Religion

[Wilmer Bordonado]

Religions do not exists because god do not exist, it's a logical rule.

We only exist from the day we have born til the day we will die.

Then, nothing.

Wilmer B.

[Mykey]

The matchless answer

[Torkess_theCommie]

There is no right or wrong only what feels good, and what does not.

I`ve changed a little since than,LOL But I still think it sounds good.

So if it feels good to kill someone, you should kill them? That way lies monsters.

...others may feel it is a totally natural and pleasureable expierience. Like some serial killers.
I no longer agree with this slogan, But I do believe there is some truth to it.

I agree with Mykeyrools, like I said before, some people do things because they think it's "right", it feels "good" for them.

I think right or wrong is not determined by a higher diety, or authority, I think it is determined by your personal standards, what seems "good" for you, what makes you "comfortable", would probably be what is "right", well "right" in your opinion, but others will probably not agree to your "right" and "wrongs"... so therefore I also think that there is no such thing in this world that is called "right" or "wrong", right and wrong is just merely a word to describe things, like the word "dirty", some people have different standards for "clean",

[west]

That`s my point West, right and wrong is totally subjective.
I personally would feel bad for killing anyone. But others may feel it is a totally natural and pleasureable expierience. Like some serial killers.
I no longer agree with this slogan, But I do believe there is some truth to it.

Just because someone FEELS that it is right for them to do so doesn't mean that it IS right. It's not subjective, at least for issues such as killing.

And Wilmer, whether or not there is a god has no bearing on whether there are religions. There certainly ARE religions. Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, and myriad others. Whether they are based on a higher truth or not is a different matter. But of course they EXIST.

Neither you nor I nor anyone else can prove or disprove the existance of God, nor can we know for certain what happens to our consciousnesses when we die. Saying what you say is just as arrogant and takes as much blind faith as anything Pie has posted.

[Pie]

................*shakes his head* You know what? IF you could have made one singal point stand againt cristianitly, i wouldn't believ in it. But you know what? you didn't.

What makes something "true" or "false" is the chain of proof. Lets take.... evolution. let's look at the chain of proof. it starts with a therey. humans came frome monkeys.
and then it goes to another thery, wich is based apon phisical proof. Monkeys had genetic mutations over the generations, causing them to (gradually)turn into humans. there is proof of genetic mutations in humans.
And now we either give more phisical evidence, or another thery. Lets say you have phisical evidence. we have found the bones of the missing link, and alot of other stages of the mising link.

Or it can be based apon anothr thery.there is a missing link, proving evolution has happened.

that last part of the "chain of proof" is the foundation of the first thery. and as you see, since the chain of proof ends in a thery, that means that the first thery is either untrue, or it is inconclusive.

But, the good or bad chain of proof... it always ends in a thery. So... Good and bad is therefor inconclusive, becous we have no foundation, no "true" good and bad foundation thing. and as such is true, and since therys always change.... the good and bad thery is always changing.

[west]

Just...just stop talking, Pie. Honestly. Or at least take the time to know what you're talking about. Please? You don't listen to what we post, you don't even follow the chain of conversation, you just post the same things over and over again filled with faulty logic and vague "i can't back this up but it's true" sentiments, and you expect anyone to take you seriously?

There are so many things wrong with your latest post that I'm not even going to bother correcting them. Because you're not going to listen anyway.

[Jack Dudeman]

*laughs*

[Torkess_theCommie]

...and not to mention ...his poor spelling

[Nixit]

Ok, ok. HF you're right, morale and ethics vary with space and time, you've given some good examples, but there are always some basic things (like...killing your father is bad, marrying your sister is bad, etc) which are what I meant with my disagreement.

And west, that is great, really. But I still think there'd be a better society if wasn't so ever-present, so liberated, so "libertine". Because it's caused a separation of love and we catholics don't like

Maybe I'm just being picky, but Ancient Rome, ancient Egyptians? The Royal married their sisters, etc all the time.

[Dee]

They were ignorant, they don't know the sciences we know today, and they certainly had no morals. They had no relegions at the time. There was nothing such as right and wrong.

[the_antisocial_hermit]

You wouldn't consider their worship of gods and goddesses like Venus, Mercury, Janus, Apollo, Bast, Horus, Amun, Ma'at, and numerous others as a part of a religion of sorts?

There are religions even today that embrace those gods and goddesses or some forms of them as well as many others. I had a Wiccan friend that believed very much in Bast, an Egyptian goddess.

I'm sure they had morals and things they considered right and wrong as well. They just might not mesh with many of the morals and rights/wrongs as we seen in various places today.

[Dee]

Okay, I was wrong, you're right... They did have relegions!!

But they don't know the things we know today... They certainly didn't see it how we see it now.

[the_antisocial_hermit]

But they don't know the things we know today... They certainly didn't see it how we see it now.

Very true! We've lost some of what they knew, and they never found some of the things that we know now!

[Nalaris]

Just...just stop talking, Pie. Honestly. Or at least take the time to know what you're talking about. Please? You don't listen to what we post, you don't even follow the chain of conversation, you just post the same things over and over again filled with faulty logic and vague "i can't back this up but it's true" sentiments, and you expect anyone to take you seriously?

There are so many things wrong with your latest post that I'm not even going to bother correcting them. Because you're not going to listen anyway.

Then you cannot, in all honesty, say that it is wrong. We cannot rule out and indeed, until you provide evidence to the contrary we should believe that you are incapable of arguing against him.

And pointing out his bad spelling is not only bad form, but further evidence that you're incapable of debating against him.


The concept that someone can change reality just by having personal beliefs is inane. I can no more change right and wrong by believing hard enough than I can change the laws of physics. I can manipulate the laws of physics, learn and use them, and can do the same to morality, but by simply believing that I can fly I will not spontaneously gain the ability to fly. I can build an airplane, but I cannot just fly.

I don't condemn homosexuals. But I know whay they do is wrong and hope fervently that they'll stop doing it. 100% of all homosexuals who went to therapy for their homosexually became heterosexual.

I think I may have found out why I appear to be the only one who's capable of maintaining only one character in Cantr. The rest of you, apparently, have no willpower to resist the carnal insticts which, if fully given into, would tear our society apart. Fortunately society at large is not made up of cantr adicts and therefore has the willpower to make laws that appeal to a basic instinct: fear.

This, of course, is a theory and is, as of yet, utterly unconfirmed. I myself put no faith in it, but it's worth stating. The other possibility is that for some reason cantr just doesn't appeal to me in the same way it does others...

Meh.

A lot of you have provided evidence that homosexuality is natural. Did any of these findings come from websites that were formed for the purpose of science, and not the defence of homosexuality? Because I've never, ever, ever heard of a homosexual animal. Ever.

In certain societies in Africa, a woman is required to have had a baby before marrying a man. If people constantly laid with one woman that many times, as would happen if everyone just gave in to carnal instincts, world population would drop from 6 billion to 1.75 billion in five years. At that point, after civilization collapsed, I figure enough people would find out that having sex for the sake of sex is bad and stop. Hopefully there would be enough of these people to re-establish society.

[Mykey]

I congratulate, it seems excellent idea to me is