is religion just some form of hope for the weak? Watch

JMonkey
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#141
Report 9 years ago
#141
(Original post by punktopia)
So you believe it's okay to attack and kill people?
I believe if God told me to kill I would, fortunately God has never spoken to me (and I would more likely assume I was insane if he did) and I suspect he doesn't exist. If he turned up or rather one of his Angels did and said you have to kill John Smith from x and y though, that guy would be so boned. But and I stress only if he could convince me, this Angle that God was real and 100% morally correct on everything. I might ask a few questions about why he had to die, and to explain the plot to Donnie Darko without his brains leaking out of his ears and thus proving he was somewhat intelligent if not omniscient, otherwise tell me when how and where and I'm gone.
0
reply
020sophiekay
Badges: 0
#142
Report 9 years ago
#142
(Original post by Phugoid)
Nah, I don't like the stuff. I don't like tea either. In fact the only hot drink I ever take is Hot Chocolate, if I have enough pennies and happen to be forced into Starbucks or something.
forced into starbucks...dont like coffe..WHAT IS THIS CRAZYNESS
=O
0
reply
Phugoid
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#143
Report 9 years ago
#143
(Original post by JMonkey)
I doubt you are the only person on Earth who has no opiates or has never had opiates, even if it reading trashy romance novels or shopping. But whatever is your vice, you are only human. Or maybe you are the Dalli Lama or a Buddhist who has achieved Nirvana (even then obviously religion is or was your opiate). If not, having no vices might make you feel strong but it also sounds like you are very dull too (although I have no idea I hasten to add), lacking the imagination to worry about things or need relief from the world at times.

No, you are right. But most people's opiates do not take the form or things on which a physical dependence is formed. I fail to see how an affinity for fictional books would make you a weak minded person. I thoroughly enjoy my literature, and I thoroughly enjoy fictional films, plays, poems, lyrics and other non-literary works of art which lend from fiction. However, the motives are of utmost importance. To suggest that people who enjoy reading trashy novels are inclined towards them because they are inherently weak to the chains of reality has no basis whatsoever. Sure, nobody likes to sit in an armchair and contemplate the tragedies of reality on a permanent basis, and most people enjoy taking a break from such things by indulging in whatever activities they please, be it DIY, fictional novels, going for a long drive or playing a round of golf. These activities do indeed require that your concentration on harsh realities be broken, but that does not mean to say that people radiate to them BECAUSE of that.

Here is your logic:

Premise 1: A enjoys activity B.
Premise 2: Activity B needs concentration on something other than the harshness of reality.
Conclusion 1: Therefore A enjoys B because it allows A to break A's concentration of the harshness of reality.
Conclusion 2: Therefore A is too weak to face the harshness of reality.

Here are your fallacies:

Premise 2 & Conclusion 1: The premise is true, but the conclusion is completely ignorant of that other attributes of activity B that may lead A to enjoy them, other than it's demand that your attention to the harshness of reality be broken.

Conclusion 2: I don't permanently wear shoes, but that does not mean I am unable to, and it does not mean that I don't permanently wear them because I am unable to. Just like nobody permenantly contemplates the harshness of reality, but that doesn't mean they are too weak to do such a thing, or that they do not do it because they are too weak.

Religion, however, unlike these above examples, is not a temporary indulgance. Any serious religionist does not dip in and out of their fables to escape from reality. Any serious religionists is in a permenant state of ignorance of reality.





An opiate is a drug that makes us feel good while simultaneously removing us from reality to some extent, or lending us to hallucination (as Marx was referring to opium, not heroin). Anything therefore that makes us feel good and lets us indulge our fantasies is an opiate. Religion just happens to be a more dangerous one, than say reading sci fi.

Yes, but to conclude that the weakness of a religious person in terms of their need to escape from reality is on par with the weakness of a sci-fi reader to do the same is a fallicious conclusion, as I said above. Sci-fi is a temporary release from reality, and just because it IS a realise from reality does not suggest that this is why people induge in it. Religion, however, is a permanent release from reality, and for the most part, that is exactly why people induge in it.

