OK this topic i dunno may have been said in separate ways but i joined this topic.
Do you belive in:-
Science:-That There is no God, there is nothing as Psychics,everything in the world is scientific, there are no ghosts no monsters no nothing except advancement in science and technology.
Signs:-That our astrology is true,There Is God,There are ghosts and monsters, There are things in the world science cant explain, there is magic.
I really vote for both but more in Signs, cuz science is a thing, But It tries to show the signs part that all is in Technology, I believe in God,Ghosts,MOnster(the 2nd and 3rd i belive Less for safety)I belive in Magic, but i also belive in Science that there are a few things scientific.
(give opnions.DUH!) :mrgreen:
Just because you believe in science does NOT mean you don't believe in God.
I believe in some kind of a celestial influence, be it one God or many I'm not sure, but I also believe in chemistry and gravity (a.k.a. science) as well.
I belive science is the explaination of god.
I_do_what_Odin_tells_me.
:mrgreen: I also do what Shaft tells me.
So I guess I'm saying I pick The Gods over science. I think.
Now I have Nothing Else to say. So I will use really Big Letters utill I can say something Usefull. Which will probably be in a few posts. Maybe three or four. I'm not exactly Sure.
LOOK Nightwolf,Your post is a dumb execuse of a debate.
I AM A SCIENTOLOGIST.
Quote from: Nightwolf on April 06, 2006, 02:30:58 PM
OK this topic i dunno may have been said in separate ways but i joined this topic.
Do you belive in:-
Science:-That There is no God, there is nothing as Psychics,everything in the world is scientific, there are no ghosts no monsters no nothing except advancement in science and technology.
Signs:-That our astrology is true,There Is God,There are ghosts and monsters, There are things in the world science cant explain, there is magic.
I really vote for both but more in Signs, cuz science is a thing, But It tries to show the signs part that all is in Technology, I believe in God,Ghosts,MOnster(the 2nd and 3rd i belive Less for safety)I belive in Magic, but i also belive in Science that there are a few things scientific.
(give opnions.DUH!) :mrgreen:
look science believes and has proof of ghost and monsters. We have technology able to talk to them.And i know you are going to say "I dont wanna argue" But look at this shit.Get more information on science before you post something like that.
What people can
There's numerous things science can't explain.
#1. Why have there been religious sightings? Example, During a battle in a swedish war, there were ten thousand eye witnesses who saw Odin come down from the sky then joined the battle leading them to victory.
#2. If Gods weren't real then why has humanity thought some higher form of life exsits since humanity has begun?
#3. Why Shaft is the man. :mrgreen:
I could think of more stuff. But I'm too lazy.
Yeah, you got my point in a few sentences... I think at least...
:mrgreen: Shaft: "I said SHUT UP!"
...
QuoteThere's numerous things science can't explain.
#1. Why have there been religious sightings? Example, During a battle in a swedish war, there were ten thousand eye witnesses who saw Odin come down from the sky then joined the battle leading them to victory.
Sorry but I'm gonna call bullsh*t on that one. So what, they saw some huge guy on a horse come down from the SKY, go to their side, and then they think "oh ok i dont no where u came from but thx !!" and they battle on? This is basically explained in the last paragraph in this post.
Quote#2. If Gods weren't real then why has humanity thought some higher form of life exsits since humanity has begun?
It's the easiest way to explain how we got here. Back then there was no knowlegde of science, technology or evolution, and that was the only logical explanation they could come up with.
I see relegions as explanations that people have thought up. They see their explanation as flawless, and beleive in it continuously until they eventually become entirely convinced in it. I see people saying "I
know god lives".
No you don't.
Think of stories; playground rumors almost, that are told by your friends to you. After being told by one person who had it told to him, the facts are usually somewhat different or coloured. Think what hundreds or thousands of years could do to such a story. Tell enough people, who fall subject to the paragraph above, and
there's your "religion".
Quote from: Mental on April 06, 2006, 11:57:25 PM
LOOK Nightwolf,Your post is a dumb execuse of a debate.
I AM A SCIENTOLOGIST
We got an all in 1 over here, he's a student, he's popular, he died his hair at 9, ppl say he's dumb and now he;s a scientologist
Mental what u said was a repetation of the same point which i wont follow cuz its DEBATE around here...thats what the TITLE says
Quote from: FuMannChu on April 07, 2006, 02:23:49 AM
There's numerous things science can't explain.
#1. Why have there been religious sightings? Example, During a battle in a swedish war, there were ten thousand eye witnesses who saw Odin come down from the sky then joined the battle leading them to victory.
#2. If Gods weren't real then why has humanity thought some higher form of life exsits since humanity has begun?
Not numerous my friend. Science has advanced so much and got into ppl minds that half of the things are explainable,science just cant explain the presence of God so it says that there is no God.
Humanity thought that there is some life of existence because they saw it happen, atleast i can say Indian God Exist cuz ppl witnessed the Ramayan and The Mahabharat, they wrote books on it, and it was passed from generation.Gods Are For Real.
QuoteBut science can
Uh...
I believe in the String Theory; that ghosts are a form of our alter existance in another dimension, that just happened to slip through a large string. Google "Nova" and look for info about the String Theory of you're cool.
And Silverline linked me to this... So what? Um... I'm not voting because there isn't a option for OTHER. :wink:
People may think in evolution and evolving from bacteria and organisms etc. But we're so advance, we have to be designed in some way, and I'm not saying via a GOD or another superior race. Cliffs are formed by the sea, it could just be bacteria, yeah, I suppose. But this just gets people thinking too much and turn into a OMFG YOU'RE WRONG, I HATE YOU kind of war... :cry:
But yeah, I love this kind of stuff ^^
Okay. Sceince can't explian why Shaft is awesome. You must admit that one.
Science cannot explian why the song The Gods Made Heavy Metal by Manowar kills Emos. I played it once on campus and some Emo kid fell over having seisures, then his emo buddies came in to help and WTF they ended up getting seisures too. It was crazy.
Lol, you
Quote from: Mental on April 10, 2006, 07:24:10 PM
The purpose of life is too die.The rest is an obsticle.
Why don
I actually thought the meaning of life was to figure out the meaning of life.
:mrgreen: ~ Shaft has no idea what you just said.
You see, what I mean, mental? Everybody has his own opinion. Science can help us understand a few things around us, but it
That's part of the reason I don't have a religion. Back then, when people were starting religions, they didn't have science to help them explain things, so they took the only way they could think of: creating a god.
Now we have science to prove things, and help us explain things that they couldn't do way back when, and religion is becoming more and more disproved all the time.
