Head/Head debate advertizement

[acapiz]

Religion is Conscious Human Suicide Yes/No


I wish to debate with a person who .

.Absolutely believes in God
.Absolutely believes that they have a purpose under their God.

After that I would hope for a person who would strongly challenge my non-religious view of my reality.

I do not care if this takes forever and I would request alternate postings of a reasonable length. I am not in a position to be choosy. If you qualify and you are willing then you are 'up', if you are first. I am not easy to debate with, I have been told. I would even let you post first. That's how confident, I am. You need to make a request on the Head to Head Request Sub-forum to set these wheels in motion.
Good Luck, because you will need it.
Thanks Handshake

[Divine Insight]

Religion is Conscious Human Suicide Yes/No

Is that the proposed debate topic?

I would already suggest that the answer to this question depends entirely on a person's religion. Some religious beliefs and views can be quite positive and constructive whether a God exists or not. So how would that constitute "Conscious Human Suicide"?

I think the topic is too vague to debate without further clarification of what is actually being suggested.

I wish to debate with a person who .

.Absolutely believes in God

Sorry. Definitely agnostic here. Unless you are referring to the Biblical God in which case I'm a strong atheist.

.Absolutely believes that they have a purpose under their God.

I believe it may be possible that I have a "purpose" under God. But that purpose may not be what you imagine. In other words, the purpose may not be to accomplish any particular goals or tasks within this lifetime. The purpose may be "spiritual" which would make no sense to you if you don't believe in a potential spiritual dimension to reality.

After that I would hope for a person who would strongly challenge my non-religious view of my reality.

I'm not sure what you mean by "challenge" it. I see no reason why anyone needs to be "religious". However, if you are taking the position that you are convinced that there is no spiritual or mystical dimension to reality, then I would say that you're in the same boat with the theists who claim that there is.

In other words, if you think you know the truth of reality then you're just as fanatical as a religious person who thinks that their religions is truth.

I do not care if this takes forever and I would request alternate postings of a reasonable length. I am not in a position to be choosy. If you qualify and you are willing then you are 'up', if you are first. I am not easy to debate with, I have been told. I would even let you post first. That's how confident, I am. You need to make a request on the Head to Head Request Sub-forum to set these wheels in motion.
Good Luck, because you will need it.

I don't even see what it is you want to debate?

That religion is conscious human suicide?

Which religion?

And does religion necessarily need to be conscious suicide? Wouldn't that depend entirely on how the individual views their religion?

I mean, even if their religion is wrong, how does that guarantee conscious suicide?

I would argue that if you are "convinced" that life is just a freak accident, that conclusion could itself be argued to be "conscious suicide" as well.

I would suggest that anything other then honest agnosticism is conscious suicide.

After all, if you don't know the truth of reality, then pretending that you do either way could be seen as "conscious suicide". Or at least "intellectual suicide".

I'm not open to debating with you until you clarify precisely what it is that you wish to debate.

[acapiz]

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether or not God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable

How can the above be debated. It would be much easier to 'batter Biblical God's to death'. Are you not tired of this approach by now.
You say that you are
Sorry. Definitely agnostic here. Unless you are referring to the Biblical God in which case I'm a strong atheist.

You will remain a 'Definite Agnostic' until such time as the pressure comes on and then you will morph into thin air by saying that you are a lapsed Agnostic. A real agnostic is a worse version of religion than any I can think of, as they usually want to win the lotto without buying a ticket. They wait around expecting the unexpected. If you state what you actually believe from the get-go, I might be prepared to take you on in stating that it is a form of conscious suicide. DI
We have a good idea of where we are coming from, DI

[Divine Insight]

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether or not God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable

How can the above be debated. It would be much easier to 'batter Biblical God's to death'. Are you not tired of this approach by now.

Agnosticism with respect to the true nature of the universe has absolutely nothing at all to do with "claims". It has to do with actual knowledge.