"Television, the drug of the Nation
Breeding ignorance and feeding radiation"


Well that's a highly general statement and I would absolutely disagree on a count of all the really fantastic educational programmes delivered by people of academic excellence. Not only that, but television also delivers the arts to us in a way that envigorates the mind, as opposed to rotting it. Although, I do agree with you in the context of a vast majority of popular television.

Disposable Heroes of Hyphoprisy.

Eh?
Phugoid.
0
reply
JMonkey
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#144
Report 9 years ago
#144
(Original post by Phugoid)
Phugoid.
In that case you really and truly sound that mind numbingly dull. :tongue:

You have no flaws, quirks or interests that would suggest there is any reason to know you.

Sadly I think there are a lot more people like you than I would care to admit. And that what you see as strength I would see as deep flaws. But then that's not for this thread, I may start one at some point to discuss the issue.

Suffice to say at no point did I say it was a weakness, if anything and as hedonism bot would concur it lends moral rigour to your life to have an outlet for your darker side or your darker moments, although he wouldn't necessarily see the moral difference between ennui and reading a book or going to the cinema. Unless you are a psycopath and don't understand the difference between right and wrong that's pretty obvious. People need at times a crutch it is not weakness to admit that no man is an island. It is weak or illogical to think that any man is.

It's not a matter for logic exactly its a matter of opinion. That said I think your logic is flawed as it is a straw man but I'll start a thread at some point and take up the issue there so as not to derail this one.

You seem to be assuming that opiates can all be bad or that there is weakness in becoming addicted to them or not. That's not really what I was driving at although they can be weaknesses, in the case of say alcohol.

There is nothing strong about a detached loner, who has no vices.

Society says that we all rely on each other as gregarious animals, or we all rely on something that is a product of society, to me that is not even an issue, it's more of a cultural axiom.
0
reply
Phugoid
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#145
Report 9 years ago
#145
(Original post by punktopia)
So you believe it's okay to attack and kill people?
Where was that implication?
0
reply
Phugoid
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#146
Report 9 years ago
#146
(Original post by JMonkey)
In that case you really and truly are that mind numbingly dull.

You have no flaws, quirks or interests that would suggest there is any reason to know you.

Sadly I think there are a lot more people like you than I would care to admit. And that what you see as strength I would see as deep flaws. But then that's not for this thread, I may start one at some point to discuss the issue.

It's not a matter for logic exactly its a matter of opinion. That said I think your logic is flawed but I'll start a thread at some point and take up the issue there so as not to derail this one.
What on earth is your premise for suggesting I am dull?

What are you basically suggesting here is that, unless you are able to convince yourself that clearly fatuous beliefs are indeed fact, then you are a dullard? In other words, if you have a mind sharp enough to discern fact from fiction, you are a dullard? If you are able to enjoy art, fiction, non-fiction, sport, leisure and all the other pleasures of life WITHOUT drawing upon them as a necessary opiate and distraction, then you are a dullard?

What a tool.
0
reply
Phugoid
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#147
Report 9 years ago
#147
(Original post by 020sophiekay)
forced into starbucks...dont like coffe..WHAT IS THIS CRAZYNESS
=O
Aye, well. I know people who are coffee-heads, and when we go out they usuall insist on going to starbucks. And I indulge in a hot chocolate because I hate coffee and tea . If it wasn't for that I wouldn't have hot drinks at all, actually.
0
reply
punktopia
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#148
Report 9 years ago
#148
(Original post by Phugoid)
Where was that implication?
Learn to read.
0
reply
JMonkey
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#149
Report 9 years ago
#149
(Original post by Phugoid)
What on earth is your premise for suggesting I am dull?
You sound it and I saw this song on the Music Channel the other day:



What are you basically suggesting here is that, unless you are able to convince yourself that clearly fatuous beliefs are indeed fact, then you are a dullard? In other words, if you have a mind sharp enough to discern fact from fiction, you are a dullard? If you are able to enjoy art, fiction, non-fiction, sport, leisure and all the other pleasures of life WITHOUT drawing upon them as a necessary opiate and distraction, then you are a dullard?