But, that's only semi-on-topic.
But theres still some things science hasn't figured out yet. That's why people still have religion. Its unfortunate that some of the major religions are totally insane. Hopefully thanks to the Pagan Revival movement, more people will be partaking in sane religions.
Science dosen't know why,
#1. The meaning of life.
#2. If some higher form of life doesn't exsist, then why do we swear up and down there is.
Also, The Gods made Heavy Metal. It explains perfectly why real Metal is awesome. And why the band Manowar gives Emos seisures.
Also, The Gods don't like Emos.
Just to claraficate this
i heard this by a "Scropture teacher at school"
If there was no god there would be a need to make one
You said in science there are no monsters. What about mutated rabbits and bed monsters?
Isn't it arrogant to think we are highest beings in universe. Why there shouldn't exist higher beings than us. Is a tree conscious of our being. I think not. Does chicken knows it is actually on a farm and that it will be killed and eaten by higher form of beings? I think not. So, why do we think our planet is not farm for some "gods", or should we say higher level of beings. We don't need to be food in our way of food chain. That can be our emotions. For example, because of some "alien" interference we start to make wars, and people die, there is suffering and such. And some higher being, e.g. that represent itself as Mars, feeds on those negative emotions, because it is not of physical, or at least it is not whole about physical existence, let's say it is a thought form. And we have other being, for example Eros, that feeds on emotions of love, so when some people are in love, they exude hormones; so why wouldn't some higher beings feed on our emotions, hormones and such. You think you would know if someone is feeding on you, a hell would you know. Tree does not know that you are eating it's apple. And what if when you shudder that actually some higher being is feeding on you?
Did you know that some old civilizations all over the world have draw on walls of their temples or whatever flying saucers? What about mythologies? You really think that is all pure imagination? OK, imagination is cool stuff, but it must be based on something.
Quote from: FuMannChu on April 10, 2006, 09:01:35 PM
But theres still some things science hasn't figured out yet. That's why people still have religion. Its unfortunate that some of the major religions are totally insane. Hopefully thanks to the Pagan Revival movement, more people will be partaking in sane religions.
Science dosen't know why,
#1. The meaning of life.
#2. If some higher form of life doesn't exsist, then why do we swear up and down there is.
Also, The Gods made Heavy Metal. It explains perfectly why real Metal is awesome. And why the band Manowar gives Emos seisures.
Also, The Gods don't like Emos.
Wow...
Erm...
The pagan revival movement eh? So you consider worshiping an inanimate object such as the sun more sane than worshiping a higher being.... Right.
And yes, I do realize that's not the only pagan religion, but worshiping nature is a huge part of it.
PS: I thought this was funny, for months I had been riding past a christian church which had
Sun Worship at 10:00 (the time is irrelevant), and I would ride by going WTF?!?
It took until not so long ago for me to realize they meant
Sunday Worship... They didn't have a period to indicate shorthand.
@Corvus Sangreal - Good Point.
What is wrong with idol worship? Worship means to devote time to concentrate on god. That is what happens in idol worship. Idol worship might even be better. When you worship an idol, you visualize and concentrate a lot easier when you don't have anything to use.
For me, 'tis signs. Although I don't think science really contrasts God; scientific discovery is an on-going process, and if we find something that seems to scream GAWD IS TEH FAKE!, it's because another explanation has yet to arise, though one inevitably will.
And hey, religion has an major advantage over atheism and what-have-you: atheists and agnostics don't really have anything to curse. "Oh, extensive string of coincidental occurances in a chronological timeframe" don't really have punch to it.
All joking aside, what makes Paganism more sane then, say, Buddhism? If it's merely a matter of concentration ease...that doesn't say much for the worshipper, now does it? Besides, if I recall correctly, the gods of pre-New Agey Stuff tended to be somewhat...capricious. Bit of a frightening thought.
And here's one more thing to consider; why would macroevolution, being a thing of random processes and sheer chance, cause bacterium to become humans(disregarding the really, really, really long time skip I'm neglecting to mention)eventually? If evolution is about survivability, then why wouldn't they stay bacterium? They might become tougher strains by evolution's creed, but they wouldn't randomly become more advanced beings by themselves.
Finally, I have this to say to those who don't attend to Intelligent Design: explain the Cambrian Explosion.
Quote from: Ryter on March 02, 2007, 06:20:36 PM
For me, 'tis signs. Although I don't think science really contrasts God; scientific discovery is an on-going process, and if we find something that seems to scream GAWD IS TEH FAKE!, it's because another explanation has yet to arise, though one inevitably will.
You dismiss evidence for no good reason besides that you think it will be disproven in the future?
QuoteBesides, if I recall correctly, the gods of pre-New Agey Stuff tended to be somewhat...capricious. Bit of a frightening thought.
All gods (with a few exceptions) are selfish, cruel, and jealous. The biggest between ancient pagan religions and modern ones is that the modern ones are more organized and there is a larger emphasis on orthodoxy.
QuoteAnd here's one more thing to consider; why would macroevolution, being a thing of random processes and sheer chance, cause bacterium to become humans(disregarding the really, really, really long time skip I'm neglecting to mention)eventually? If evolution is about survivability, then why wouldn't they stay bacterium? They might become tougher strains by evolution's creed, but they wouldn't randomly become more advanced beings by themselves.
Evolution is not just random change, and if it was it would invalidate the rest of your question.
The Earth isn't a perfect sphere covered with an even coating of nutritious gel. Only so many organisms can occupy a niche before it becomes full, and the ones who didn't make it in time will have to evolve to deal with it, either by evolving to adapt to another niche or to out-compete an organism in a niche that is already occupied.
Also, humans did not evolve from bacteria.
QuoteFinally, I have this to say to those who don't attend to Intelligent Design: explain the Cambrian Explosion.
Look here (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html) and here.
(http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC301.html)
QuoteDuring the Cambrian, there was the first appearance of hard parts, such as shells and teeth, in animals. The lack of readily fossilizable parts before then ensures that the fossil record would be very incomplete in the Precambrian. The old age of the Precambrian era contributes to a scarcity of fossils.
The Cambrian Explosion is partly an illusion.
