Go to The Reverend Kooka Speaks About Religious Bulls#!t
- Add a comment
- Go to World Peace Through Atheism
Shawn
I thought I had been getting it across that I am very, very tired of you. You do not read what I have to say. You are so blinded by your beliefs that you seem to think I agree with you when that is the farthest from the truth. I do wish to debate, but you seem to have no clue how that works. You have yet to make a point successfully, which is the most annoying thing I find about you. You really do not even try. You come in and tell me 'God is good' then figure out someway to rewrite the meanings of the words I used in order to try and make it look like I do not know what I am saying. And you just do not get the message.
Oh, and no one needs to concede in a debate, that is not the point of it. So I will not concede unless I am given true proof that I am wrong and you have come no where near giving that.
I am not acting rude because I am afraid you might convert me. I am acting that wy because you really, really annoy me because you seem to be clueless on all this.
So yea, I would love for our little exchange to end.
posted by
kooka_lives
on April 12, 2004 at 10:58 AM
| link to this | reply
No, it's not that way..
this is your trademark response each time I make a point successfully. You say you want to debate, but you will never concede, even when you no longer have a valid argument. I think that perhaps we should try to see what common ground, if any, exists between us and then move on from there. That is, if you wish to continue the exchange at all.
posted by
telemachus
on April 11, 2004 at 8:05 PM
| link to this | reply
Okay
As far as I am concerned you are the one who has been rude as of late. I keep trying to get you to just back down becasue I am getting annoyed at you repeating yourself as though you were a parrot and not litsening to anything I have to say.
So far your 'truth' is only helping me to get a very firm grip on my own beleifs, but it does get annoying. Most others get the message by now and figure 'why waste the time' on me. You don't seem to have enough sense for that. If you think I am rude, then go away. I will only get ruder until you start to either have real debates with me or your learn how to shut up.
posted by
kooka_lives
on April 11, 2004 at 1:48 PM
| link to this | reply
Rudeness is not good...
It seems to me that you always get belligerent when the truth starts to manifest itself in our exchange.
posted by
telemachus
on April 11, 2004 at 12:33 PM
| link to this | reply
shawn
we've run this circle before. Just shut up about it for once. It is getting real old. This has nothing to do with 'preconceived notions' and everything to do with really studying the Bible. You're the one with preconceived notions and that is really getting on my nerves.
You will not convert me no matter what. All you are doing is making it very clear to me as to why I believe as I do. The problem is you keep saying the same thing over and over again with the same results and you do not have a clue that this is what is happening.
posted by
kooka_lives
on April 10, 2004 at 8:43 AM
| link to this | reply
Kooka
For some reason you lack the ability to consider God outside of the realm of your Sunday school lesson. Its like you're trying to decide whether to believe in Santa Claus or not. In order for you to follow the philosophy here, you are going to have to abandon all of your preconceived notions and approach God with a fresh perspective.
posted by
telemachus
on April 10, 2004 at 1:51 AM
| link to this | reply
Shawn
Good is not synonymous with God. I will never, ever agree to such a idiotic idea. Did you read the Bible? God is a demanding jerk and promotes violence. He destroys life just because it upsets him. No, I can not agree with you on that point at all. It is an idea created by the Christian church in order to make the idea of God more appealing.
posted by
kooka_lives
on April 9, 2004 at 4:39 PM
| link to this | reply
Kooka
Sounds like you are willing to embrace the idea that that we need compassion, empathy, love, caring, truthfulness, peacefulness, beauty, humbleness, kindness, calmness and being philanthropic. Is this correct? And, if so, can we agree to bundle these words under a single term, that being the term "good". And similarly, can you think somewhat on my assertion that these good elements are synonymous with God?
posted by
telemachus
on April 9, 2004 at 12:51 PM
| link to this | reply
Jeff
I do not believe in God, but I do accept other's belief in him. I have tried to explain that I do this post because I wish to debate the ideas and state my point of view. I am not trying convert anyone here.
