In answer to: How do you know you are right?

Lol, owned.

No offense Sean..But the fact is there.

Sythe, did you read my pm.

 

i like that.

 

That was intelligent. I have just contradicted myself, by posting this.

 

Contradiction is an obvious form of disbelief, lack of understanding, mixed/confused morals, values, understandings and / or belies, as well as the inability to make up your

mind on a certain matter.
Therefore, your input/argument can not be trusted as factual or accurate, and your intelligence or mental state can be questioned.
If your input/argument cannot be trusted, or you are not in the "right mental state", then your argument is invalid, as there is the near-certain possibility that you are wrong.

You focus on a "christian", "jewish" or "islamic" god, when infact there are many more religious system, and spiritual traditions, in this world that believe in something other

then "God".

When using generalizations, you should try and cover various other religions, though you put a reasonable argument against the form of an afterlife, I could put a reasonable

argument for you to debate that backs up various spiritual beliefs in afterlife.

For example, I could prove the reality of reincarnation using laws that I have learnt in year 11 physics.
According to the Law of the Conservation of Energy,energy cannot be created or destroyed. When a life dies out, there are 2 ways I can think of to prove that new life can be

created from a death.

1) When the life dies out, the remains of the corpse are the usually deposited into the earth, by burying or by decomposition. The energy that the earth can gain from the

decaying corpse can then go through a cycle, returning to another life form which will create another life form (for example, a chicken who lays an egg, or a mother giving

birth).

So being general, the energy is transferred from the body to the earth, which in turn distributes to plants, which other life forms may eat (human or animal), that life form may

use that energy to create a new life, if not the energy will then be transferred back into the cycle until it reaches a life form who is/will give/giving birth/lay/ing eggs.


2) The life form could be consumed by a predator, who uses the energy from its prey to feed babies, or produce sperm, or some sort of fertilizing agent to conceive life.
Also, if the energy gained from the consumed prey is expelled via various other activities, there is the possibility that it will continue in a cycle until it reaches new life.


However, it could be argued that the cycle of reincarnation is mis-interpreted, and that the concept that "you are reborn" simply means "your energy will be used to conceive

life".
It can also be argued that if the energy from the deceased is not used for the conception of an infant, then the energy will be transformed into a non-life providing energy.

However, there is the possibility that (in due time) that energy will later be transformed back into life giving energy.

Also, the energy could also be used for the contraception of the infant, thus destroying another life form, and restarting the cycle all over again.

 

its not the choice the avoid truth, (in religious terms) it is the tendency to believe in the teachings and practices of a religious system or spiritual tradition, and accept them as fact rather then further explore the meaning of its teachings and take it all literally rather then metaphorically.

However, faith is generally a "confidence or trust in a person or thing" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith)
So your wrong.

As an "FYI", a religious system or spiritual tradition generally (and almost always) attempts to answer the "ultimate question".
The ultimate question, otherwise known as "the meaning of life", is one of the most fundamental things a religious system or spiritual tradition could invest in. It is the main reason people will join such groups.
An answer to the ultimate question will give the adherent a faith in the system/tradition, in the hope that what is said is true, because they seek comfort in that belief.
Some people are simply ignorant to anything other then their religion (as I have discovered in my 'studies of religion' class), and refuse to listen to reason as to why it is impossible for their 'God' to exist (or speaking more generally, they find it impossible for their religious beliefs to be false).
They nearly always come back with the same argument in reverse order, for example I say "If your God created everything, and you need someONE to create something, what created your God?" they will say, "God created God", or something stupid like "He has always existed" because they cannot prove, nor have they been teached or have the logic to understand anything other then "God created life".

 

to just accept something as fact is lazyness.

 

Its also considered laziness when you don't listen to your English teacher in class.

To just accept something is not a sign of laziness, though it can be taken that way. Alot of people accept something as fact because it is all they have grown up with, and there are ALOT of people who have grown up through a school system involving a particular religion (for instance, I have always gone to catholic schools).
Because, from a young age, (using my school as an example) we have been told, "be good, you go to heaven, be bad you go to hell", and bullshit like "God loves everyone" etc., people come to terms with themselves, and get persuaded into simply accepting these teachings as facts, most likely because they dont know better.

Do you think that the pope is lazy, because he simply accepts his religion as fact? Do you think that all the terrorists involved with the G'had are lazy because they simply accept their religion is fact, and that they kill themselves, simply because they are too "lazy" to look beyond their religion?

 

How can you say this? You are so, so, so irrational. Facts are proved by evidence, and you say it is "Lazy" to accept a fact, no. Accepting a fact is accepting the truth. The truth is the core of plenty of things in life, and if you do not accept facts, how will you go about living your life?

 

You're missing the point. "The Sun shines" intentionally abstracts the details away -- we used to think it was a fact that the Sun emitted light waves, we now theorise that it emits particles that behave like a wave (At least as far as I have bothered to keep up with physics), who knows what it will be next? The very definition of "shines" has changed as our understanding grows.

 

The point is that the sun shines. How it specifically accomplishes this is up for debate, but yet, it still shines.

 

The very question itself has changed, in that the terms used mean entirely different things!

 

If you trust someone to make the decision for you, then you are not trying to figure out truth by yourself. I do not see how I am incorrect.
I also find it amusing that you make fun of someone for their English when your own English is not grammatically correct. (Not that it really matters)

 

Yes, it has changed, but I think that the point Sythe was trying to make was that certain things are self-evident. I certainly exist, the sun is shining, eating food keeps me alive, etc.

 

Sake of responding or not, he's right.
Most people don't realize that, however .. Things that we've learned and been told .. It's basically a theory. Don't expect any regular person to realize that, however .. Because, well, they'll think they're right even when they lack valid evidence, lol.

Hmm .. Well, it's gotten me to think ..
I have a question ..

Referring to "How do you know you are right".
Well, this may have been answered, but i'm still going to ask.

If you and another are discussing and debating on a certain topic, let's say .. That soda means the liquid that some consume. Well, if you two are discussing that particular thing, how would someone know that they are right with their argument?

Not in saying that well, I know what soda is .. But in a way that is trying to mean .. "Well, soda is that liquid." However, how would you and I as human beings have absolute understanding that that is the word for the liquid being consumed?

In a matter of absolute truth, soda MAY mean the thing that I hook up to a computer and make letters with. Of course, the word itself was concocted into someones mind, as in being that ONE person who made the word .. However, if there were a matter of being absolute understanding, how would one know?

If I said that soda was the liquid, would I be absolutely right? Seeing as every single cell that has to do with knowledge in every human/animals brain is a theory, given to our memory through someone else. Us not knowing the TRUTH, rather than a THEORY that we've learned, how would I know that I were right?

Would I ever be able to know if I were right?

If that were the case .. Is anyone, not in a matter of absolute truth; dealing with the truthfulness of our understanding, but in absolute truth as in .. Truth, right?

Does anyone KNOW anything? As far as I know, people KNOW about what they've been told. Who really KNOWS something?

If not anyone, then what's the reason for learning? When all along, morals are ALL wrong. I, personally, wouldn't want to learn something if it weren't absolutely right .. But still, can anyone answer my question? .. Does anyone UNDERSTAND my question?

 

That post validates your rationality.

 

Out of all the things you could have explained..It was a sandwich..

Lettuce, ham, tomato, cheese. What does ham and cheese taste like together?