QuoteIsn't it arrogant to think we are highest beings in universe. Why there shouldn't exist higher beings than us. Is a tree conscious of our being. I think not. Does chicken knows it is actually on a farm and that it will be killed and eaten by higher form of beings? I think not. So, why do we think our planet is not farm for some "gods", or should we say higher level of beings. We don't need to be food in our way of food chain. That can be our emotions. For example, because of some "alien" interference we start to make wars, and people die, there is suffering and such. And some higher being, e.g. that represent itself as Mars, feeds on those negative emotions, because it is not of physical, or at least it is not whole about physical existence, let's say it is a thought form. And we have other being, for example Eros, that feeds on emotions of love, so when some people are in love, they exude hormones; so why wouldn't some higher beings feed on our emotions, hormones and such. You think you would know if someone is feeding on you, a hell would you know. Tree does not know that you are eating it's apple. And what if when you shudder that actually some higher being is feeding on you?
Did you know that some old civilizations all over the world have draw on walls of their temples or whatever flying saucers? What about mythologies? You really think that is all pure imagination? OK, imagination is cool stuff, but it must be based on something.
FINALLY! A logical, thought out reason for why I feel depressed!! [spoiler] :V [/spoiler]
QuoteIsn't it arrogant to think we are highest beings in universe. Why there shouldn't exist higher beings than us.
Yes, that's one of the only parts I agree with. But it's also arrogant to think the opposite ( that there
IS a higher being ).
QuoteDoes chicken knows it is actually on a farm and that it will be killed and eaten by higher form of beings? I think not. So, why do we think our planet is not farm for some "gods", or should we say higher level of beings. We don't need to be food in our way of food chain. That can be our emotions. For example, because of some "alien" interference we start... Etc... Something about an apple... Etc..
... HOW DID YOU KNOW ABOUT MY REAL RELIGION?!?!
People of science don't believe in this in the same way they don't believe in religion: the idea isn't plausible enough to entertain in our minds.
People of ( other ) religions don't believe in it because THEIR RELIGION IS THE CORRECT ONE AND IT'S NOT MENTIONED.
QuoteDid you know that some old civilizations all over the world have draw on walls of their temples or whatever flying saucers?
No I didn't. But I did know that certain people found drawings that they misconstrued to be flying saucers. =)
QuoteWhat about mythologies? You really think that is all pure imagination?
I wouldn't say imagination, but yes, I do think that it was all created by man to combat the fear of nothingness.
QuoteOK, imagination is cool stuff, but it must be based on something.
No, it doesn't
have to be based on something real, that's why it's called imagination.
Imagination;
4. the product of imagining; a conception or mental creation,
often a baseless or fanciful one.a. The formation of a mental image of something that is
neither perceived as real nor present to the senses.d. An unrealistic idea or notion; a fancy.
QuoteThe pagan revival movement eh? So you consider worshiping an inanimate object such as the sun more sane than worshiping a higher being.... Right.
I do! At least I can
see their god.
Quote
PS: I thought this was funny, for months I had been riding past a christian church which had Sun Worship at 10:00 (the time is irrelevant), and I would ride by going WTF?!?
It took until not so long ago for me to realize they meant Sunday Worship... They didn't have a period to indicate shorthand.
K.
Quote from: oneray on February 24, 2007, 01:41:42 AM
What is wrong with idol worship? Worship means to devote time to concentrate on god. That is what happens in idol worship. Idol worship might even be better. When you worship an idol, you visualize and concentrate a lot easier when you don't have anything to use.
I have nothing against idol worship or meditation, ( I don't do it but ) I think it can just as good, and wield the same, if not better results then any other religion.
@Ryter: I don't have much to add, Saladin said most of it. But in my mind, the Christian god seems just as cruel and undecided as the old gods.
I believe in science. Yet I only believe in proven facts of science. Also I believe in God. It doesn't mean I don't believe in science.
EDIT: And I don't believe in monsters and ghosts. O_O
Religion does have some scientific purpose in it. In hinduism it states that everything is created by energy and energy is the fastest thing in the universe. Everything comes from one ultimate source of energy which was not created. I was already there. Scienctists today are started to relieaze that. Atoms are actually balls of energy and the transfer of energy from one object to another surpasses light.
I beleive in both science and signs (as you put it), I majorly beleive in science. I think everything can be explained a scienctific manor, but I do beleive in astrology (as it has been proven time and time again by studies that it DOES in fact change your life), I think it can be explained scientifically, but we can't understand it yet. I do not beleive in a celestial influence, such as "god".
I believe that if every one of these questions could be answered then it counts as a strong and probaly true philosiphy or religion.Origins, Meaning, Morality, and Final Destiny.
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean :-\
Questions like this? How,where, and who brought this religion/philosophy. What does philosophy mean. What does the moral accept. What is the final destiny of the religion.
is english your first language? ???
Quote from: nightwolf on April 06, 2006, 02:30:58 PM
OK this topic i dunno may have been said in separate ways but i joined this topic.
Do you belive in:-
Science:-That There is no God, there is nothing as Psychics,everything in the world is scientific, there are no ghosts no monsters no nothing except advancement in science and technology.
Signs:-That our astrology is true,There Is God,There are ghosts and monsters, There are things in the world science cant explain, there is magic.
I really vote for both but more in Signs, cuz science is a thing, But It tries to show the signs part that all is in Technology, I believe in God,Ghosts,MOnster(the 2nd and 3rd i belive Less for safety)I belive in Magic, but i also belive in Science that there are a few things scientific.
(give opnions.DUH!) :mrgreen:
Science: That everything can be explained through logic thinking. That there may be a way to explain every mystery of this universe without the need of the supernatural and spiritual.
Signs: That there is a reason for our existence. That we are more than matter and physics. That there is something beyond our eyes and other senses. Beyond our reach. That there is an essence inside of each person that makes him or her unique. That there is life before life and after death.
In my opinion? Science is just one more instrument of God. He gave us logic. He gave us free will. And we develop it through science. There is nothing wrong with science, as long as the Human does not try to play the role of God. Science just explains the complexity of God's creation. Its beauty and mystery. May it be through mathematical expressions. The universe is wonderful, and science helps us to discover its every wonder.
The way that Arwym defines science and signs, I would have to say I am all for science. I think that people just beleive in god so that they can go through their daily lives, not thinking how pointless it is. If there is a god, than you can live forever after death, I don't beleive in heaven and hell. I beleive after you die, you cease to exist.
And according to you, why is it pointless to believe in God in order to "go through our daily lives"? Living without believing in anything (whether God or ANYTHING ELSE) is the pointless to me. Like believing in love, or believing in that life is a priviledge. You don't have to believe in a god in order to go through your life.
Your problem is that you are going against anything that has to do with God no matter what happens, and take any chance you get to make your opinion count, but with non-constructive criticism.
At first, this topic was not directed to God, but like many people, the first thing to do is bring the intolerance to religion up.
