- Joined
- May 30, 2007
- Messages
- 2,872
Then the society is at fault, not the religion the members of the society claim to adhere to.Or common knowledge. I know Muslim women, and I know how their society treats them.
Then the society is at fault, not the religion the members of the society claim to adhere to.Or common knowledge. I know Muslim women, and I know how their society treats them.
It may not be irrefutable evidence, but it is evidence nonetheless.Yes it does; I was referring to the bible. Just because the bible says it is the word of god does not mean it is the word of god. As such, the bible is not evidence.
Fair enough.If it's evidence, it's too weak to matter, due to the fact that we can both agree that stories passed down are no reliable source of information.
Perhaps you're right. I might not be able to provide solid objective evidence. I suppose it's the same as love. Other than chemicals in the brain (which I don't consider proof), you can't really objectively prove the existence of love.Physical reality does. No matter what you believe, you won't ressurrect if consciousness is simply a chemical process. No matter whether god is "subjectively true" to you, s/he/it cannot affect anything due to the fact that it is not objective and thus has no relation to the world as we know it.
The creation and state of the overall universe is a really tricky field in general.Although what about things like the creation of the universe. They say that if there was a big bang, and something was a little out of place, the universe would have collapsed (correct me if I'm wrong, you generally seem to know more about this). Couldn't that be considered objective evidence of something super natural that created everything?
I would argue that the laws of nature point to a sentient being.[*]The universe unquestionably was created by something super natural, for reasons listed above; the fundamental behaviour of the universe would have had to change at one point. However, that does not mean such a force was sentient.[/list]
Pope John Paul II said:In speaking of the existence of God we should underline that we are not speaking of proofs in the sense implied by the experimental sciences. Scientific proofs in the modern sense of the word are valid only for things perceptible to the senses since it is only on such things that scientific instruments of investigation can be used. To desire a scientific proof of God would be equivalent to lowering God to the level of the beings of our world, and we would therefore be mistaken methodologically in regard to what God is. Science must recognize its limits and its inabi]ity to reach the existence of God: it can neither affirm nor deny his existence.
Blah, that uses the standard (and refuted) arguments of old (numbers refer to numbers in the article).I would argue that the laws of nature point to a sentient being.
Here is one interesting article.
Proofs for God's existence
1. Going straight to eternal suffering and pain. That sounds pretty awfull in my ears, and a eternity is still a very long time, so long no humans is able to understand that,
2. Going straight to eternal happines and cheers. That on the other side, sounds nice, but you could be bored of it when the first 100.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 millenias have passed. And to this some people think that the only thing you do in that time is to worship god and sing songs for him...
3. Getting reborn. What divine being is making us forget the thousands of lives we've had before? Is it a pool, pain or something else? And what will eventually happen when earth is no more, will your soul travel to another planet with live and then settle down there, or maybe it alredy have done that?
4. Becoming a part of something, meaning you become a part of god, another being, a rock or maybe something else? Does this then meen that we all have 643 different beings? Thats is really confusing.
5. Becoming a ghost, spirit or something like that. If this one is true, why are they then invisible, maybe because they only reflect one kind of light that the human eye is not able to see? But then we should be able to detect them in some way, some people say that they actually have seen ghost, i dont believe them.
7. Absolutely nothing, sounds boring dosnt it? But on the other hand, you wouldnt be able to know it, because you aint there. I think thats really depressing, that it all end like that.
8. Entering your own wicked fantasy and imagine a new world, maybe this world we live in also imagined by one, and YOU created it all.
God would not let you be bored...
Eventually you would be bored. There's only so many times you can do something, even have sex, without it becoming dull. Besides, most things that make us interesting are mistakes and losing control, both of which are obsolete in heaven, right?
The New Creation is an entire universe which you can explore without limits...forever...and if the same physics apply there as here, then it will constantly be changing. Not much boredom you can get from exploring a whole universe, while it is changing, and evolving before your very eyes. By the time you explored every inch of one planet, a new creature emerged on a completely different one.
That's hardly boring![]()
Ironically, that sounds just like spore.
The fault of that is that Rome fell, not Christianity...Christianity is infact, the only thing that kept Roman law, and much of antiquity intact.
How do you explain the fact that Horus, Attis, Krishna, Dionysus, Mithra and Jesus, to name a few, have the same attributes (birthdate, resurrection, crucifixion etc.)?Also, Zeitgeist is the biggest load of shit I've seen since Loose Change.
Actually, that picture is trying to say that the whole "enforcement" of christian beliefs and punishment for thinking against christianity is what kept science and technology from advancing during that big black area.
For one..no one knows Christ's birthday (we just put it on a pagan solar festival)How do you explain the fact that Horus, Attis, Krishna, Dionysus, Mithra and Jesus, to name a few, have the same attributes (birthdate, resurrection, crucifixion etc.)?
Elenai, you are 100% off. Horus was definitely crucified, he was also born of a virgin mother, angels made both of their birth announcements, shepherds witnessed both of their births, both of their baptists were beheaded, they both quote: "walked on water, cast out demons, and healed the sick." There are several hundred more relations, and in my book that's enough to say that one is roughly based on the other, don't you think?
