenticity just to stay in line. But if you actually listen to your own conscience instead? Well, then you’re suddenly labeled a heretic or told you belong with some fringe sect rather than the mainstream congregation. It’s a bit of a catch-22, really. If being "Catholic" is actually an important part of who you are, but you have any desire to avoid being a total hypocrite or a mindless zealot, you’re essentially walking straight into a minefield.

I don't have any text to work with yet! Please provide the posts you want me to rewrite, and I'll get to work transforming them into that dry, conversational, Americanized style for you. kaže:
When it comes to this specific question, I honestly don't think you could get even a handful of people in the same room to agree on the bare minimum.

You’ll finally reach a consensus once the church decides what passes for "the truth." Of course, that kind of absolute authority is losing its grip these days, even among folks who aren't exactly looking for deep philosophical debates.

Amanda Jackson5 said:So, does this bother anyone else?
Fine, maybe we’ll actually get some input from that relative of Göring's then.
Still, I can't help but wonder: if religious folks genuinely believe there are alien civilizations out there, did their God reveal Himself to them too, or are they just sitting around waiting for us to drop by and share the good news? How does that even work in your head? Does every single civilization need its own version of Jesus?

Look, when you storm into a saloon looking for a fight and start poking at people, there’s nothing intellectually sound or fair about that, so you shouldn't be surprised when things get messy before you ever get to hear any good news.

no way Quincy

No, because you already said you didn't mind. We're talking about someone who actually agrees with Goering's idea that the deer at Carinhall are happy when he shoots at them because being hunted is their whole purpose. (post #88)

You're forcing a context—or rather, a different one.
So, it isn't really
- it's more like manipulating the context entirely.

If you don't want to talk, you should probably just be honest with yourself about why. I originally wanted to say "more fairly" instead of "better," but then I realized you probably aren't even aware of what's actually happening here. Sure, it's provocative, but that's not against the rules, and I don't see why it would be considered humiliating.

You've got such a distorted view of things that you can't even see clearly.
What you're doing right now isn't an invitation to communicate; it's actually making communication impossible.

I'm suggesting you take a breather or just go take a break.

As simple as that.

Terry Martinez10 said:Look, I’m approaching this from a purely scientific standpoint—we're talking about established, verified facts here, not just some random theory or a gut feeling I had while staring at a coffee cup.
I won't be getting into anything else beyond that.

Yeah, I get that, but we still have to address the core issue:

hiddeneagle98 said:I'm honestly not quite sure what you're getting at with all these exhaustive, granular descriptions of what you're seeing under a microscope.

The real question is, what was your point in bringing that up? Let's be real: this forum isn't some vacuum where those long-winded descriptions are meant to be captivating on their own merit; they should really only serve as supporting evidence or context for whatever specific topic everyone here actually cares about.

Amanda Jackson5 said:I honestly don't see how pondering hypothetical extraterrestrial civilizations has anything to do with conspiracy theories.

It’s truly Fascinanto how certain people get so worked up over the mere idea of alien civilizations—ideas that, based on everything we know about the scale of the universe, wouldn't just be possible, they'd be statistically bizarre if they didn't exist. Yet, at the very same time, those same people cling desperately to notions of some fantastic supreme being, convinced that this entity "loves" them or will eventually "save" them (whatever that's supposed to mean). We're talking about beliefs in things that likely don't exist and lack even a shred of evidence, let alone any connection to common sense or critical thinking. It's pure bias. I’d love to hear a rational explanation from you religious types regarding why the concept of extraterrestrial life bothers you so much. Rational, mind you, not emotional. From an emotional standpoint, it's obvious that these ideas just mess with your head. Are you afraid your imaginary friend might run into some competition?

So, ancient aliens aren't a conspiracy theory? For those of you pushing the idea of extraterrestrial life, haven't you basically just copy-pasted "ancient astronaut" rhetoric over and over again? It’s really just a standard conspiracy theory, plain and simple. Besides—and this is my little gripe here—believing in galactic or intergalactic civilizations inevitably pushes people toward entertaining things like alien abductions and similar nonsense. Just because the CIA has been leaning into this whole UFO narrative for the last year or so doesn't mean there's actually any substance to it.