This topic was meant to be more general, in order to cover any type of belief.
I am not saying I am not leading a pointless life, what I am saying is that everyone is living a pointless life. Anything you do amounts to nothing, always.
As a reply to the meaning of science and signs
Science- is how the world, the universe, were created, how they exist, and how they are destroyed, pertains to the physical aspects of life
Signs- is spirtuality, how we should treat each other and pertains towards the mental aspects of life
I think both are interconnected as good and evil. One is about physical things while the other is about mental things. Also, I though Physics was actually science?
Quote from: biohazard on March 16, 2007, 02:53:07 PM
I think that people just beleive in god so that they can go through their daily lives, not thinking how pointless it is. If there is a god, than you can live forever after death.
And this is a positive thing?
Can you imagine how bored you would be with life after 700,000 years?
Also, atheists and racists shouldn't be allowed to celebrate christmas.
STOP TRYING TO KILL CHRISTMAS, GRINCH! also, 700,000 years of "heaven" would be nice. heaven 'n hookers go together like hookers 'n aids.
Mmmmmmmmmmm....Heaven and hookers.
In heaven there are no hookers :< In heaven there is no sex before marriage.
Heaven is the ultimate paradise. You are all the time in a State of Orgasm. xD
Lol, I agree with Elegy on this part too >.>
How am I meant to attack you if you keep making good posts...
That orgasm part, although I'm sure it's meant as a joke, sounds quite perverted to me.
Even a continues orgasm would get boring after awhile no mater how perfect it is...
Edit: Wait, I didn't see this;
Quote
Also, atheists and racists shouldn't be allowed to celebrate christmas.
What? Not that I do celebrate Christmas, but that's really WTF?
Don't worry Saucy, Jebusmass is lame.
Also I'm suprised this topic is still going.
I'll say it, the only way to know which side f this debate is right is by being dead. So yeah, if after I do my planned mosh to death when I'm old I get drunk with the gods. Spirituality win the debate. If theres nothing after I die, science wins.
Unfortunately, You shlubs are gonna have to wait a long ass time before I die.
^ Hopefully not.
Well Christmas is a christian holiday, and the only non-christians who really celebrate it are atheists.
Quote from: SaucyHow am I meant to attack you if you keep making good posts...
I'm sure you'll find a way, I'm getting worried now when my rep has gone up 3 whole points!! :'(
Pretty soon I won't be entitled to my reward anymore.
Celebrating Christmas is celebrating "The Birth of Jesus". Why should somebody who doesn't believe in Jesus be allowed to celebrate it?!
I celebrate xmas to give and get presents, eat, drink, and be merry :)
Yeah, Jesus' birthday isn't actually Dec. 25 you know. (Assuming he existed, of course) For some crazy reason, that's just when it's celebrated.
I think this year I'll celebrate my birthday March 24.
Jesus was also not "born" in year 0, but in year 4. That's the point of Christmas, it's symbolic. It'c not about presents, it's about family and faith. If you don't believe in Jesus, you are not allowed to celebrate his birth IMO. That's double morality. On one side you deny him and hell (which is the bad part about Christianity), but you want to get all the benefits of being a believer (like celebrating Christmas). It's just double morality.
How can you even say of yourself to be Atheist, but you celebrate the second greatest Christians' holiday?!
In addition, our current calendar is about five years off. It's kind of weird to think that this is actually 2012.
Yeah... BTW, I have added stuff to my post while you were replying, lol!
Quote from: HaloOfTheSun on March 19, 2007, 06:04:38 PM
In addition, our current calendar is about five years off. It's kind of weird to think that this is actually 2012.
THIS IS 2012!?! OH SHIT! WE IS GONNA DIE!
Quote from: Blizzard on March 19, 2007, 06:02:57 PM
How can you even say of yourself to be Atheist, but you celebrate the second greatest Christians' holiday?!
I could likewise say to very many Christians "How can you even say you're Christian, when you just pick and choose which rules you follow?". (Such as sex before marriage)
It is not rules we follow sex before marriage God commands us and therefore we obey it. Plus, it is comepletely logical to follow it.
No.
No what
Quote from: cobragamer on March 19, 2007, 08:58:33 PM
It is not rules we follow sex before marriage God commands us and therefore we obey it. Plus, it is comepletely logical to follow it.
Commands, rules, same thing. I suppose then you'll do everything the Bible tells you, since theoretically that IS God's word. So you're not allowed to go to the bathroom anymore, as that's considered filthy, and a sin. No more masturbation (in before you say you don't anyway), and not even any impure thoughts, even by accident. And logical? Hardly. Of course, if you're like 13, then yeah. But it's basic human nature to want it, and there is no
logical reason to not do it, unless you think some imaginary invisible man is going to smite you for it. But then again, that's not very logical, is it?
Quote from: HaloOfTheSun on March 19, 2007, 09:19:56 PM
Quote from: cobragamer on March 19, 2007, 08:58:33 PM
It is not rules we follow sex before marriage God commands us and therefore we obey it. Plus, it is comepletely logical to follow it.
Commands, rules, same thing. I suppose then you'll do everything the Bible tells you, since theoretically that IS God's word. So you're not allowed to go to the bathroom anymore, as that's considered filthy, and a sin. No more masturbation (in before you say you don't anyway), and not even any impure thoughts, even by accident. And logical? Hardly. Of course, if you're like 13, then yeah. But it's basic human nature to want it, and there is no logical reason to not do it, unless you think some imaginary invisible man is going to smite you for it. But then again, that's not very logical, is it?
:/
No where in the Bible does it say going to the bathroom is sinful. That's... something I won't get into. -_- (EX: "All rock music is devil music, therefore Christian Rock comes from the devil") ... Once again, I'm not getting into that.
He says we're to try to keep from thinking impure thoughts. It's not possible for any person to not sin at any point in their life, but we're given the ability to resist any sin that tempts us. (When Saved)
Also, when we're saved we WANT to please God, THAT is the logical reasoning behind not sinning -- or attempting not to sin.
Quote from: Tsunokiette on March 19, 2007, 09:23:30 PM
:/
No where in the Bible does it say going to the bathroom is sinful. That's... something I won't get into. -_- (EX: "All rock music is devil music, therefore Christian Rock comes from the devil") ... Once again, I'm not getting into that.
Oh, it's in there. I would suggest reading it again then. In fact, I remember in school, one time at mass the priest's homoly was almost entirely about that. It (not surprisingly) didn't really make very much sense.