I think you are misunderstanding the concept here in terms of "debate positions".

I hold that the truth of the matter is that no human fully understands the true nature of reality. Scientists certainly confess this to be the case for them, so we don't need to worry about the scientific community proclaiming to have complete knowledge of the true nature of reality.

And who's left? Who else could claim to know the true nature of reality? And how would they have supposedly obtained that knowledge other than because of some unverifiable faith-based beliefs or dreams, etc.?

So I hold that all of humanity is agnostic with respect to the true nature of reality. Not just me. We simply don't know what the true nature of reality is. It's that simple.

If you claim to be anything other than agnostic on this specific question, then you are only fooling yourself.

The fact of the matter is that no human has sufficient evidence or knowledge to claim to be anything other than agnostic when it comes to knowing the true nature of reality.

If you claim to know the truth of reality, I see no reason to even converse with you at all. You clearly have no clue what your own limitations of knowledge even are.

If you claim to know the truth of reality, then you are no less absurd than the extreme religious fundamentalists who claim to know that their chosen religions is absolute truth.

You're just the other end of rainbow of extremism is all.

Agnosticism on this topic is the only rational position to take.

~~~~~

Keep in mind here that I'm talking about "The True Nature of Reality", not whether or not any particular religion might be true. I think we can easily know that Greek Mythology is false, and similarly I think we can easily know that Hebrew Mythology is equally false. However, some of the more abstract mystical views of reality could potentially be true. We simply can't say whether they might be true or not.

Confessing to being agnostic on the question of the true nature of reality is to do nothing other than to be completely honest with ones self, as well as with the rest of the world.

If you think you know otherwise, then you are no doubt fooling yourself, and you're most likely not fooling anyone else.

[acapiz]

Divine Insight: Keep in mind here that I'm talking about "The True Nature of Reality", not whether or not any particular religion might be true.


There is a serious impasse in communication between us here.

You insist on creating currency out of the unknown, I choose to dismiss it as largely ''irrelevant''. We both see each others positions as absurd. If you list five things that you believe about 'The True Nature of Reality' then at least I could hold you to them when you 'change your mind'.

I believe that all you see/feel is all you need. I believe that true knowledge is intuitive rather than structured. I believe that much of what we consider we know is little more than diversionary nonsense. I believe that our subjective/isolated approach to things has made us blind to our reality. I believe that all religious mysticism is just that, subjective cognitive mist.

There's five. Let's hear yours and we can set the date, DI.

[Divine Insight]

Divine Insight: Keep in mind here that I'm talking about "The True Nature of Reality", not whether or not any particular religion might be true.


There is a serious impasse in communication between us here.

You insist on creating currency out of the unknown, I choose to dismiss it as largely ''irrelevant''. We both see each others positions as absurd. If you list five things that you believe about 'The True Nature of Reality' then at least I could hold you to them when you 'change your mind'.

I believe that all you see/feel is all you need. I believe that true knowledge is intuitive rather than structured. I believe that much of what we consider we know is little more than diversionary nonsense. I believe that our subjective/isolated approach to things has made us blind to our reality. I believe that all religious mysticism is just that, subjective cognitive mist.

There's five. Let's hear yours and we can set the date, DI.

I don't have five things I know about the true nature of reality. I only have one:

1. I am having an experience.

Period. That's the only thing that I can know for certain about the true nature of reality. Beyond that it's anyone's guess.

I can, of course, try to describe and explain the experiences I am having, and science does a wonderful job of that up to a point.

~~~~~~~

You claim to know the following 5 things about the true nature of reality:

1. I believe that all you see/feel is all you need.

It's certainly all you have.

2. I believe that true knowledge is intuitive rather than structured.

That's just a belief there. I might add that this belief actually supports those who have intuitive spiritual knowledge.

3. I believe that much of what we consider we know is little more than diversionary nonsense.

More nonsensical opinion. Diversionary from what?