It’s fascinating how some people find thoughts about alien civilizations repulsive—even though, based on everything we know, it wouldn't just be possible for them to exist, it would be incredibly strange if they didn't. Yet, at the exact same time, they hold onto these ideas about some fantastic supreme being, convinced that they are "loved" and will be "saved" (whatever that means). So, they reject one possibility while clinging to something that likely doesn't exist, lacks any evidence, and flies in the face of common sense or critical thinking.

Actually, I find the opposite to be true. Religion is a universal human phenomenon, so there is plenty of "evidence" for the existence of God. Aliens, on the other hand, seem to be a curiosity born from a technological and materialistic society—sort of a ridiculous caricature or a watered-down version of those very same religious motifs and experiences that people otherwise tend to scoff at.

The Fermi paradox remains an impassable wall. The issue, I think, is that people don't really care about the arguments—because believing in aliens has just become a sort of liberal, techno-materialist pseudo-mythology.

steelridge58 said:Not really. 🙂 Well, unless you count being the target for those who have them in their sights.

You actually reminded me of yet another old thread we used to talk about.

Pre-determinism
which basically argues that we can distinguish the various modes of existence for all living things.
If anyone feels like diving into a little reading on that, I'll leave the link here.

Honestly, looking back at your last post, I almost just wanted to reply with a bunch of smiley faces.

Well, look at us now.

🙂))

That was just childhood logic, I guess. But I totally get it—once something is sitting right there on your plate in front of you, throwing it away, no matter how much there is, it just feels wrong in a way that aligns perfectly with that feeling you described...

I suppose I’d agree with that. Still—even if it isn't the sole purpose, I don't think it's something we can just overlook. Even from a purely systemic standpoint, the utility of the prey has to remain constant, among other things.

steelridge58 said:Look, when you storm into a saloon looking for a fight and start poking at people, there’s nothing intellectually sound or fair about that, so you shouldn't be surprised when things get messy before you ever get to hear any good news.

no way Quincy

No, because you already said you didn't mind. We're talking about someone who actually agrees with Goering's idea that the deer at Carinhall are happy when he shoots at them because being hunted is their whole purpose. (post #88)

You're forcing a context—or rather, a different one.
So, it isn't really
- it's more like manipulating the context entirely.

If you don't want to talk, you should probably just be honest with yourself about why. I originally wanted to say "more fairly" instead of "better," but then I realized you probably aren't even aware of what's actually happening here. Sure, it's provocative, but that's not against the rules, and I don't see why it would be considered humiliating.

You've got such a distorted view of things that you can't even see clearly.
What you're doing right now isn't an invitation to communicate; it's actually making communication impossible.

I'm suggesting you take a breather or just go take a break.

As simple as that.

I’m going to step away and clear my head while the rest of you continue this polite little debate about your collective, small-minded fantasies. If anyone actually wants to have a real conversation about Hegel, feel free to shoot me a DM.

Amy Bennett said:So, ancient aliens aren't a conspiracy theory? For those of you pushing the idea of extraterrestrial life, haven't you basically just copy-pasted "ancient astronaut" rhetoric over and over again? It’s really just a standard conspiracy theory, plain and simple. Besides—and this is my little gripe here—believing in galactic or intergalactic civilizations inevitably pushes people toward entertaining things like alien abductions and similar nonsense. Just because the CIA has been leaning into this whole UFO narrative for the last year or so doesn't mean there's actually any substance to it.

It’s fascinating how some people find thoughts about alien civilizations repulsive—even though, based on everything we know, it wouldn't just be possible for them to exist, it would be incredibly strange if they didn't. Yet, at the exact same time, they hold onto these ideas about some fantastic supreme being, convinced that they are "loved" and will be "saved" (whatever that means). So, they reject one possibility while clinging to something that likely doesn't exist, lacks any evidence, and flies in the face of common sense or critical thinking.

Actually, I find the opposite to be true. Religion is a universal human phenomenon, so there is plenty of "evidence" for the existence of God. Aliens, on the other hand, seem to be a curiosity born from a technological and materialistic society—sort of a ridiculous caricature or a watered-down version of those very same religious motifs and experiences that people otherwise tend to scoff at.