What a tool.
No you are clearly an idiot who thinks he is able to cope with life with no comforts, that makes you a tool. Actually that makes you delusional or Chuck Noris or A Buddhist monk. Or as is more likely a boastful and immature kid who thinks that he is the only person on Earth who has no personality quirks at all. Ie I don't believe for one single minute you are what you say you are, or that your motivation for doing everything is one of intellect purely like Mr Spock. That is ******** quite frankly and I think you are a liar, deluded or just very boring one of those.
0
reply
020sophiekay
Badges: 0
#150
Report 9 years ago
#150
(Original post by Phugoid)
Aye, well. I know people who are coffee-heads, and when we go out they usuall insist on going to starbucks. And I indulge in a hot chocolate because I hate coffee and tea . If it wasn't for that I wouldn't have hot drinks at all, actually.
thats insane =)
0
reply
Phugoid
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#151
Report 9 years ago
#151
(Original post by JMonkey)
No you are clearly an idiot who thinks he is able to cope with life with no comforts, that makes you a tool. Actually that makes you delusional or Chuck Noris or A Buddhist monk. Or as is more likely a boastful and immature kid who thinks that he is the only person on Earth who has no personality quirks at all. Ie I don't believe for one single minute you are what you say you are, or that your motivation for doing everything is one of intellect purely like Mr Spock. That is ******** quite frankly and I think you are a liar, deluded or just very boring one of those.
I didn't say I was able to cope with life without comforts. Clearly, life is harsh. Life isn't always harsh to me, so 90% of the time I'm completely self-sufficient. The other 10% of the time, when life deals me some bad trips, I have comforts in the form of real people who offer real genuine support, and I reciprocate when they fall on hard times.

But here's the difference, and please mark it: The support I get is temporary. The support I get does not encourage me to ignore that I'm going through a tough time, ignore reality, and live in a make-believe world of lies. The support I get acknowledges that what I am going through is real, encourages me to realise that what I'm going through is real, and helps me to form real solutions to real problems. They do not, for one second, do what religion does, and tell me to turn to a world of makebelieve.

So no, I don't turn to physical drugs, television, fictional books, sports, leisurely activities or the arts to take me out of the real world when I fall on hard times. I do these things in good times and bad. What I do, when I fall on hard times, is remain grounded to the fact that these hard times are a reality, and I get support from surrounding people (not the above mentioned things) who will help me to form real solutions to real problems.

Do you see a massive difference? If not, all hope is lost on you, sir.

Anyway, how does 'personality quirks' equate to 'weaknesses that make you vulnerable to reality'? It's perfectly possible to have personality quirks that are born out of things other than weakness, I'm afraid.
0
reply
Phugoid
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#152
Report 9 years ago
#152
(Original post by punktopia)
Learn to read.
Learn to justify yourself.
0
reply
RosaRed
Badges: 0
#153
Report 9 years ago
#153
(Original post by Battenberg)
Ok, couldn't be bothered 2 read through 3 pages of arguing so I apologise if this has already been said but...
Yeah! Religion is an easy way out of a life that is otherwise hard. I would consider it weak of someone to refuse that this life is all there is as it shows a dependency on their God and a desperate need for a feeling of greater purpose (no offence to all those with religions, just my opinion).
So you would say that all the millions of people across the world who are religious, are WEAK then?!! That every single individual person who believes in some form of religion be it Christianity, Islam, Juadism, Hindism, Wicca, Buddism...is just simply weak??!!!
0
reply
Phugoid
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#154
Report 9 years ago
#154
(Original post by RosaRed)
So you would say that all the millions of people across the world who are religious, are WEAK then?!! That every single individual person who believes in some form of religion be it Christianity, Islam, Juadism, Hindism, Wicca, Buddism...is just simply weak??!!!
When it comes to facing the harshness of reality, they are weak, yes. They, like us, realise that there is much injustice in the world. The difference is, they try to justify it. They can't accept that maybe this kind of thing just happens, and there's no reason for it, and the world is an inherently cruel place without reasons for its cruelties. Perhaps the world DOESN'T revolve around humans, and the reason we suffer injustice is because the universe was not designed to cater for us. They run to God.

