Kaimax Posts

Hmm, I prefer smaller ones over bigger but... I'd say between 2-4 looks best in my eyes.

Too much coverage? Instead of thinking "why does this get so much attention when this disaster didn't", isn't it better to say "finally they give the disaster the attention it actually needs"?



Hmeh, I didn't "resort" to call you a fat bastard; it was not even a insult, just a mean to say that we are all (not just you) people who can be fat and bastards, since we will never experience poverty, starvation or anything like it, unless we'd put us in that situation ourselves.



Ok, people didn't realize the situation was bad before, because of ignorance, yes. The fact that they now got a rather violent wake-up call and started doing things to help out, shouldn't it be considered a good thing instead?



As I said, ofc the fact that people did not realize how bad the situation was before the earthquake, or simply did not care is not a good thing. Then again, the fact that they are helping now when the situation has gone from bad to worse should be encouraged instead of people pointing at earlier ignorance.

I do not condemn you, actually, I do not care what you do, and I certainly do not consider myself a better person than you, since, as I said in a earlier post, I have not, and most likely will not donate any money.

The only thing that actually bothered me with your post, and the only thing I wanted to say is that it is, imho, wrong to say that "it is blown out of proportion". The fact that it is given so much attention, the fact that the coverage is so extensive is not something that you should call bad just because "there has been other disasters that didn't get as much attention". Ofc it isn't a good thing that some disasters aren't given the attention they deserve, but now when Haiti is, why not encourage this instead of pointing fingers?

Why does it seem to me like if being a cold hearted asshole is something of a fad?

It is easy to say that it is blown out of proportion when you 1. does not know shit about how it actually is and 2. is a fat bastard that never have and probably never will face a disaster like it.

Saying that it is "probably out of proportion" is just a poor excuse to not give money and help. Sure, if you do not care; fine, then don't. But you're not even allowed to say that it is bullshit since you do not know how it is, and will probably not face the same situation yourself even in your nightmares.

Also, even if people were dirty and poor and it wasn't as nice to live there as where you live just because you were born lucky, it was not as bad as it is now: children crawling over the rubble of their former homes and the dead bodies of their friends and family, too shocked to even try to figure out where to go or what to do.

QFT. Not to mention that, if you survived, you'd probably be surrounded by the stench of corpses wherever you are in the city, get to know that most of the people you care about has died or are wounded for life, not have anything to eat nor anywhere to sleep...

Yea, I think $10 is pretty cheap to add to the help of thousands of people who has to experience just that.

Too bad I'm a hypocrite, cuz even though I say that, I do not donate.

I didn't call it bullshit, I said it's not more likely than any other belief. It is you who says "meh" to what I say, since you cannot believe what you can't see. And that is understandable in most cases, I do the same; but you have not seen "nothingness" either.

If you think really hard about it Rbz, you should realize that "nothingness" isn't even a scientific or logical conclusion, it's just Your belief based upon assumptions. The scientific view of after death is that it is impossible to research anyway, and therefore a waste of time to argue about.

Ah well, if you're hurt there's no helping it. From the start this was supposed to a thread where you'd say what you believed, and it was not I who said your belief is untrue BS, it was you who said that to me. Then it should mean that you know the truth, shouldn't it?

Shit, seems like some heavy stuff. But since I've already achieved 3 things from that list it would seem like I'm already on a good way to become the Master, so no thx, rather keep my money.

You are wrong. What I said has to do with the link falacious reasoning that You sent, which says this:

"I personally cannot imagine a natural sequence of events whereby X could have come about. Therefore, it must have come about by supernatural means.".

Since you said that I should go by that text, I did indeed so, and there it says that it is all superstition. The "natural sequence" here is unknown in a way largely different from the existence of a ghost. I haven't pulled anything from my ass. First: ignore TAA, I just mentioned him for that quote and to say that the same kind of logic does not apply here as when talking about the non-existence of God. Second: I didn't realize saying "witch-burning" would make you butthurt, it was just an expression. And what I said about the majority: you can not ignore the fact that many western people fear being seen as religious now almost as much as they were to be seen like heretics long ago. Atheism is the New Christianity in that sense, or at least the more fanatic ones. But hey, I'm actually not talking shit about atheism, I do believe that it is the most logical response to most situations.

But, this is the thing. You still stop at death!



Yes, good job, that is true, and I know what happens When You Die just as well as you do. But as I've said a million times (or so it feels like), that is unimportant! Poof, the consciousness is gone. It is what happens after that which is important, not what happens with your body or your current consciousness, but the question if that is The End. You believe it is; fine. I do not believe that is how it is; you claim it is the logical way of thinking, but it is not. Since you cannot possibly know what happens, you choose to stop there and say "and then there is nothing", just dropping the entire thing. Instead of calling that logic, I'd call it "the simplest solution is always the best", because that is what it is about in this case.

Nothing wrong with that ofc, but as I said, it is not the death of the body that is important, it is if there is something more afterwards. And also, since you cannot possibly know what will happen, why not imagine a more interesting way? It is not like someone who dies will be disappointed and like "aaawh man, I though it was gonna be nothingness.. *sob*", though that is just my personal opinion.

And also... So you are telling me that "Nothingness" in terms of death is the same as being unconscious or sleeping without dreaming? -_- That is quite far away from not existing imho, but ok, if that is what you believe =)

-________-

Edit: Maybe this is a better explanation of what I believe: I actually do believe in "nothingness" in a sense of meaning. When your body dies and your consciousness disappears, you are gone. The End. Nothing. And then a new being is born somewhere in the universe, and it's consciousness happens to be you! Not "You" as in the You you are now, but a completely new You. Fuck, it's hard to put it into words.

Doesn't the question usually go like this: "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?"