The Fermi paradox remains an impassable wall. The issue, I think, is that people don't really care about the arguments—because believing in aliens has just become a sort of liberal, techno-materialist pseudo-mythology.

Aliens are a human universal—it’s what happens once we realize we're living on one of many possible planets in a universe where we don't hold any special status.

There isn't anything particularly weird about it; it’s a perfectly logical conclusion once you reach that realization. Before we understood that, people used to identify visible planets with gods and assumed they were at the center of divine interest.

We don't owe the concept of aliens to religion, nor is the idea some sort of "appropriation" of religious tropes. The idea stems from the fact that we recognize ourselves as evolved human beings on a planet, and we see no reason why evolution wouldn't be possible on another similar planet out there. That life doesn't have to be a parody of anything; it's simply a different form of life. Now, as for whether aliens are kidnapping people or plotting conspiracies, those are just extra flourishes added to help someone tell a story or make a movie. And those flourishes, again, stem from human nature, just like the religious mythologies you claim are being "vulgarized."

There is no such thing as a "belief in aliens" in the sense of a religious faith. Believing in aliens is more like betting that the Yankees will beat the Red Sox. But belief in God implies a million other things beyond just His existence. Because if God exists, it changes the entire ball game, which then impacts everything else. Belief in aliens is just a statistical leaning toward a possible outcome without any other massive consequences. Faith in God isn't even in the same category; I honestly don't know why anyone would try to link the two.

hiddeneagle98 said:Yeah, I get that, but we still have to address the core issue:

The real question is, what was your point in bringing that up? Let's be real: this forum isn't some vacuum where those long-winded descriptions are meant to be captivating on their own merit; they should really only serve as supporting evidence or context for whatever specific topic everyone here actually cares about.

Someone mentioned earlier how neurons somehow "know" what they're supposed to do... well, they know because they communicate through the exact mechanisms described above.
If we stick strictly to hard science and the facts we can definitively prove, then we are nothing more than those very same neurons, and we have to accept that there is absolutely nothing beyond this life. Period. Full stop.
Any other interpretation falls squarely into the realm of faith and nothing else.
But, having seen enough children and young people suffer and pass away throughout my own life, I find myself preferring the idea that there might actually be something more significant out there than what current science is capable of grasping.

Eric Newman75 said:I’d honestly love to ask Pascal if he feels like his little wager actually paid off.

I suppose I might argue that it wasn't particularly logical to assume a rational God—one capable of rewarding believers with eternal paradise through some sort of "gambler's breakdown"—would choose to deny eternity to those who rejected Him simply because they were uninformed or lacked the specific knowledge needed to resolve their doubts, especially since true faith has to be a free choice rather than something forced upon us by undeniable, cold logic.

But what I really want to get at is why having faith or even just a glimmer of hope in an afterlife—some kind of existence beyond this one—would necessarily require the existence of God in the first place?

Why would those two things ever have to be linked together?

...

It all comes down to a fundamental lack of curiosity and imagination. 😢
The reality is that neither option A nor option B offers any actual value—not in a literal sense, and certainly not metaphorically...
We are left with a binary choice: either we are merely firing neurons (as much as mainstream academia insists), or we choose to believe we are something more, which leads us directly into the realm of believing in God (as various churches and traditions maintain):

Terry Martinez10 said:Someone mentioned earlier how neurons somehow "know" what they're supposed to do... well, they know because they communicate through the exact mechanisms described above.
If we stick strictly to hard science and the facts we can definitively prove, then we are nothing more than those very same neurons, and we have to accept that there is absolutely nothing beyond this life. Period. Full stop.
Any other interpretation falls squarely into the realm of faith and nothing else.
But, having seen enough children and young people suffer and pass away throughout my own life, I find myself preferring the idea that there might actually be something more significant out there than what current science is capable of grasping.

I hope Terry Martinez10 doesn't take offense at my decision to use her example. I only used it to illustrate that rigid, digital way of thinking that seems to plague us all in one form or another. Terry Martinez10, your quote was selected simply because it aligns perfectly with the scope of our current discussion.