'This poor child has been maimed, it MUST be part of God's plan. Only if it was completely necessary, would God allow such an evil thing to occur.'

'This highly ambitious, intellectual and moral young man has been killed at such an early age! Surely God has taken him to do even better deeds in heaven as part of God's plan. God wouldn't have taken him otherwise!'

These are weak justifications of an unjustifiable injustice, and they are the default preference of explanation for religious people.
0
reply
JMonkey
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#155
Report 9 years ago
#155
(Original post by Phugoid)
I didn't say I was able to cope with life without comforts. Clearly, life is harsh. Life isn't always harsh to me, so 90% of the time I'm completely self-sufficient. The other 10% of the time, when life deals me some bad trips, I have comforts in the form of real people who offer real genuine support, and I reciprocate when they fall on hard times.

But here's the difference, and please mark it: The support I get is temporary. The support I get does not encourage me to ignore that I'm going through a tough time, ignore reality, and live in a make-believe world of lies. The support I get acknowledges that what I am going through is real, encourages me to realise that what I'm going through is real, and helps me to form real solutions to real problems. They do not, for one second, do what religion does, and tell me to turn to a world of makebelieve.

So no, I don't turn to physical drugs, television, fictional books, sports, leisurely activities or the arts to take me out of the real world when I fall on hard times. I do these things in good times and bad. What I do, when I fall on hard times, is remain grounded to the fact that these hard times are a reality, and I get support from surrounding people (not the above mentioned things) who will help me to form real solutions to real problems.

Do you see a massive difference? If not, all hope is lost on you, sir.

Anyway, how does 'personality quirks' equate to 'weaknesses that make you vulnerable to reality'? It's perfectly possible to have personality quirks that are born out of things other than weakness, I'm afraid.
I see no difference at all from what you are describing and an opiate, something that makes you feel good and fleetingly takes you away from your problems or stops them being such a problem so no not really.

Like I say the term no man is an island is absolute. And no man has nothing that could not be described as an opiate, unless he has no feelings like Spock.

You play sport because you enjoy it, you do a lot of things because you enjoy them, you do them more often when you are sad than if you are happy to take your mind off things. This I would of thought is a given and that's what I mean when I say every man except Chuck Norris and The Dali Lama (who has the detached the fetters of desire, and is centered) Or the truly spiritually enlightened all need crutches or have needed crutches, I doubt you are any exception, and your motivation for turning to a particular opiate whether it becomes addictive or not, is not purely logical. No one is purely driven by logic, except maybe a robot. That is why I say that anyone who has no quirks or emotional attachment to things, is lying to themself, Mr Spock, delusional, or incredibly boring. Life isn't a matter of pure reason, and no man is purely reasoned, we are animals, it is no use pretending we are not subject to both conscious and unconscious desires to avoid the angst or loneliness or boredom or depression that comes with ennui or our existential angst. Owning up to weaknesses is a strength, pretending you are Iron, impenetrable and emotionless, and strictly logical is a flawed outlook. I never said you had to do opiates on a regularly basis, my only contention is that at some point everyone does them and for reasons that aren't purely logical.
0
reply
Phugoid
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#156
Report 9 years ago
#156
(Original post by JMonkey)
I see no difference at all from what you are describing and an opiate, something that makes you feel good and fleetingly takes you away from your problems or stops them being such a problem so no not really.

Like you said, an opiate is something that takes you away from your problems, makes you forget them, and replaces your despair with euphoria. Well as I said, my friends and familial support in rough times do not take my problems away. They do not change my perception of the reality of what has happened, and they do not give me a means by which to ignore reality, even temporarily. Also, they do not fill me with euphoria, they instead help me to remain quite grounded in reality. They are distinctly different, and that you cannot see that is slightly worrying.

Like I say the term no man is an island is absolute. And no man has nothing that could not be described as an opiate, unless he has no feelings like Spock.