But I do find it rare for someone to believe and be able to accept others who do not. It has a lot to do with ego. Basically 'My beliefs are correct and powerful and so you must see this and have the same beliefs, otherwise I may be wrong in my beliefs if they are not powerful enough to get you to follow them.'
posted by
kooka_lives
on April 9, 2004 at 10:55 AM
| link to this | reply
Shawn
I will agree that we need to be 'compassion, empathy, love, caring, truthfulness, peacefulness, beauty, humbleness, kindness, calmness and being philanthropic,' in order to have a peaceful world. I took out order because there is a level of chaos needed, because if we ever got ot pure order then we would have no art, no creativity, no free thinking, no individuality and so peace would mean very little at that point. Hitler was big on going after order and part of that was complete control over all forms of art and expression.
But that still has nothing to do with God. If you look back on history you will see that he more we have learned and the more knowledge we gain as a people the less likely we are to go out and fight just to fight. Now it still does happen and most likely will continue to happen for some time. But he more we evolve as a society the more we are aware of what is needed to make thing 'good'. This is part of natural evolution. This is not a physical evolution, but an evolution of the mind that is able to get us farther from the primitive instincts that we still fight against. Looking at history do you think we are more or less violent than man kind was two hundred years ago? How about four hundred? We are much less likely to go and slaughter our neighbors just because we see the world different than they do or because we desire their land and resources. It still happens, but not as often. And the more one accepts that idea that we are all equal and that we have no to push our beliefs on each other, the easier it will be to make sure we do not fight because it will all that much harder to find reasons for it. Being afraid of a god is not the same as knowing better. I know better and it has nothing to do with me being worried about a punishment in the afterlife. In the end the idea that knowing God will also allow you to be good make little sense when it is backed up by the idea of eternal damnation. No threat should be needed. Why would God have to scare people into believing in him?
posted by
kooka_lives
on April 9, 2004 at 10:51 AM
| link to this | reply
Well yes..
Just like its possible to eat in front of someone who is starving.
posted by
telemachus
on April 8, 2004 at 7:46 PM
| link to this | reply
I think it's quite possible
For someone to believe in God and still accept someone else's unbelief and vice versa.
Jeff
posted by
jollyjeff
on April 8, 2004 at 7:32 PM
| link to this | reply
Typo
Sorry, I meant meditation, not medication. (that's funny!)
posted by
telemachus
on April 8, 2004 at 7:26 PM
| link to this | reply
Don't you mean World Peace through goodness?
Well, we can agree on one thing. That is that there is entirely too much religious doctrine out and about in the world and too many people who think everyone is wrong that does not adhere to their specific doctrine. So first, and foremost, let’s agree on something finally and that is that people should not be lead around by the nose by elaborate, established doctrine.
So, how should people govern themselves? Kooka says in this post that we should do it by, and I quote, “being the best person that we can be here and now”, by “having a positive impact on the world”. Well Kooka, what are the concepts that one must embody to establish these characteristics in themselves? It boils down to, essentially being good. This basically involves having: compassion, empathy, love, caring, truthfulness, peacefulness, order, beauty, humbleness, kindness, calmness and being philanthropic. These are characteristics of “goodness”.
Now we must see that even in Kooka’s hypothetically Godless world, people would have to somehow imbibe these characteristics into themselves in order to be “the best person they could possibly be” and in other to “have a positive impact on the world”. These characteristics do not come naturally. They must be instilled in a person by learning, concentration, and willful action. People would have to work, meditate, and grow spiritually in order to make these good characteristics manifest in their lives. In other words, they would have to think deeply about what aspects of these good characteristics they may most easily possess and what aspects they need to work on. They would be successful only through deep contemplation, medication, and willful work in this regard. In other words, they would be working toward the expansion of these good characteristics within themselves. And this is an expansion of God within them.
Kooka, perhaps you have trouble saying the word God. (Remember the prayer: “God is Great. God is Good”). Maybe it would be easier for you to say Good. Whatever terminology you choose, your position on the absence of God (a/k/a Good) has no substance.
posted by
telemachus
on April 8, 2004 at 7:15 PM
| link to this | reply