Things What Do Baffle Me, Like

[Chyron8472]

I'm not "high and mighty." I'm just convinced that I need God. I'm convinced that people who are in utter despair and yet mock me for my faith do not realize how much they really do need Him.

[thestalkinghead]

Originally Posted by Chyron8472

As I said, there is no point to following the rules for their own sake.

And I defy the argument that people would do just fine on their own moral-compass-wise without God. Sure, there are people who are of sound conscience that have no belief, but I would bet that such people are unknowingly influenced toward having said conscience by others around them who do have faith.

Also, not to rubs anyone's nose in it, but it occurs to me the number of people on here who have belittled by faith, some even going so far as to call God my "imaginary friend" all the while they sit and follow in their self pity and wish they were dead because life sucks so bad. I defy these people to prove to me how being without God has benefited them.

i do fine with my own moral compass and i have never been religious and neither is my family.

i will answer "I defy these people to prove to me how being without God has benefited them" ignoring the "prove to me" because going to the proving things area when talking about religion is ridiculous.

it has benefited me having a grounded perspective on life and not hoping that a god will make things better, by being responsible for my own actions and that i am kind or nice to people because that makes life nicer, not because i want to go to heaven and avoid hell, by knowing i only have one life that doesn't end with infinite bliss for eternity just because i say a prayer and bow down to a god, by giving me a reason to want to know how the universe works and not just believing that an all powerful god made it, by knowing that everybody is just an animal trying to survive and that where you were borne who your parents are and the culture you were brought up in doesn't mean anything, by having the ability to judge the context of a scenario without the prejudices of people from thousands of years ago affecting my judgement.

how has religion benefited you?

[Iryon]

Originally Posted by St_Eddie

Oh, bullshit! What absolute and utter bollocks. That's really quite offensive. My moral compass is incredibly strong and I'm not religious. I don't need to read a bible to know the difference between right and wrong, or how to treat others as I myself would like to be treated.

I have no problem with religious people but when they start to get all high and mighty about it then we've got a problem...

Well, though I wouldn't have put it in such clear words myself, I fully agree with St_Eddie here.

Besides that, I think it's time we all calm down a bit and perhaps leave faith and religion alone for a while. I do fully understand how emotional such discussions can become, because challenging someones belief (be it religious or not) always means challenging their self-concept. I know enough people who are full-fledged atheists and are not grumpy or unhappy loners. I know enough people who live their religious belief not because of some written rules, but because they really feel a connection to their respective deities. And I know the exact opposite of each. Each one of them could be right or could be wrong. What really baffles me is: Why do we always try to judge people? I mean, I do it myself often enough ... but why do we feel the urge to do so? And don't tell me about evolution and individuals getting some advantage from quickly evaluating the social structures around them. That may be the catalyst but not the source.

[thestalkinghead]

Originally Posted by Iryon

Well, though I wouldn't have put it in such clear words myself, I fully agree with St_Eddie here.

Besides that, I think it's time we all calm down a bit and perhaps leave faith and religion alone for a while. I do fully understand how emotional such discussions can become, because challenging someones belief (be it religious or not) always means challenging their self-concept. I know enough people who are full-fledged atheists and are not grumpy or unhappy loners. I know enough people who live their religious belief not because of some written rules, but because they really feel a connection to their respective deities. And I know the exact opposite of each. Each one of them could be right or could be wrong. What really baffles me is: Why do we always try to judge people? I mean, I do it myself often enough ... but why do we feel the urge to do so? And don't tell me about evolution and individuals getting some advantage from quickly evaluating the social structures around them. That may be the catalyst but not the source.

so we can decide whether what we are looking at can be eaten, can eat us, can have our babies, can help us or hurt us.

we are genetically social animals because the social genes have been a part of the most successful of our human ancestors, and as part of a social group physical advantages are less important if you have 10 other members of your group on your side, so the ability to judge people has been an important part of our evolution and the people that are the best judges of character would have survived and passed on their genes as opposed to someone who cant judge character and gets killed because of their lack of social skills

[Chyron8472]

One thing that baffles me is why George Lucas refused to ever release the original Original Star Wars Trilogy, remastered to as good as the SE's. Every other film maker who has SE versions has done this.

[St_Eddie]

Originally Posted by Chyron8472

One thing that baffles me is why George Lucas refused to ever release the original Original Star Wars Trilogy, remastered to as good as the SE's. Every other film maker who has SE versions has done this.