Well I certainly don't have an opiate, but I still have feelings. Your definition of opiate was indeed something that you intentionally indulge in for the single reason of escaping from reality in hard times. Like I said, in hard times, I do no such thing. The things which do take my attention away from my situation are things like art, leisure, books, good television, music, sport, etc. However, I do these things equally when I am happy than when I fall on hard times, and hence they are not opiates that I take for the reason that they remove reality. The only thing I do different when I fall on hard times is rely more on friends and family, and I do not rely on them to remove my problems, make me ignorant of them, or give me a sense of euphoria. I rely on them to keep me grounded, realise what I can't escape by ignoring it, and allow me to work towards a viable solution.

You play sport because you enjoy it, you do a lot of things because you enjoy them, you do them more often when you are sad than if you are happy to take your mind off things.

Why would you assume that? Like I said, I do them both in more or less equal measure regardless of my situation.

This I would of thought is a given and that's what I mean when I say every man except Chuck Norris and The Dali Lama (who has the detached the fetters of desire, and is centered) Or the truly spiritually enlightened all need crutches or have needed crutches, I doubt you are any exception, and your motivation for turning to a particular opiate whether it becomes addictive or not, is not purely logical.

Now you're saying crutches, whereas before you were saying opiates. Cruthes are not opiates. Crutches offer real support, and they do not allow you to forget that you have a problem. In fact, they are a reminder that you do have a problem, and that it is slowly being solved, or that it needs solving. Opiates remove you from your problem, and encourage you to ignore it, forget about it, and be filled with unwarranted and artificial joy.

No one is purely driven by logic, except maybe a robot. That is why I say that anyone who has no quirks or emotional attachment to things, is lying to themself, Mr Spock, delusional, or incredibly boring. Life isn't a matter of pure reason, and no man is purely reasoned, we are animals, it is no use pretending we are not subject to both conscious and unconscious desires to avoid the angst or loneliness or boredom or depression that comes with ennui or our existential angst.

I did not say I wasn't human, that I was 100% reasonable or anything similar to that. I have all sorts of natural desires that every human has, of course, and many of them are illogical. For example, my sexual desire towards my girlfriend who is on the pill is illogical considering the main goal of sex is procreation. However, we're not talking about human behaviour in general, we're talking about a very specific part of human behaviour, and that is religion. When it comes to religion, it is perfectly normal for an individual not to rely on such things. It's common, it's natural, and it's certainly more prevalent in the natural world than religion is (of course, I am having to include all non-human animals to illustrate this point, but that makes it no more potent).

Owning up to weaknesses is a strength, pretending you are Iron, impenetrable and emotionless, and strictly logical is a flawed outlook. I never said you had to do opiates on a regularly basis, my only contention is that at some point everyone does them and for reasons that aren't purely logical.

Owning up to weakness is indeed an incredibly difficult fiat with regards to your ego. However, I do admit that I do have weaknesses. I am weak and vulnerable to certain things in many aspects of my life. I am weak when life gets hard, and to console that weakness I turn to family and friends. But none of these things are opiates which I use to escape from reality. Not one. And that is not boring or uncommon. As I stated above, only a tiny tiny percentage of all life uses opiates to escape from reality - religious humans, druggies, those who do indulge in things PURELY for their opiate-like properties, and koala bears who get stoned on eucalyptus. MOST life doesn't deal in opiates at all, and out of those who do, most of them don't do it to escape reality - some do it because it's fun, some do it because it's social, some do it because it's productive (in fact, due to these reasons, you can probably take koala bears off that list above).

You are seriously confusing general weakness in human behaviour, and general vulnerability with the very specific weakness and vulnerability that leads only a VERY SMALL PROPORTION OF ALL LIFE to religion.
Phugoid.
0
reply
JMonkey
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#157
Report 9 years ago
#157
(Original post by Phugoid)
Phugoid.
I'm not talking about religion?

What are you going on about I'm talking about opiates, we all have them, you are just delusional enough to think everything you do is reasoned and logical and you are but some robot in life. That isn't my problem, all I can say is you are deluding yourself if you think like any but those attaining states of perfect centerdness do not need comforts or things that relieve pain by taking us away from our problems. Honestly I don't think you understand what a drug is in the analogy (TV, books, films whatever), it does not need to be addictive like opium, but it does need to be something that relieves our woes, that we do not because we logically have to but because we emotionally want or need to. Whether that is a conscious need or a subconscious one, like the drive to have sex or existential angst, that seems part of our genetic make up to a small extent or the nature of being human.