And anyone dumb enough to use that argument about rock music should shoot themselves. Rock music being though of as the devil's music is just a stupid way of overprotective and fanatically religious parents trying to keep their kids from listening to what, at the time, was considered evil lyrics.
Quote from: Tsunokiette on March 19, 2007, 09:23:30 PM
He says we're to try to keep from thinking impure thoughts. It's not possible for any person to not sin at any point in their life, but we're given the ability to resist any sin that tempts us. (When Saved)
I find it funny that was is and isn't considered a sin is always changing. Just like how the rules (especially in Catholocism) are always changed to work out better for them. So the Bible is supposed to tell us what is and isn't a sin, among other things of course, yet every so often, something gets changed. If this is God's word, how can someone possibly justify altering it? This mostly happens due to translations of translations of translations of translations of a dead language, though, so actually I'll retract my previous statement as there will never be any resolution going down that path.
Quote from: Tsunokiette on March 19, 2007, 09:23:30 PM
Also, when we're saved we WANT to please God, THAT is the logical reasoning behind not sinning -- or attempting not to sin.
So as long as you have good intentions, and you have the desire to please God, that means it's ok to pick and choose which rules you follow? And that's your logic behind not having sex before marriage? Well, I suppose if you believe in God, then it would be slightly logical, but then how many Christians actually follow that rule? In fact, it isn't just a rule, it's one of the commandments. The point I was initially getting at, is it's hypocritical to say non Christians can't celebrate Christmas, because Christmas is a time for celebrating Jesus' birth, and celebrating your faith, when so many Christians only have faith just to for the sake of having it.
And how is this on topic at all?
@POINT 1 - Where? The Catholic Bible? I'll have to remind you that was heavily edited to profit the Roman Catholic Priests. Also, lol. (But I agree on the rock music, it's just... yeah.)
@POINT 2 - The Bible doesn't change, and it's not the translations that are changing. Now, as for things the Bible does not refer to, those are people's personal convictions. If somebody says the Bible says something it doesn't say, it's not the Bible's fault.
@POINT 3 - Not my discussion. He was saying it's hipocritical to celebrate the birth of someone you don't even believe in.
The wonderful position I'm in is that I don't care if anybody celebrating it actually still beleives that stuff,
QuoteI celebrate xmas to give and get presents, eat, drink, and be merry :)
It's hard to debate intelligently when people throw the Bible into everything.
Quote from: HaloOfTheSun on March 19, 2007, 10:00:06 PM
It's hard to debate intelligently when people throw the Bible into everything.
Lol.
You act as if the Bible is an idiotic device used by idiots to idiotify every intelligant person in the world.
The events in the Bible cannot be proven to actually have happened. No matter how much you believe in it, you have to admit that it cannot be proven. This doesn't necessarily mean none of the events ever happened, but since there is no proof, you cannot count it as fact. Without facts, a debate is turned into a pointless and petty argument, and therefore bringing the Bible into every point in every debate (except when necessary, of course) it makes it kind of hard to not feel like everyone's an idiot, becuase then you're just arguing about stuff nobody will be able to ever prove.
Bible does have some true facts. Treating elders, parents, and others is a good to society. The bible, koran, bhavagath githa, all have there share of scientific claims, but teach us how to get along with each other and to accept that we are all one. Does that seem false to you?
Those aren't facts, those are guidelines on how they think you should live your life.
More like rules than guideline though...
So if it's a rule, your parents ought to stone you when you misbehave.
They do do that in the Middle East. ;D
Quote from: HaloOfTheSun on March 19, 2007, 05:53:34 PM
Yeah, Jesus' birthday isn't actually Dec. 25 you know. (Assuming he existed, of course) For some crazy reason, that's just when it's celebrated.
I think this year I'll celebrate my birthday March 24.
This is because when the Christians came from Rome to the northern parts of Europe, their missionaries were decapitated for trying to impose their relgion on the people there, who at the time had Aesir/Pagan religions.
But after a while one of them realized he had to try to sneak the religion into theirs, and thus he decided to ask them to also celebrate Jesus's birth during the midwinter feast in December.
And through doing this they (the catholic church) could implement piece after piece of the christian religion, over time.
But then don't even get me started on the Catholic church, in what I've researched about religions, of all the christian "doctrines" theirs is the most 'off' one, completely centered around breaking the 8th commandment.
Quote from: God, teehee ^_^You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
Quote from: HaloOfTheSun on March 19, 2007, 08:10:41 PM
Quote from: Blizzard on March 19, 2007, 06:02:57 PM
How can you even say of yourself to be Atheist, but you celebrate the second greatest Christians' holiday?!
I could likewise say to very many Christians "How can you even say you're Christian, when you just pick and choose which rules you follow?". (Such as sex before marriage)
Because it's not a "rule to follow", it's just a plain sin.
Quote from: HaloOfTheSun on March 19, 2007, 09:43:42 PM
Oh, it's in there. I would suggest reading it again then. In fact, I remember in school, one time at mass the priest's homoly was almost entirely about that. It (not surprisingly) didn't really make very much sense.
Yes, it IS in there. But on the other side, Christiants doesn't say to do what the Bible SAYS, but to do what it TEACHES.
Quote from: HaloOfTheSun on March 19, 2007, 09:43:42 PM
And anyone dumb enough to use that argument about rock music should shoot themselves. Rock music being though of as the devil's music is just a stupid way of overprotective and fanatically religious parents trying to keep their kids from listening to what, at the time, was considered evil lyrics.
Comparing any music to devil, hell, etc. is stupid. You are totally right with that.
Quote from: HaloOfTheSun on March 19, 2007, 09:43:42 PM
Quote from: Tsunokiette on March 19, 2007, 09:23:30 PM
He says we're to try to keep from thinking impure thoughts. It's not possible for any person to not sin at any point in their life, but we're given the ability to resist any sin that tempts us. (When Saved)
I find it funny that was is and isn't considered a sin is always changing. Just like how the rules (especially in Catholocism) are always changed to work out better for them. So the Bible is supposed to tell us what is and isn't a sin, among other things of course, yet every so often, something gets changed.
Pretty much everything is a sin. =/ The rules are not being changed, it just becomes almost impossible to live a normal lives these days without even the slightest of sin. That's why there is confession: To regret your sins and get purified.
Quote from: HaloOfTheSun on March 19, 2007, 09:43:42 PM
If this is God's word, how can someone possibly justify altering it?
Because there were, there are and there always will be people who want to manipulate others. Don't read the Bible's words, read its meaning. This would be the very easiest way. And that's the main reason why the Bible wasn't just read by anybody except priest in earlier times when people were not even taught to read. Uneducated people would not understand the meaning, maybe even take it completely literaly.