It's because George Lucas is an arrogant and corrupt idiot. He used to talk about how the colorization of film was wrong because you can't alter history but now that he's in a position of power, he decided "sod that, I can alter history because I'm a God amongst men".

Originally Posted by George Lucas (1988)

These current defacements are just the beginning. Today, engineers with their computers can add color to black-and-white movies, change the soundtrack, speed up the pace, and add or subtract material to the philosophical tastes of the copyright holder. Tomorrow, more advanced technology will be able to replace actors with "fresher faces," or alter dialogue and change the movement of the actor's lips to match. It will soon be possible to create a new "original" negative with whatever changes or alterations the copyright holder of the moment desires. The copyright holders, so far, have not been completely diligent in preserving the original negatives of films they control. In order to reconstruct old negatives, many archivists have had to go to Eastern bloc countries where American films have been better preserved.

In short, he's a complete moron.

I'm not sure if the sale of Lucasfilm to Disney will allow them to re-release the original versions in HD but I suspect probably not.

[Darth Marsden]

If Disney like money, I'm sure they'll release the original versions. Maybe not for a while, but mark my words.

[St_Eddie]

Originally Posted by Darth Marsden

If Disney like money, I'm sure they'll release the original versions. Maybe not for a while, but mark my words.

Hope springs eternal but none the less is most likely a fruitless endeavor.

Originally Posted by A Lucasfilm Associate

”At Fox they just make movies. Fox doesn't have theme parks and huge brands. This is a good fit."

That comment makes me want to vomit chunks!

[Scnew]

Originally Posted by Darth Marsden

If Disney like money, I'm sure they'll release the original versions. Maybe not for a while, but mark my words.

They absolutely will. Disney knows there's a market for it and I'm sure they don't give a shit about George's "vision" in regards to extra CG dewbacks and revamped dance numbers.

[Hayden]

Originally Posted by Alcoremortis

I actually know the answer to this one!

It's because of class and language and conquerors and vanquished. Now that I've got your attention, I'll begin.

Basically, originally in England, I'm guessing when it was under Saxon control, these words were part of everyday speech. However, when William the Conqueror came over from France and conquered England in 1066, there was a major shift in the balance of power and the vast majority of the upper class (nobility and the like) were Norman and spoke a French dialect.

This dialect mixed with the basic English-type language that was already in place and certain French words, replaced words from that language. Of course, since the upper class used the French words, these words were deemed more delicate and proper to use, while the peasants were the ones using the more "common" words. Since everyone wants to sound better than they are, there was a slow shift towards using the "more proper" French words.

In a more basic example, when we eat pig meat, we don't call it "pig" which is derived from a Saxon word. We call it pork or bacon which are derived from French. I'm assuming that much the same would go for what we consider obscenities.

That's actually rather interesting! I'll look into the topic further, but this will help to sate my curiosity for now. Thanks

Originally Posted by DAISHI

This was the first thing I thought, but why? Was otherworldly conscience caused us to have the same thought simultaneously?

It must be, DAISHI, it must be, for I simply can't think of any other explanation.

Originally Posted by St_Eddie

Religious debates rarely go anywhere good. Just saying is all...

Strongly seconded. Except I'd omit the word 'good'.

Originally Posted by Chyron8472

And I defy the argument that people would do just fine on their own moral-compass-wise without God. Sure, there are people who are of sound conscience that have no belief, but I would bet that such people are unknowingly influenced toward having said conscience by others around them who do have faith.

Hmm, see, this is a belief that I don't subscribe to, even as a Christian. I don't believe that the world can provide mankind with an objective morality, but I don't believe that that prevents a person, or even a community, from formulating their own moral guide/compass that can be at least somewhat efficient and inherently good. I believe that a person is capable of living a moral life without the Bible's instruction and without a belief in God, because we DO have an intrinsic sense of right and wrong. Whether you believe that sense is instilled in us by God, or is simply instinctual and evolutionary, it's there; we have that inner framework which allows us to grasp the idea of morality independently from a relationship with God or a religious guideline.
And I believe that some people are able to use that innate ability in order to dictate their actions, make sensible choices, and construct their own sufficient moral compass. However, such a moral compass is illusory, I believe, and lacks a foundational cornerstone. BUT, that does not make them necessarily inaccurate, nor does it mean that the individual lacks conviction to consistently maintain personal moral criteria, nor does it mean that their concept of morality can't be advantageous to themselves, other human beings, and society as a whole.