Oh, and they were both resurrected, and around the same time after they both died, three days.
Like I said, the "dark ages" were mostly caused (and sustained) by a rejection and banishment of any non-christian ideas and works, such as those of aristotle. It was not until the black death (and creation of the middle class) that people began to have more intellectual freedom.And? People do that...it isn't the fault of religion. No more than it is the fault of Islam for 9-11.
I mean really...if you consider what actually happened during the dark ages...and look at how people tend to react in those situations...it is quite easy to explain, if not lengthy.
Hey, it's true though.And also a sense of well being, encouragement to do what is right, and hope for the future, and alot of positive things. Also that sticker is an example of "trolling in real life".
Wrong. You can't just group athiests like that. Although most (if not all) of the more scientific ones do not believe it just happened by chance: it was created over hundreds of thousands of years by rivers, glaciers, and other geological and environmental factors.Atheists KNOW it happened by chance, most Christians believe that God guided it along and made it rather artistically. It is afterall, art.
PhDs do tend to weed out the unintelligent people though.Intelligence, amorality, and a phd, a good person does not make.
Hey, it's true though.![]()
Wrong. You can't just group athiests like that. Although most (if not all) of the more scientific ones do not believe it just happened by chance: it was created over hundreds of thousands of years by rivers, glaciers, and other geological and environmental factors.
PhDs do tend to weed out the unintelligent people though.
Like I said, the "dark ages" were mostly caused (and sustained) by a rejection and banishment of any non-christian ideas and works, such as those of aristotle. It was not until the black death (and creation of the middle class) that people began to have more intellectual freedom.
It's lulzy, and they didn't really make that stuff up.Not really...
It was everything being held back by the church.Even if that were entirely the case, the scale was hardly a series of leaps and bounds being held back by the priest hood.
Again, Elenai, I've heard my religious cousins come over and tell me all languages derive from Hebru,
I consulted my brother who works at a law firm to look it up; it is disputed whether he was born from a virgin birth.
He was most certainly crucified,
where you get your texts are from places that would seek to plagiarize the book, as where we seek to enlighten it and point out the similarities. And that fish story does sound a little familiar, don't you think?
Evidence please.
In the Book of Horus, it states that he was crucified with two thieves (same as Jesus).
There is a massive list of parallels between the two.
Btw, Horus came to be 2,000 years earlier.
Maybe there are leftovers from the mass extinctions of the past. Maybe there are other planets with life and it is balanced. Maybe souls can be created.If reincarnation is all that is then how come the number of people is increasing instead of staying roughly the same?
Who says there is an unlimited number of waiting souls? Maybe they draw straws.Furthermore if there is a place like heaven where souls wait for their body and there are unlimited supplies of souls there who decides which soul gets a body when and who decides if that soul will travel in another child next?
I don't know. Maybe. I don't see how that would make reincarnation impossible.Does that mean that newborns are soulless until a soul occupies them?
Because when given infinite time there is apparently a finite number of things that can be done.Eventually you would be bored.
"I'm not in the mood."There's only so many times you can do something, even have sex, without it becoming dull.
I find far more things interesting than simply mistakes.Besides, most things that make us interesting are mistakes and losing control, both of which are obsolete in heaven, right?
Please do. Of all that I have learned about Egypt in this thread, most of it came from Elenai, with any halfway decent backing whatsoever.I'll make sure to take some snap shots, as of now I can't find any shots of the wall in which it was written. But I'll search for it, none the less.
See, you're thinking in terms of time. There is no time in heaven, it is eternity.2. Going straight to eternal happines and cheers. That on the other side, sounds nice, but you could be bored of it when the first 100.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 millenias have passed. And to this some people think that the only thing you do in that time is to worship god and sing songs for him...
See, you're thinking in terms of time. There is no time in heaven, it is eternity.
I'm not exactly sure, it's a mystery since we can't think outside of time.Like here on earth, its only a human tendency to think in time; years, months, weeks, days, hours, minutes, seconds and all that. Why not do that in heaven, or are we simply not cabable of thinking like that when we reach that point. Like limited intelligence or do we simply just not care at all?
There is time. Time is change; thus, if there is change, there is time. Judging by descriptions of heaven from about every heaven(/paradise)-promoting religion on the planet (including christianity), there therefore is time in heaven.See, you're thinking in terms of time. There is no time in heaven, it is eternity.
True, perhaps even though God is beyond time, heaven, and it's inhabitants, are not.There is time. Time is change; thus, if there is change, there is time. Judging by descriptions of heaven from about every heaven(/paradise)-promoting religion on the planet (including christianity), there therefore is time in heaven.
It's not perhaps. It's logically necessary.True, perhaps even though God is beyond time, heaven, and it's inhabitants, are not.
It's not perhaps. It's logically necessary.
For that matter, god is not beyond time either. For example, you have said that s/he/it can feel emotions, am I right?
Time is not a human invention - the concept of time is. Some microscopic bacteria effectively behave in two dimensions, but there are still three.Due to the fact that time is an human invention, and no animals nor people from some tribe societies think in time. Time passes, but only because we think and feel so...