And My answer to your question is: if a majority of people believe that there is, or that someone is a God, there automatically will be. Maybe not a God in the supernatural meaning, but still a God in the eyes and minds of the people. Therefore, if no one believes there is a God, then there isn't.

I think I've made this reference before, but it is the same as the "value" of money.

I thought that was a line people who is remembering "the good all days" used, the ones who experienced them?

You wasn't even a member back then Quad -_-

... You're completely just reading what you want to read, don't you? I said, this is nothing like "reincarnation" in the meaning you speak of. I haven't talked anything about the cycle of the soul at all. There is no "past life" in what I speak of. I know very well what Hindusim, reincarnation and Nirvana is about without you telling me, but as I said, that is a whole other concept, which has nothing to do with what I'm talking about here.

As I see it, a soul has nothing to do with it. This isn't about Hinduism reincarnation nor Nirvana. This is how I see it. Actually, it might not be considered "reincarnation" at all, since that is being reborn. That is not what I believe.

Congratz on B-day dude.

Ok, I'll just do like this instead. Let's ignore everything that has been said and so, no importance anymore.

Tell me exactly why "Nothingness" is the more logical belief.

When I get back I want a scientific, logical reason for why any other belief is "superstition" and why you do not realize that you do the same as you say I do: You take your belief from absolutely nothing and say that it is more likely the truth. Now I'm gonna go play PW. =/

What, so you don't think that your belief is the truth? And also, linking me to this falacious reasoning site does also say something; you think I arrived to my belief because of ignorance of the obvious truth which is false.
I did it because I find it Most Likely and because there is no logical truth that would make it any less likely.


Ok, then w/e. "Very cherished belief?" -_-' My beliefs are never set in stone though.



Yea, since you ignored the only important part of my post that actually touches the subject of what happens after death, which is what this thread is all about. That is why I said that it is beside the point.

Was not supposed to sound like I am offended, it was just a word of description, since that it's how it is all over the world. Even if they're not burned on a stake, a religious person in a atheistic community is usually persecuted now days, just like it was the opposite 500 years ago or so. Besides, I do not consider myself religious.

That is indeed true, but it is also beside the point.

I mentioned it because you argue about this in the same way as you did about God and ghosts.

What you say only reaches to the "death" part of dying, it is what happens afterwards that is interesting. These scientific discoveries can only explain what happens until the moment of death, something I can think out with my ass. What happens afterwards? Get to the problem instead of stopping halfway.



I have not even tried to defend my belief at all, I'm just trying to say that just like everyone else, you are saying that your belief is the truth, just because you and many other believe it is. There is a saying about democracy that goes "The majority is always right, even though the majority is usually wrong." that I think fits here. And by saying "sacred cow" I get the suspicion that you draw to much parallels to Hinduism, which is nothing like what I believe.

You should read all I said instead. I already said that a "soul" whether it exist or not has nothing to do with it. "Nothingness" is not reasonable in any sense at all, its just as much a belief that cannot be researched and proven. The comparison between priests and scientists was just to show the relation to how atheists and religious people believe in what other people who claims they know the truth says. I can also say that I'm pretty sure that there is a lot of scientists with a lot of different believes on what happens after death.

tl;dr warning on this.



Hmh? I can throw that right back at you. I never said that I know what I believe is right, neither am I saying that the "turning into nothingness" can't be true either. This is no hasty conclusion of any sort. I can just not imagine how non-existence would be, and therefor, I don't believe it, and won't until I die an can tell by myself. I mean, it should impossible for anyone to imagine, since no one has ever experienced it and can tell the living people how it is. To me, starting again as another conscious being sounds much more likely. Reincarnation in this case does not mean that I think our new consciousness have any relation to the one we have now though; we are not the same person, we have not "lived an earlier life" or anything like that.

Just because this "nothingness" is the belief of the biased majority of the religion-fearing population in the western world, it does not make it true. The majority isn't always right, especially when they blindly believe what people say (this is the same for atheist believing in scientists and religious people believing in priests) and set their belief fully against any that can involve religion cuz they fear being branded if they don't.



What I wonder is; what happens then? It's not like you spend an eternity seeing black? Screw the body, that has nothing to do with it, and screw the soul as well, that might just as well not exist. "Nothing happens then, that's just it." is not an explanation or anything; that is just something you can say because you do not know what happens and can't imagine it, so you stop your thoughts there, since that is easier.



As I said, something like a "soul" has nothing to do with it. Disturbing? Not really, in fact, right now I feel like I would welcome non-existence. I do not believe in 'reincarnation' because that is how I want it to be, I believe in it because it seems much more logical to me. If we put this in scientific terms for you witch-burning atheists then: Matter can not just "cease to be", it never disappear, it always just turns into something else.



What makes this the truth? And what makes it horrifying? -_- This is more likely a response to people who does not want to live their crappy lives again (and I can relate to them) and therefore says "The End" to be relieved from thinking any further. This is something even more pseudoscience than the existence of God. And saying "I will change my belief if there is a truth of the opposite" is exactly the same argument that people say about God, or ghosts, or w/e, and Death can not even compare to these since it no doubt exist, all will no doubt has to face it, and there is NO logical reasoning that ANY SCIENTIST can make to reach the truth.

What I'm getting to is:
@Rbz: I know you quote TAA and say that "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" is wrong, but that does not apply here as much as it does to God. There is nothing you can say in this case that makes what you believe (Yes, it is a BELIEF, just like God) any more true OR logical than any other belief; on the contrary, what I said about matter would make this belief scientifically illogical.

@Fascistznik: Saying that you face "the horrifying truth" just because You Believe Its Is True is the same as anyone else saying that Santa is exist because they believe he does.