Sandra Murphy33 said:It all comes down to a fundamental lack of curiosity and imagination. 😢
The reality is that neither option A nor option B offers any actual value—not in a literal sense, and certainly not metaphorically...
We are left with a binary choice: either we are merely firing neurons (as much as mainstream academia insists), or we choose to believe we are something more, which leads us directly into the realm of believing in God (as various churches and traditions maintain):

I hope Terry Martinez10 doesn't take offense at my decision to use her example. I only used it to illustrate that rigid, digital way of thinking that seems to plague us all in one form or another. Terry Martinez10, your quote was selected simply because it aligns perfectly with the scope of our current discussion.

Oh, there’s no offense taken whatsoever; if anything, I’m actually in complete agreement with you.

The reason I phrased it that way is simply because that specific mindset—that rigid way of looking at things—is exactly what bothers me about it.

steelridge58 said:I suppose I might argue that it wasn't particularly logical to assume a rational God—one capable of rewarding believers with eternal paradise through some sort of "gambler's breakdown"—would choose to deny eternity to those who rejected Him simply because they were uninformed or lacked the specific knowledge needed to resolve their doubts, especially since true faith has to be a free choice rather than something forced upon us by undeniable, cold logic.

But what I really want to get at is why having faith or even just a glimmer of hope in an afterlife—some kind of existence beyond this one—would necessarily require the existence of God in the first place?

Why would those two things ever have to be linked together?

...

Quincy only really touched on one slice of this story: the part that fits neatly within the bounds of rationality and logic. He barely mentioned the emotional and intuitive side of things, which definitely exists, even if it gets pushed aside by an obsession with being pragmatic. God would likely see—and take into account—both sides of the coin. And let's not forget, nowhere in Pensées does Quincy suggest that believing in God is a bad thing; quite the opposite. Christianity views it as a positive, and I actually interpret the analytical way he builds his argument as a bit of irony. A subtle jab at those who, despite everything else, still need a mathematical nudge to get on board.

steelridge58 said:I suppose I might argue that it wasn't particularly logical to assume a rational God—one capable of rewarding believers with eternal paradise through some sort of "gambler's breakdown"—would choose to deny eternity to those who rejected Him simply because they were uninformed or lacked the specific knowledge needed to resolve their doubts, especially since true faith has to be a free choice rather than something forced upon us by undeniable, cold logic.

But what I really want to get at is why having faith or even just a glimmer of hope in an afterlife—some kind of existence beyond this one—would necessarily require the existence of God in the first place?

Why would those two things ever have to be linked together?

...

Don't all religions rely on that exact parallel? God serves as both the Creator and the guarantor of life after death.

Eric Newman75 said:Quincy only really touched on one slice of this story: the part that fits neatly within the bounds of rationality and logic. He barely mentioned the emotional and intuitive side of things, which definitely exists, even if it gets pushed aside by an obsession with being pragmatic. God would likely see—and take into account—both sides of the coin. And let's not forget, nowhere in Pensées does Quincy suggest that believing in God is a bad thing; quite the opposite. Christianity views it as a positive, and I actually interpret the analytical way he builds his argument as a bit of irony. A subtle jab at those who, despite everything else, still need a mathematical nudge to get on board.

Don't all religions rely on that exact parallel? God serves as both the Creator and the guarantor of life after death.

We spend our whole lives obsessing over the world, how it all began, the nature of reality, life, and death... and honestly, we just end up staring into the great unknown, wondering what it all means.
I can't help but wonder if any part of who we are actually survives once our physical bodies give out, and I really don't think you need to be religious or even believe in God—despite what most churches tell you—just to hold onto a vague sense of hope or even just the simple thought that an afterlife might exist, because, well, nobody truly knows

But yeah, religions definitely rely on that idea.

Maybe there are just some questions nobody’s gonna answer... Guess the whole point is just being on a search that never really ends...