Quote from: HaloOfTheSun on March 19, 2007, 09:43:42 PM
This mostly happens due to translations of translations of translations of translations of a dead language, though, so actually I'll retract my previous statement as there will never be any resolution going down that path.
Again, don't read the Bible's words, read its meaning.
Quote from: HaloOfTheSun on March 19, 2007, 09:43:42 PM
Quote from: Tsunokiette on March 19, 2007, 09:23:30 PM
Also, when we're saved we WANT to please God, THAT is the logical reasoning behind not sinning -- or attempting not to sin.
So as long as you have good intentions, and you have the desire to please God, that means it's ok to pick and choose which rules you follow? And that's your logic behind not having sex before marriage? Well, I suppose if you believe in God, then it would be slightly logical, but then how many Christians actually follow that rule? In fact, it isn't just a rule, it's one of the commandments. The point I was initially getting at, is it's hypocritical to say non Christians can't celebrate Christmas, because Christmas is a time for celebrating Jesus' birth, and celebrating your faith, when so many Christians only have faith just to for the sake of having it.
Good intentions are all that count. Even if they have no faith, they are Christians, they "are allowed" to celebrate Christmas, because it's part of their religion, regardless if they believe or not. Of course they shouldn't if they don't really believe.
Non-Christians on the other side have nothing to celebrate here. It's the "Birth of Jesus", nothing they believe in, it has not the meaning for them it is supposed to have. What do they have to celebrate then?! Something they don't believe in?!
Quote from: HaloOfTheSun on March 19, 2007, 09:43:42 PM
And how is this on topic at all?
I have no idea. !_!
Quote from: HaloOfTheSun on March 19, 2007, 10:00:06 PM
It's hard to debate intelligently when people throw the Bible into everything.
Because there are 3 kinds of people:
- the ones obsessed with the Bible
- the ones obsessed with hating and dispiting the Bible (mostly ex-believers...)
- the ones who don't care
- the ones who don't care about enforcing their beliefs
The first two groups always have to get religious as soon as somebody says anything related to Bible, God, Jesus, etc. ::)
Quote from: HaloOfTheSun on March 19, 2007, 10:07:37 PM
The events in the Bible cannot be proven to actually have happened. No matter how much you believe in it, you have to admit that it cannot be proven. This doesn't necessarily mean none of the events ever happened, but since there is no proof, you cannot count it as fact. Without facts, a debate is turned into a pointless and petty argument, and therefore bringing the Bible into every point in every debate (except when necessary, of course) it makes it kind of hard to not feel like everyone's an idiot, becuase then you're just arguing about stuff nobody will be able to ever prove.
Of course they can't be proved, because most are metaphors. It's the "moral of the story", that's important. Why is a document, teaching some morality and respect pointless and petty? It's only pointless and petty to argue about it (just like you actually already said). Live and let live, lol!
Quote from: HaloOfTheSun on March 19, 2007, 10:22:14 PM
Those aren't facts, those are guidelines on how they think you should live your life.
They are not "guidelines" and they are not from "them". That's why there is a faculty of theology: Everybody would just read the Bible as a "factual document" instead of reading between the lines how it is supposed to be "read". Morality wasn't invented by "them".
Yes Christians do put alot of what they believe in the words we say. But then again you cannot explain everything by science nor does the bible say much about science. The bible teaches you how to live your life.
Note before you read through: book in question: the god delusion: download here (http://rmrk.net/index.php/topic,11657.0.html).
http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2006-09-26 (http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2006-09-26)I'm having a difficult time responding to that critique. Mostly I don't understand much of what the author is saying. He seems more content on criticizing Richard's character and not the content of his book. Unfortunately for Richard (and if you watch his videos and read his interviews on his website) he acknowledges he loses a lot of his readers because of his delivery. The same can be said of Sam Harris and a lesser extent Dan Dennett.
QuoteIf they were asked to pass judgment on phenomenology or the geopolitics of South Asia, they would no doubt bone up on the question as assiduously as they could.
Phenomenology is an interesting philosophy but it doesn't prove the existence of God. Neither does the geopolitics of South Asia.(?) Chapter 3 in TGD is devoted to the philosophy of religion and I think he makes some strong points. Richard also talks about phenomena under the heading:
The Argument From Personal Experience so I don't understand the point of this comment. (Well I do understand, it's a pot shot at Richard. Terry mentioned something about straw men in his article).
QuoteDawkins considers that all faith is blind faith... children are brought up to believe unquestioningly... For mainstream Christianity, reason, argument and honest doubt have always played an integral role in belief. (Where... is Dawkins's own critique of science...)?
Is this really the case? Do religious families all gather at the dinner table and have an open, reasoned argument about faith and the existence of God? I don't doubt, doubt has always played an integral role in belief and however people reconcile their faith it, I am almost certain, is not through reason and inquiry. The film,
Jesus Camp seems to suggest this.
Science is by definition, when it is working properly, the study and inquiry of... I don't see a critique of God in the Bible and why should there be? Why should Richard write 400 pages about his views of religion and then provide another 400 pages about why he might be wrong. That's silly. That book has already been written, it's called,
The Dawkins Delusion.
QuoteThis, not some super-manufacturing, is what is traditionally meant by the claim that God is Creator. He is what sustains all things in being by his love;
This is a problem of language. If we exist because of God's love then I suppose we have to concede God's existence because we know what it is to love. And this is a circular argument in a similar way as this is:
A: Why do you believe God created the universe?
T: Because the Bible says he did.
A: Why do you believe the Bible?
T: Because it's the word of God.
A: Why do you believe it's the word of God?
T: Because the Bible says it is.
Creationism: The religious doctrine that the world was created by a divine being, or that it owes its present form to divine agency. This term is frequently used to refer to the fundamentalist idea that the world was created in exactly the way the Bible says it was...stuff and more stuff.
The Philosopher's Dictionary, 3rd Edition by Robert M. Martin.
No mention of love. If we're going to talk about God, then we need to make sure we're talking about the same sort of God otherwise we're just fumbling over semantics and definitions.
I have more I could say but this quote war form generally makes for a boring read. If anyone is really interested I could take a few more points in the same fashion and respond to it but I'll stop at this for now.
----------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT! If I may, I had to respond to a comment I found from another article.
QuoteAccordingly, Dawkins does not understand why social etiquette requires respect for those who believe in God.
