Nas Is Like - Nas

That made me think though the whole song first time i herd it, its funny how music triggers different chains of thought.

I suppose. He's made it a point of reference on a few songs to point out that he doesn't subscribe to any religion.

This whole vid makes me think on hip hops current state, and i feel reks did it justice with this track

Yeah I like that verse especially beacuse it has both. Style as well as substance.

Yeah, that's based on an oft used argument against God's existence. Epicurus, an ancient Greek philosopher who was a student of Democritus (both of which were atheists), came up with the argument. It is now commonly known as "The Problem of Evil". It states that if God is omnipotent (all powerful) then why does evil exist? And if God isn't omnipotent, what kind of God is he/she/it? The only arguments that have been raised against it are the idea that while God could do something, he/she/it values free will over exterminating evil, and a few other easily refutable arguments, and so the argument has stood for thousands of years unabated. It's pretty much the premier argument used by atheists for it is the strongest argument against theism even though Epicurus himself actually had his followers worship him. It doesn't do much against deism though. Funny enough, I did actually see an atheist blog that gave a strong argument against the problem of evil and I would say it actually debunked it, but the theist would have to accept terms that I guarantee not one would agree to in order for them to accept the argument the guy used to debunk it anyways.

LOL! Of course you'd chime in at this point not really. That argument is, as I said above, still unabated, so I'd hardly call that line "style over substance".

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

That's an interesting piece of information. But the reality remains that no one knows what happens when we leave this earth in the physical form. That's my main gripe with anyone who subscribes to a religion. Most of these modern day religions are faith-based meaning you can believe in the tooth fairy if enough people put the money up for it. It's no different with Jesus Christ. I'm not doubting that a man by his name who had healing powers lived at one point, not doubting that at all. But he wasn't my father, and he didn't die for me.

Actually there is a form of Christianity that was banned at the Council of Nicaea that basically follows what you are saying to the tee. It is called Arianism (not Aryanism) and it is based on the teachings of a man named Arius. Upon his form of Christianity being labeled heretical, Arius was exiled and had to live the rest of his life in seclusion.

You will find that, opposed to what religious folks claim, atheists claim no knowledge proving that God doesn't exist. There are two different categories of both atheism and theism: agnostic and gnostic. An agnostic atheist claims no knowledge but feels that the evidence strongly supports their disbelief in God. The great majority of atheists are agnostic. I haven't actually met a gnostic atheist. Gnostic atheism would be a claim to know for a fact that no God exists. The great majority of theists are gnostic as well. However, the truth is that, as Bertrand Russell pointed out, the burden of proof lies in the court of the person making the claim using his teapot analogy. Those claiming that a God exists need to provide extensive, unabated evidence for this and until it is provided, the logical conclusion is agnostic atheism. For this reason, your statement that we don't know what happens when we leave this earth in physical form is true and is something most atheists would agree upon.

We would argue, however, that it is counter-intuitve to believe that there is an afterlife or that we are reincarnated and that both of these ideas were created as security blankets for people who find it hard to accept that it is most likely that when we die we die and nothing more occurs. It's like an eternal sleep. For this reason it is important to live life like it is, or at least may be or only one.

As for Jesus, there is less evidence for his existence than there is for Socrates'. At the time of Socrates' alleged existence there were 3 sources that actually wrote about him, of which the main writings found supporting Socrates' existence come from Plato. Even though we haven't found a single writing from Socrates' own hand, these 3 writers wrote extensively about him during what is supposedly the frame of time in which he actually lived. Jesus, on the other hand, was not mentioned in writing until Tacitus wrote about him 60 years after his death and even that is debatable as Jesus was a common title at the time. The first bible complete with New Testament and therefore actually mentioning the existence of Jesus (the Codex Sinaiticus) was found long after even Tacitus' death. So if we were to go by evidence, to tell the truth, it isn't even likely that Jesus was more than a fictional character based on someone who may or may not have actually existed.

Now before we derail this thread completely, here's another jaw-dropping line (I aplogize ahead of time. I've been listening to far too much Atmosphere lately ). This is from the hook on "You" from "When Life Gives You Lemons, You Paint That Shit Gold":

"You love the people that love you/
You hear the music they move to/
You give your all to the fall-through/
But you don't know, you don't know, you don't know, you don't know YOU!"

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0