4. I believe that our subjective/isolated approach to things has made us blind to our reality.

Blind to what reality? Thus far you haven't even suggested what reality might be.

5. I believe that all religious mysticism is just that, subjective cognitive mist.

More opinion, or cognitive mist, of your own. Certainly having no more grounds than the opinions you are dismissing.

~~~~~~

I don't see where you even have a position on anything, much less anything to debate. All I see are unsubstantiated opinions of your own, and harsh criticisms of opinions you aren't particularly fond of.

[acapiz]

Divine Insight: I am having an experience.


If that is it then you are welcome to it. DI. Have a good one. Can you tell me the 5 most important things about this 'experience'' of yours,, maybe I can nit pick those. Not much ground for debate so far, just playful 'mud slinging'. eg More nonsensical opinion

acapiz: I believe that true knowledge is intuitive rather than structured.

Divine Insight: That's just a belief there. I might add that this belief actually supports those who have intuitive spiritual knowledge.

acapiz: No it does not. You cannot have intuitive knowledge of something that is not there unless you 'make it up'.(reincarnation being a case in point and being one you are familiar with, you have chopped and changed about it often enough

[Divine Insight]

Can you tell me the 5 most important things about this 'experience'' of yours,, maybe I can nit pick those.

I contemplate about this quite often myself. I'm not even sure which experiences are the "most important". I would probably say that the most important experiences are those shared with another person. Especially when the sharing is done in a spirit of love or at least in supportive camaraderie or companionship.

I think the very concept of "importance" is subjective and can be different for different people. I imagine the same experiences that would be important for me may not be important for you, and vice versa.

Not much ground for debate so far, just playful 'mud slinging'. eg More nonsensical opinion

You came out of your "corner" already slinging mud at any and all "religious" concepts "Religion is Conscious Human Suicide Yes/No".

That's what you intend to "debate" is it not. And I'm assuming that you are taking the affirmative position, otherwise we would have nothing to debate since we would be in agreement that not all religion is Conscious Human Suicide.

You can hardly come out "slinging mud" and not expect to enter into a mud-slinging contest.

As the Buddha would say, "Wherever you go, there you are."

acapiz: I believe that true knowledge is intuitive rather than structured.

Divine Insight: That's just a belief there. I might add that this belief actually supports those who have intuitive spiritual knowledge.

acapiz: No it does not. You cannot have intuitive knowledge of something that is not there unless you 'make it up'.(reincarnation being a case in point and being one you are familiar with, you have chopped and changed about it often enough

What exactly do you mean by "intuitive"?

I would say that my feelings about reincarnation are entirely intuitive (well almost entirely intuitive). From as far back as I can remember I have always "intuitively known" that I am immortal. I have always "intuitively felt" that there was never a time when I was not, nor will there ever be a time when I will cease to exist.

That feeling, or "gut knowledge" is purely intuitive. I have little else to support it.

However, since my early childhood days, as I have grown and learned of both science and religion, I have come to realize that there is further support for my intuitive knowledge of reincarnation.

For one thing, I've discovered that there are entire religions that believe in reincarnation. This tells me that I'm not alone in my "intuitive feelings" and that there may be something to my early childhood "intuitive knowledge".

The second thing that supports this is science. According to science all that exists is energy. E=mc² tells us that even matter is nothing more than standing waves of energy. Therefore I can be nothing other than pure energy. That is what I am, and energy is eternal, it cannot be created nor destroyed. So even science tells me that my early childhood "intuitive knowledge" was correct. I am the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end. I am that I am. Before Abraham was I am, and there will never be a time when I am not.

That's "intuitive knowledge" backed up by science.

[acapiz]

Divine Insight: From as far back as I can remember I have always "intuitively known" that I am immortal. I have always "intuitively felt" that there was never a time when I was not, nor will there ever be a time when I will cease to exist. .......... I would probably say that the most important experiences are those shared with another person. Especially when the sharing is done in a spirit of love or at least in supportive camaraderie or companionship.