If you want to go on believing you don't have something that you rely on as a crutch at times then so be it. I don't believe you and I don't believe anyone should. You are neither old enough or wise enough to have attained Nirvana.

I also think you should use the quote function, but meh.

Angst is a German, Danish, and Dutch word for fear or anxiety. (Anguish is its Latinate equivalent.) It is used in English to describe an intense feeling of strife. The term Angst distinguishes itself from the word Furcht (German for "fear") in that Furcht usually refers to a material threat (arranged fear), while Angst is usually a nondirectional emotion. Angst normally means a feeling or fear towards anything strange coming up.

In other languages having the meaning of the Latin word pavor, the derived words differ in meaning, e.g. as in the French anxiété and peur. The word Angst has existed since the 8th century, coming from the base-Indoeuropean *anghu-, "restraint" from which Old High German angust develops. It is pre-cognate with the Latin angustia, "tensity, tightness" and angor, "choking, clogging"; compare to the Greek "άγχος" (ankhos): stress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angst

Existentialist philosophers use the term "angst" with a different connotation. The use of the term was first attributed to Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard (1813–1855). In The Concept of Dread (also known as "The Concept of Anxiety", depending on the translation), Kierkegaard used the word Angest (in common Danish, angst, meaning "dread" or "anxiety") to describe a profound and deep-seated spiritual condition of insecurity and despair in the free human being. Where the animal is a slave to its instincts but always conscious in its own actions, Kierkegaard believed that the freedom given to people leaves the human in a constant fear of failing his/her responsibilities to God. Kierkegaard's concept of angst is considered to be an important stepping stone for 20th-century existentialism. While Kierkegaard's feeling of angst is fear of actual responsibility to God, in modern use, angst was broadened by the later existentialists to include general frustration associated with the conflict between actual responsibilities to self, one's principles, and others (possibly including God). Martin Heidegger used the term in a slightly different way.
Depending on your religion or lack of it you can use it as either the term meaning moral responsibility atheist or moral responsibility theist, or moral responsibility agnostic. But everyone has it and everyone sometimes finds themselves in moral conflict. Be it deciding how to cope with x or y. Also more generally its what makes our moral code what it is by how we behave, and in future how we draw on experience. I don't believe anyone consciously or otherwise can avoid the need for opiates for the masses, like TV and God or otherwise more subjective forms.

Like I say though there are only four possibilities for someone who believes they consciously and or unconsciously don't turn to opiates at some point in their life.

You are Jesus, you are a robot, you are quite possibly a Vulcan, or you are the single most tedious person anyone is likely to meet, and more I would say deeply flawed and possibly a morally uncentered person who has relatively little emotional empathy or actual emotion, as you do not ever need something to take your mind off things. I would go further and say your singular lack of imagination and ability to emote points very clearly to a career as an accountant.

That said I don't think you are either that boring or seriously trying to argue you don't resort to things that are a distraction for any but logical reasons. Seems an oxymoron the whole concept.
0
reply
020sophiekay
Badges: 0
#158
Report 9 years ago
#158
(Original post by punktopia)
So you believe it's okay to attack and kill people?
its not ok...but under some circumstances unavoidable and it DEFINANTLY isnt the easy way out
0
reply
Phugoid
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#159
Report 9 years ago
#159
(Original post by JMonkey)
I'm not talking about religion?

Well I am. Because, incase you haven't noticed, that is what the thread is about. If you're not talking about religion, then your points are not relevant. Cease.

What are you going on about I'm talking about opiates, we all have them, you are just delusional enough to think everything you do is reasoned and logical and you are but some robot in life. That isn't my problem, all I can say is you are deluding yourself if you think like any but those attaining states of perfect centerdness do not need comforts or things that relieve pain by taking us away from our problems. Honestly I don't think you understand what a drug is in the analogy (TV, books, films whatever), it does not need to be addictive like opium, but it does need to be something that relieves our woes, that we do not because we logically have to but because we emotionally want or need to. Whether that is a conscious need or a subconscious one, like the drive to have sex or existential angst, that seems part of our genetic make up to a small extent or the nature of being human.