Terry Martinez10 said:Someone mentioned earlier how neurons somehow "know" what they're supposed to do... well, they know because they communicate through the exact mechanisms described above.
If we stick strictly to hard science and the facts we can definitively prove, then we are nothing more than those very same neurons, and we have to accept that there is absolutely nothing beyond this life. Period. Full stop.
Any other interpretation falls squarely into the realm of faith and nothing else.
But, having seen enough children and young people suffer and pass away throughout my own life, I find myself preferring the idea that there might actually be something more significant out there than what current science is capable of grasping.

Over the years, I've vacillated on my stance regarding this—and maybe this isn't even my final word on it—but it seems to me that consciousness is a massive headache for science. I'm talking about that subjective experience we all have "privately," the so-called "hard problem of consciousness," qualia, and all that jazz. We know it exists because we are living it, yet from a purely scientific standpoint, that specific aspect remains inexplicable; it’s essentially off-limits to them. Science can perhaps only offer a vague gesture toward it.
That specific part—that internal experience or the quality of the "movie playing in our heads"—isn't a matter of faith, because every single one of us witnesses it firsthand. That is the subject of my interest and why I write about it in relation to what you said: "something more than what science knows." Beyond that, though—meaning when we start talking about gods, heavens, hells, demons, angels, spirits, souls, the afterlife, karma, reincarnation, whatever—I don't go there. I don't deal with it, and I don't believe in it. In fact, I view focusing energy on that space as a kind of mental malfunction, like a printer trying to print outside the margins or entirely off the paper.

hiddeneagle98 said:Over the years, I've vacillated on my stance regarding this—and maybe this isn't even my final word on it—but it seems to me that consciousness is a massive headache for science. I'm talking about that subjective experience we all have "privately," the so-called "hard problem of consciousness," qualia, and all that jazz. We know it exists because we are living it, yet from a purely scientific standpoint, that specific aspect remains inexplicable; it’s essentially off-limits to them. Science can perhaps only offer a vague gesture toward it.
That specific part—that internal experience or the quality of the "movie playing in our heads"—isn't a matter of faith, because every single one of us witnesses it firsthand. That is the subject of my interest and why I write about it in relation to what you said: "something more than what science knows." Beyond that, though—meaning when we start talking about gods, heavens, hells, demons, angels, spirits, souls, the afterlife, karma, reincarnation, whatever—I don't go there. I don't deal with it, and I don't believe in it. In fact, I view focusing energy on that space as a kind of mental malfunction, like a printer trying to print outside the margins or entirely off the paper.

From a purely scientific perspective, the hippocampus serves as the brain's working memory and the junction between short-term and long-term storage, while also being one of those rare areas where neurogenesis—the creation of new neurons—can actually occur throughout a person's life. It acts as a central hub for our emotions and, by extension, our consciousness.
But then again, I'm drifting off-topic.
So, I won't dwell on it any further.

I see your point, steelridge58; I believe my own perspective aligns quite closely with yours.
While you certainly have a much more elegant way of articulating these thoughts than I do, the core essence remains the same.
What is it, precisely, that imbues this "life" with such profound value? In my view, it is fundamentally rooted in its finitude. If there happens to be some sort of continuation beyond this existence, I suspect it certainly won't be found "here."
Furthermore, if any form of afterlife does exist, its inherent value would once again be proportional to its duration. If it were infinite, it would ultimately hold no value at all.

David Robinson26 said:I see your point, steelridge58; I believe my own perspective aligns quite closely with yours.
While you certainly have a much more elegant way of articulating these thoughts than I do, the core essence remains the same.
What is it, precisely, that imbues this "life" with such profound value? In my view, it is fundamentally rooted in its finitude. If there happens to be some sort of continuation beyond this existence, I suspect it certainly won't be found "here."
Furthermore, if any form of afterlife does exist, its inherent value would once again be proportional to its duration. If it were infinite, it would ultimately hold no value at all.

The fact that something ends doesn't automatically make it precious—I mean, plenty of absolutely garbage things in this world are "finite," too.

gentlerider7 said:The fact that something ends doesn't automatically make it precious—I mean, plenty of absolutely garbage things in this world are "finite," too.

To whom?

The topic was centered on who I would direct my questions toward—myself included. Consequently, my response remained strictly within those parameters.
If you find that life holds no value for you, then what is the purpose of living it at all?
There is a "cure," if you will.