............For one thing, I've discovered that there are entire religions that believe in reincarnation. This tells me that I'm not alone in my "intuitive feelings" and that there may be something to my early childhood "intuitive knowledge". ...................
That is what I am, and energy is eternal, it cannot be created nor destroyed. So even science tells me that my early childhood "intuitive knowledge" was correct. I am the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end. I am that I am. Before Abraham was I am, and there will never be a time when I am not.



That's "intuitive knowledge" backed up by science.


No, DI, that is what is politely called in the debating trade, 'codswallop'. You will not even describe the nature of your reincarnation, you will not even stand up and say you have a soul. There is nothing to debate here. Why would I want to 'burst your bubble'. What is the premise of your book, maybe we could kick that to death. I like talking to you but it is always through 'sound proof' glass, from my side. You are exactly like the theists on the NT threads at the moment, ie, you explain to them why it cannot be but they take great satisfaction in doing it anyway.


Isn't it true that you cannot find anything that you will attest to with conviction.? This is not surprizing when you examine the constant contradictions in your 'stance',(I use the word loosely). If the main impetus of your 'experience' is the camaraderie of other people you better take them with you when you finally decide to morph into your next self, You said you are immortal, will you still be DI, or what. What do you think you are? Isn't this the appeal of the Christian Heaven, ie meeting up with the folks? I am completely lost with you, DI. If you can find a subject we can debate clinically then I am definitely up for it. Find 5 and surely I will be able to pick one,then again, maybe not.

[Divine Insight]

No, DI, that is what is politely called in the debating trade, 'codswallop'. You will not even describe the nature of your reincarnation, you will not even stand up and say you have a soul.

We aren't debating reincarnation.

Neither are we debating the meaning of "soul".

In fact, you wanted to debate "Religion is Conscious Human Suicide Yes/No", remember?

You seem to be the one who is condwalloping all around with nothing specific to address.

There is nothing to debate here.

And we aren't having a debate. On the contrary, I'm still trying to figure out just exactly what it is that you would like to debate. You're all over the place jumping from one goalpost to the next. Is that how you "debate"?

Why would I want to 'burst your bubble'.

I don't think you need to worry about that unless you believe that you can disprove reincarnation. Good luck with that one.

What is the premise of your book, maybe we could kick that to death. I like talking to you but it is always through 'sound proof' glass, from my side. You are exactly like the theists on the NT threads at the moment, ie, you explain to them why it cannot be but they take great satisfaction in doing it anyway.

You haven't successfully explained to me why anything I that consider might be plausible cannot be. I'm not claiming that I know that reincarnation is true, all I am saying is that it seems plausible to me, it's intuitive to me, and science actually supports that it's possible within the scope of the "Religious or Mystical Philosophies" that I take into consideration.

Where is you evidence that these things cannot exist or be true?

I haven't seen it yet.

Isn't it true that you cannot find anything that you will attest to with conviction.?

I attest with great conviction that the Christian Holy Bible cannot possibly be true as written verbatim.

There are many other things I will attest to, but one example should suffice for now.

This is not surprizing when you examine the constant contradictions in your 'stance',(I use the word loosely).

You'll need to point out a contradiction. It may be quite possible that what you see as a "contradiction" is due solely to your own false assumptions about what you believe my position actually entails.

If the main impetus of your 'experience' is the camaraderie of other people you better take them with you when you finally decide to morph into your next self,

I imagine they will come along naturally. I'm not a solipsists.

You said you are immortal, will you still be DI, or what.

No, I won't be DI. And DI is not what I am now anyway.

What do you think you are?

I am that I am. That's really all I can say that will make any sense in this life.

Isn't this the appeal of the Christian Heaven, ie meeting up with the folks?

Christianity doesn't have the copyright on "Heaven".

And besides, who's talking about heaven. Heaven is at hand. You're in heaven right now whether you realize it or not. Although, you heaven may be a hell. That's up to you.