But, for the record, I don't believe that such a system is as efficient or beneficial as well-executed Christianity. The only problem is that Christianity is seldom well-executed, which is why there are so many Atheists out there who live a more Christian life with their own moral compasses than most Christians do.

[...]some even going so far as to call God my "imaginary friend"[...]

Aside from deriding and mocking my faith, I'm really sick of people using that term almost solely based upon unoriginality.

Originally Posted by Chyron8472

One thing that baffles me is why George Lucas refused to ever release the original Original Star Wars Trilogy, remastered to as good as the SE's. Every other film maker who has SE versions has done this.

If we're going to change the topic, must we jump from one feather-ruffler to another?

[Darth Marsden]

What? I'd have thought the logical leap would be obvious - George Lucas is the Devil.

[Hayden]

No, it's an imposter, I tell you! The real George Lucas is a good man!

Also, for the record, I actually don't mind the Star Wars prequels in the least... except for the second one, which did suck, undeniably.

[Giant Tope]

Originally Posted by Chyron8472

As I said, there is no point to following the rules for their own sake.

And I defy the argument that people would do just fine on their own moral-compass-wise without God. Sure, there are people who are of sound conscience that have no belief, but I would bet that such people are unknowingly influenced toward having said conscience by others around them who do have faith.

...What about my grandparents who are Buddhists/Taoist/ancestor worshipers who live in a country were Christianity is a tiny minority who believe in being good for the sake of humanity and not to appease a western god? Even growing up as Christian I never thought God was necessary for people to be good. I'm fine with you being Christian, I really am, but you should move outside your American-centric mindset because the world is a lot bigger than you seem to imply.

Originally Posted by Chyron8472

I defy these people to prove to me how being without God has benefited them.

I've personally benefited from knowing that there isn't someone constantly breathing down my back as well as the idea that I am 100% responsible for myself. I don't have to anguish or rationalize why a supposedly all-powerful benevolent God would allow absolute atrocities occur then feel obligated to worship such a God regardless.

You have a very depressing view of the world if you think people are completely incapable of being good without an outside force.

[coolsome]

Originally Posted by Chyron8472

As I said, there is no point to following the rules for their own sake.

And I defy the argument that people would do just fine on their own moral-compass-wise without God. Sure, there are people who are of sound conscience that have no belief, but I would bet that such people are unknowingly influenced toward having said conscience by others around them who do have faith.

I don't need the threat of heaven or hell to be a good person anymore then I need the promise of Farther Christmas giving me presents for being a good boy all year.



Thing that baffles me: How would I know if my body had Myotismon's soul inside me and I was just being used in his chess game.

[Darth Marsden]

Just a note - if you're gonna keep talking about religion, could you maybe move it over to the thread about religion? Thanks.

EDIT: Huh. Can't seem to find said thread. Well, OK, if you guys wanna keep talking about Religion then I'll just move it to a new thread and let it continue there.

[flesk]

Originally Posted by Darth Marsden

Just a note - if you're gonna keep talking about religion, could you maybe move it over to the thread about religion? Thanks.

EDIT: Huh. Can't seem to find said thread. Well, OK, if you guys wanna keep talking about Religion then I'll just move it to a new thread and let it continue there.

I think you mean this thread.

[coolsome]

Myotismon is a religion!?

[RetroVortex]

Even without religion, people still run on a system of feels. You can't just shut them off.

Yup. A complicated and irrational set of feels. Different mix of different feels for different people, that interweave and combine and conflict with one another.

Its quite baffling how complicated us humans are! XD

[dustpuffs]

Something new that I find confusing: Why do they take a product that's perfectly great, and sells well, and change it up and call it " new" or "new and improved"? They did this with Coca Cola ages ago, and that sucked until they changed it back. Then my fabric softener got changed a couple of years ago, and that pissed me off, because my laundry doesn't smell the same as it always has. Why?

[RetroVortex]

Originally Posted by dustpuffs

Something new that I find confusing: Why do they take a product that's perfectly great, and sells well, and change it up and call it " new" or "new and improved"? They did this with Coca Cola ages ago, and that sucked until they changed it back. Then my fabric softener got changed a couple of years ago, and that pissed me off, because my laundry doesn't smell the same as it always has. Why?

To get interest back into the brand again. If they get any kind of response then they win.