I find this comment interesting mostly because it is simply not true. The fact is, Richard does respect
people of faith. What he does not respect is how religion gets a free pass when it comes to criticism. Richard (and Sam Harris) are fed up that religion belongs to this untouchable niche. His view is that religion is (or should be) counted as a scientific hypothesis and like all hypotheses, it should undergo the scientific method. Remember, the Bible is making universal claims about the cosmos and those claims should be open to scrutiny no differently than a physicist's claims would be. This idea however offends many people of faith and Richard is not afraid to eloquently say, more or less, "tough shit"! Respecting a person
of faith is entirely separate then respecting a person's faith. Nobody is obliged to respect a person's belief that elves live in their basement. Also, Richard is not willing to accept that God is just too mysterious for us dumb humans to understand and so therefore we should not even bother to inquire about it. I suspect what upsets so many theologians is that they are being shaken out of their comfortable nest's of rational immunity they have enjoyed for so many years.
http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2006-09-26 (http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2006-09-26)Lol this whole post wasn't written by me
If God is an imnipotent being why should we think that his word is false. And if creation is not a Divine act of God then what else could it be evolution. Evolution has holes in its system of thought every where I think you should then tell me how you think the earth came to be.
The Earth came to be when the singularity that created the big back eruopted, thus causing said bang. the universe was just dust for a really long time, then nebulas formed, and over time stars were born. the gravitation pull then compressed the dust from the big bang into planets, and they now orbit the suns that were created.... Grade 9 science.
Yes, thats one theory.
Quote from: Silverline on March 20, 2007, 10:49:10 PM
A: Why do you believe God created the universe?
T: Because the Bible says he did.
A: Why do you believe the Bible?
T: Because it's the word of God.
A: Why do you believe it's the word of God?
T: Because the Bible says it is.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!That "T" guy is a muster example why everybody else thinks ALL Christians would be that way. His faith is not only blind, it's even unfounded. xD
But how did the matter get there in the first place
Same way God did, I guess!
Quote from: gonorrhoea on March 22, 2007, 01:48:59 AM
Same way God did, I guess!
That's the thing. Scientific laws state that matter can not be created nor destroyed. (Naturally)
And no matter how long you look at a rock, it's not going to explode into a universe.
As I've said numerous times before, the only thing that makes sense is a supernatural being one outside of nature's laws (for He wrote them) as an intelligent creator.
You can't call it science if you can't explain it.
You can't claim that a diety creating everything is somehow less likely than nothing creating everything, for the reason that you feel the diety had to come from somewhere, when you don't know where the mass needed for your theory came from.
It's the same thing:
In the beginning god
In the beginning dust
What is it that makes dust more likely? Besides the fact that your mind can't encompass an omnipotent diety as a reality in the same way you can't comprehend something as being endless.
"SUPERNATURAL" is a flawed word, because it is used to describe things we can't explain. Once something becomes the norm, and we have a basic understanding of it, it is no longer supernatural, and becomes normal. Basically this whole thread is describing the "unexplained". Its a fun topic to chat about, but when you try to give reasons for things that you could obviously never understand at this point, it becomes irritating. You can't just "bible" something away, or say "aliens, man". The truth is, we just don't know yet. We probably never will, and if we do, I have a feeling all of the theories people bring up here will be pretty far off the mark.
Exactly. All we can do is to either to believe or just let it be.
Quote from: Tsunokiette on March 22, 2007, 01:56:21 AM
That's the thing. Scientific laws state that matter can not be created nor destroyed. (Naturally)
And no matter how long you look at a rock, it's not going to explode into a universe.
As I've said numerous times before, the only thing that makes sense is a supernatural being one outside of nature's laws (for He wrote them) as an intelligent creator.
How can matter not be created nor destroyed? Isn't that the whole idea behind e=mc2? Also, that only applies to the elements we know of.
Quote from: Masturbarney on March 22, 2007, 07:38:27 PMHow can matter not be created nor destroyed? Isn't that the whole idea behind e=mc2? Also, that only applies to the elements we know of.
The idea behind e=mc^2 is that mass can be converted into energy and vice-versa. Mass is not lost or gained in the transfer.
I recommend you do some reading on the subject before you claim something such as that.
I wasn't claiming it, I just wasn't sure.
Quote from: Masturbarney on March 22, 2007, 09:11:06 PM
I wasn't claiming it, I just wasn't sure.
M'kay. Just making sure. :)
Quote from: arl on April 06, 2006, 03:59:36 PM
I believe in some kind of a celestial influence, be it one God or many I'm not sure, but I also believe in chemistry and gravity (a.k.a. science) as well.
Yeah, I thought I was the only one. It's true I believe in science whole-heartedly, but sometimes I can't just resist the feeling that karma actually exsists and alters my destint in one way or another.
Quote from: cobragamer on March 22, 2007, 01:19:46 AM
But how did the matter get there in the first place
You believe your god was just always there. Ditto.
Quote
That's the thing. Scientific laws state that matter can not be created nor destroyed. (Naturally)
QuoteAnd no matter how long you look at a rock, it's not going to explode into a universe.
Lol, uhhh, I think it's the word "matter" that put this whole thing off... It started with energy, not matter.
Matter can not be created nor destroyed, but it can be recycled.
QuoteYou can't call it science if you can't explain it.
Congrats, there's the award winning posts we all love you for.
Quote
You can't claim that a diety creating everything is somehow less likely than nothing creating everything, for the reason that you feel the diety had to come from somewhere, when you don't know where the mass needed for your theory came from.
We have some idea... If energy cannot be destroyed, then it must have always existed.
QuoteWhat is it that makes dust more likely? Besides the fact that your mind can't encompass an omnipotent diety as a reality in the same way you can't comprehend something as being endless.
"Dust" being the beginning of the universe is more likely because it's the simplest explanation (Achems Razor)!
The statistical chances of an immortal, timeless god who was origin creating the universe, is slim to none compared the the idea that energy always existed and all existence came though a steady state of evolution (change).
And FYI comprehending something isn't just accepting it... It means to actually understand it, correctly.
Quote
The idea behind e=mc^2 is that mass can be converted into energy and vice-versa.
Energy being a simple start, also timeless, making your god unnecessary. All that you are doing is adding a step into the mixture.
If you can accept, and "comprehend" that your god has always existed, then why can't you comprehend that energy has always existed?
QuoteYeah, I thought I was the only one. It's true I believe in science whole-heartedly, but sometimes I can't just resist the feeling that karma actually exsists and alters my destint in one way or another.
If you claim to be a person of science, the try thinking logically, I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just saying you should see if karma is actually evidential and not coincidental.