I am completely lost with you, DI. If you can find a subject we can debate clinically then I am definitely up for it. Find 5 and surely I will be able to pick one,then again, maybe not.

You wanted to debate, "Religion is Conscious Human Suicide Yes/No"

That's what you advertised for.

I simply asked, and tried to ascertain, what you mean by the term "Religion" and whether or not you are confining this to a specific religion, or making it as a blanket statement about religious concepts in general?

My answer to this debate topic is both "Yes" and "No" depending entirely upon both the religion and how a person personally sees or practices their specific religion.

I can see where some religions practiced in certain ways would indeed lead to conscious human suicide (or the suicide of human consciousness). But I hold that there exists many religions and ways of viewing them that would not be conscious suicide.

There is certainly nothing in my mystical beliefs that inhibits me or prevents me from entertaining all possible worldviews. I even confess to being agnostic. Just because I intuitively feel that I am immortal, and that science in combination with mystical views supports this view doesn't mean this view needs to be true.

Therefore I entertain the possibility that reality could be some sort of purely mechanical materialistic accident. However, have you ever truly thought about that worldview in depth?

The worldview that reality is nothing more than a materialistic freak accident hardly answers anything. It's certainly not an "explanation" for anything. From whence did this accident come? And why does this accident behave the way it does to evolve into living conscious beings?

You can point to evolution, but that doesn't explain why the accident was capable of evolving in this manner to begin with.

Here, you've been seeking a TRUTH that I will stand behind with conviction. Here it is acapiz:

1. A universe that is nothing more than a purely mechanistic materialistic accident is no less mysterious than a mystical or spiritual universe. And it certainly doesn't represent any better "explanation" for why anything exists at all.

Purely secular materialism does NOT represent an "explanation" of anything.

You seem to have bought into that "religion". And apparently you have bought into it to such an extreme degree that you have committed "conscious suicide" concerning any other possibilities.

I'm way ahead of you acapiz. I'm a confessed agnostic. I've considered all the possibilities, and I've concluded that it simply impossible to make a final determination or conclusion.

And I've already given you my reasons for leaning in the direction I lean.

Here they are again, just for clarity.

1. My deepest intuition tells me that I'm immortal and this is not the first time I have lived a life.

2. There are obviously many other deep thinkers who have reached this very same conclusion. So I'm not alone in this intuitive feeling.

3. Science actually confirms many of the claims made by ancient Eastern Mystics. Mystics that made claims of holism long before science discovered these truths of nature through Einstein's Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

I don't plan on going into the physics details, but there is nothing in science that rebukes the Eastern Mystical views, and there is much that supports it.

Having said all of the above, there does not exist sufficient evidence with which to make a "Final Conclusion". This is why I must remain agnostic. The purely secular materialistic worldview could potentially be true. I can't necessarily rule it out.

All I'm saying is that, for me personally, the mystical worldview appears to be the more plausible worldview. And since it is also my strong intuition, why not lean toward where my intuition leads?

I can't imagine why you should have a problem with any of this.

It appears to me that you almost have some sort of phobia against the idea that there could possibly be some mystical or magical essence about reality.

I don't share that phobia.

However, when looking at the arrogance of religions like Christianity and Islam, I can certainly understand why some people would much prefer a reality that is nothing more than a freak materialistic accident.

I would agree, that a freak materialistic accident is indeed a more inviting picture of reality than a jealous God who is lusting to cast people into a hellfire if they fail to believe in him, worship sick immoral Holy Books, and obey absurd commands and directives.

So I can't blame you for loathing the very concept of "religion". The Abrahamic religions have taken a potentially beautiful concept and have literally turned it into hell. And extremely arrogant hell to boot.

So I don't blame you for having a "Holy War" against religion.

But taking that war to bear on every possible mystical or spiritual concept of reality is nothing short of overkill. And totally uncalled for.