I will say this once more, and not again after that. I do not claim to be perfectly centred or to conduct my life according to perfect reason and absolutely no illogic. I am human, and I have human flaws, desires and weaknesses. However, I do not satisfy these weaknesses with religion, and I certainly to not satisfy them by ignoring them, pretending their don't exist, or replacing them with euphoria. That was your definition of an opiate, and I tell you, I do not use them. I DO use crutches, something to support me, and remind me that I am a person with a problem who needs support. Crutches, however, like I said, do NOT make the problem go away, they do NOT convince you the problem isn't there, they do NOT fill you with a sense of euphoria and they do NOT distract your attentions from the problems in hand. I use crutches, not opiate. I use support, not religion.

If you want to go on believing you don't have something that you rely on as a crutch at times then so be it. I don't believe you and I don't believe anyone should. You are neither old enough or wise enough to have attained Nirvana.

See above.

I also think you should use the quote function, but meh.

CBA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angst



Depending on your religion or lack of it you can use it as either the term meaning moral responsibility atheist or moral responsibility theist, or moral responsibility agnostic. But everyone has it and everyone sometimes finds themselves in moral conflict. Be it deciding how to cope with x or y. Also more generally its what makes our moral code what it is by how we behave, and in future how we draw on experience. I don't believe anyone consciously or otherwise can avoid the need for opiates for the masses, like TV and God or otherwise more subjective forms.

This would be relevant if I claimed that I was not susceptible to moral conflict or weakness. But I didn't.

Also, whilst you may 'believe' that nobody can avoid the need for opiates like TV, God or otherwise more subjective forms (btw, why do you write God as separate from subjective forms? God is by no mean objective), that doesn't not make it true. In fact, you have no evidence to suggest so, and hence, your beliefs are unfounded to begin with. But simply because you believe people don't need opiates, doesn't make it so. I use opiates, sure I do, but I don't need them, and I don't use them because they ARE opiates. I read fiction novels which require that i break my attention from reality and concentrate on the false world which is within the book. However, like I said before, you must consider the motives. There has never been a point in my life since the age of about 9 that I have not been reading a book. Not a single time. As soon as I finish a book, I move on to another book. I do this through the good times and the bad times. Constantly reading books. Books are opiates, like you say, but that is not why I read them. I do not read books to escape from reality, I read books to expand my mind, to expand my understanding of reality, and most of all, because I enjoy it. I have and use opiates, but I do not use them BECAUSE they are opiates, I use them for their other properties. I do not use them BECAUSE they allow me to escape from reality, because I use them even in times when reality is so good to me, that I have no reason TO escape it. When I am in trouble, I use crutches.
Phugoid.
0
reply
JMonkey
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#160
Report 9 years ago
#160
(Original post by Phugoid)
Phugoid.
Now I just think you are living in a fantasy world of your own making.

And you need to learn how to use the quote function. I think the existentialists would literally not just turn in their graves but rise form the dead in order to do battle with the antithesis of the whole of modern philosophy in human form and the only self professed Jesus figure ever to exist outside of The Holy Land.

You're right this is about religion, you clearly believe you have attained perfection at the tender age of 18 or however old you are. Incredibly arrogant and preposterous notion you have about life. Still you'll grow up one day I'm sure.

I'm not buying it and no one can be that dull or flawed or perfect (having become enlightened).

Sorry but you're full of it.

I don't think for one minute you have remotely analysed what you are claiming here.

And in fact I think you merely joined the thread to boast about how tough you are but then realised you were merely marking yourself as deeply wounded and flawed and even psychopathic.

Hedonism bot needs a vice for his flawed but more perfect self. Anon. Or until later. I do this because I want to though, and because I enjoy it, not for any petty logical reason, but purely to know joy and to relieve existential angst.

Amen.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (552)
37.81%
No - but I will (115)
7.88%
No - I don't want to (102)
6.99%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (691)
47.33%

Watched Threads

View All