I think I have said this before, but I have yet to see something that truly strikes me as karma. There are people that are nice their whole lives and end up starving on streetcorners, and then there are people that do nothing and have life right in their lap. (Paris Hilton, for example. Think she deserves what she has? I don't.)
I was referring to comprehending rather than accepting it, obviously.
It's impossible for anyone to comprehend something that is endless, you can know it's endless, but that doesn't mean that you understand.
And energy is not more likely to exist than a diety of some sorts, since that is a completely relative observation, you are comparing energy rather than a diety existing more likely in relative to what you see as being plentiful, and being scarce today.
Logic is a waste of intelligence, logical thinking is done by the people walking that thin line between being above average and being an idiot.
If someone really wants to know more, then they first have to accept that they know nothing.
But people have always had this hubris of having to explain everything by pointing out the obvious.
Like chlorophyll being the ingredient in plants that makes them able to convert the sunlight into carbohydrates.
You can cut it down to nothing and you'll still be stuck with a million answers to "what", "when" and "how" but not a single answer to "why".
DS has pretty much covered it, and quite well. But, it's Ockham's* not Achem's.
also,
QuoteLogic is a waste of intelligence
Man, this explains so much about you.
also- asking 'why' is a conceited position. Asking "why" is having the idea that everything in the universe must have a purpose meaningful to humans. Also, why is the least important question of those thus presented, it doesn't matter so much WHY something happened as HOW.
Actually, its Occam's. Also, I too sort of believe in a "cosmic karma". Not just involving people who are rich getting shit on or whatever, but truly bad people. I mean, Paris Hilton may be stupid and spoiled, but I wouldn't say she's evil or anything. But then again, I don't know her.
Of course, what is evil to you is perfectly fine to someone else. Who judges what is good and what is evil?
I decide. But seriously, I agree with you on that. However, there are certain things that are just instinctually known to be evil. People that disagree or act otherwise are just imbalanced from the "norm".
Not even slightly, good and evil are completely undefined. You can't classify the "norm" throughout all cultures, what's normal to some is not to others.
Morality, is a definitive of upbringing and surroundings alone.
While it may come down to a baser form of "survival of the family", modern views of morality are really just personal opinions, adapted to a certain group.
Explaining how is the simplest thing you can do, it's a matter of picking the part of something that you've concluded is the cause of something the object does.
It's not like a plant or an animal that does one thing, lacks the neccessary components for it.
"The cup makes it so the water doesn't spill!" <-- The "How", very uninteresting.
Ok, so if good and evil are undefined, what keeps you from going out and killing somebody, or from stealing somebody's car? I guess in a way, its more about the enforcement of these morals. If there were no consequences for killing someone, there would probably be a lot more murders. After all, human eras are divided by what tools they used to hunt with. This post is starting to ramble, because I'm tired, so apologies in advance.
QuoteOK this topic i dunno may have been said in separate ways but i joined this topic.
Do you belive in:-
Science:-That There is no God, there is nothing as Psychics,everything in the world is scientific, there are no ghosts no monsters no nothing except advancement in science and technology.
Signs:-That our astrology is true,There Is God,There are ghosts and monsters, There are things in the world science cant explain, there is magic.
I really vote for both but more in Signs, cuz science is a thing, But It tries to show the signs part that all is in Technology, I believe in God,Ghosts,MOnster(the 2nd and 3rd i belive Less for safety)I belive in Magic, but i also belive in Science that there are a few things scientific.
(give opnions.DUH!) :mrgreen:
In the day's of the Roman wars Magician's were no more than Scientists creating Explotions from powder... Who's to say the Scientist of today are not spell binders ? (We have a different understanding now, we see David Blaine as a Magician, but really he is just a trickster / illusionist)
Science - Ghosts
I think if a device was created for picking up on Magnetic frequenc's and then displaying an image of that frequency I think Scince would open it's eyes to the possibility of Ghosts... Most energy forms give off a Magnetic signature or electroic residue... At the momenet we can meassure the levels, but if we could view as we do Infra Red or Heat I think a whole new spectrum of sight would open a whole new world...
Science - Monsters
Monsters in a sense are being found all the time... Monsters are nothing more than creatures that have no name, in theory every new species found is a Beast or a Monster (Like the Elephant would have been) until it gained a label... It's like if we found a Tribe of Bigfoot they would be given a label and become protected and be classed as a Creature... Scinence would help in labeling the creature.
Signs - astrology
Astrology plays a big part in Scince we meassure time by the stars, or at least used to... We meassure light and gravity, that's all science.
Astrology... in the terms of reading the future and Tarrot's is all interesting. The fact the primids have holes in the roof to see certain star clusters is amazing... The sign's around Astro plans and astrology are interesting... They hold many questions but have very few answers.
-----END NOTE----Science doesn't discredit any thing, it works on substance, until we have the substance of say GOD we can't meassure it so can't be factored as yet... If we knew what GOD was made from then may be Science could look at GOD differently... Science and Technology is moving forward in leaps and bounds I have more faith in Science than I do most other doctorines.
i am not going to urge with saucy with the good and bad thing ;D
Ghosts- Ghosts actually could be true. Ghosts are wandering souls or souls that have not yet taken another life form. They wander around in a state of reality called ASTRAL REALITY. Here reality is not bound by time or many laws of physics. The soul roams in the same form of its previous life for. Most find a bodily form, but due extreme stress of negative aura, the soul is rejected.
Most religions say that GOD is energy. It is the common binding force the relates everything together. in most religion is states that all matter is actually energy, which is actually mentioned in Einstein' s theory of relativity.
While I don't agree with you on the whole ghosts thing, I do agree that there is energy everywhere. Like I've said before, we simply don't know what some of it is at this time.
Quote from: oneray on March 26, 2007, 11:18:23 PM
Most religions say that GOD is energy. It is the common binding force the relates everything together. in most religion is states that all matter is actually energy, which is actually mentioned in Einstein' s theory of relativity.
Most religions say that GOD is also a sentient entity.
sentient ???
Look it up.
I can't type... :tpg:
well im neither, but no one knows what this 'energy' actually looks like, god can be anything.
Yes i do believe in science, but i also believe in aliens, ghosts, all that etc. so im pretty much a mixed person.
I think aliens go under science.
science fiction yes, we dont have enough proof to support the fact they do exist, but with conspiracies and the gov't hiding the truth ( is it the u.s. only), it seems impossible.
Maybe you don't, but it sure isn't a leap of faith to beleive that extraterrestrial life has, and still does, contact Earth. A whole lot less of a leap than saying we were created by god.