Jump to content
Science Forums

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 34
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's like Santa Claus, he's not real but he exists in the minds of those that believe in him.

I don't care God exists because i have no faith on God. I pratice in Buddhism. We don't have a single God but a teacher or guidance. We don't pray for Him, just pratice His teachings, in which clearly

Well actually, God does exist for dyslexics and they come in all different kinds; poodles, germen shepherds, collies, etc..

Truely niviene, real faith requires no proof. What we all choose to believe is one freedom we should protect with intense vigor. Each to his own!!

 

That is exactly what I agree with, infamous. :hihi: Who do we need to prove faith to? What does it matter? Our believing what we believe is faith enough towards devotee. I am just tired of the "I am right; you are wrong, period." attitude I see sometimes... I accept that people believe differently, and there is no arguing someone out of what they believe, and there is no point in attacking someone else's faith or lack of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

since Pope John Paul II died, the new pope (Benedict VI (maybe???)) is speeding up his cannonisation, meaning the process of making John Paul II a saint is being speeded up. However to become a saint I'm under the impression that two miracles have to be preformed and John Paul II has to be considered the source of those two miracles.

 

This is interesting because in a way it indirectly proves God's existence.

 

It will be interesting to see what miracles are claimed for John Paul II.

 

:hihi: Kizzi

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see any logic in this post at all. I consider it a miracle that my mother won $4,000 in June on her trip to vegas, because of the odds. Just because humans say it is a miracle, doesn't mean it is a miracle that somehow proves the existence of God. A miracle is a perception. I don't see in any way how using a concept invented by the same religion somehow "proves it to be true". That's like trying to define the word "young" by using the word "young". If you have an equation, like, sin^2 theta + Cos^2 theta = 1, you don't prove it by changing both sides, you keep one side the same and perform your proofs on only one side of the equation. I just don't see any logic here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No, everything is not a god. Cows are not gods - but the Laws of Manu ask for the protection of cattle.

Thanks for the clarification, but I wasn't entirely wrong. According to my comparative religion course and Wikipedia, Hinduism "...include(s) monism to dualism, from pantheism to atheism." And, "..while most Hindus do not worship the cow.."

 

I believe in Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. They exist for me. Do they exist for you? I have a feeling the answer is no. Therefore, I am not arrogant enough to insist that they do, whether you believe them or not. They do for me, and that is enough - I do not believe that God as you put it exists for me, but only for you, because it is your mind that has faith in her, not mine.

My son wants to raise a Brahma steer for his FFA project next year. :hihi: The word Brahma is neutral, neither masculine or feminine (all the depictions I see look feminine though), but the God of The Bible is definitely masculine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
since Pope John Paul II died, the new pope (Benedict VI (maybe???)) is speeding up his cannonisation, meaning the process of making John Paul II a saint is being speeded up. However to become a saint I'm under the impression that two miracles have to be preformed and John Paul II has to be considered the source of those two miracles.

 

This is interesting because in a way it indirectly proves God's existence.

 

It will be interesting to see what miracles are claimed for John Paul II.

 

:hihi: Kizzi

I have always had a problem with this part of the Catholic religion. Miracles are not performed by men... they may be used by God to perform His miracles but man has no power to perform anything superhuman by himself. One could argue that in order to be used by God to perform a miracle one must be very close to God.. that I would say is where St. Paul and John Paul II were.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see any logic in this post at all. I consider it a miracle that my mother won $4,000 in June on her trip to vegas, because of the odds. Just because humans say it is a miracle, doesn't mean it is a miracle that somehow proves the existence of God. A miracle is a perception. I don't see in any way how using a concept invented by the same religion somehow "proves it to be true". That's like trying to define the word "young" by using the word "young". If you have an equation, like, sin^2 theta + Cos^2 theta = 1, you don't prove it by changing both sides, you keep one side the same and perform your proofs on only one side of the equation. I just don't see any logic here.

 

A miracle to my mind is anything that can't be explained as being the consequence of natural laws. So a miracle didn't happen to your mother, she was lucky. To my mind a miracle would prove the existence of God unless I was tricked by some highly advanced alien or human time traveller.

 

You don't see the logic because your classifiying a miracle as a natural event!

 

Sorry for being so hard on you. :hihi:

 

Kizzi

Link to post
Share on other sites
A miracle to my mind is anything that can't be explained as being the consequence of natural laws. So a miracle didn't happen to your mother, she was lucky. To my mind a miracle would prove the existence of God unless I was tricked by some highly advanced alien or human time traveller.

 

You don't see the logic because your classifiying a miracle as a natural event!

 

Sorry for being so hard on you. :hihi:

 

Kizzi

 

This is being hard on me? I hardly think so. A "miracle" to an atheist is someone else being fooled into thinking the supernatural has occured when it was merely something they just didn't understand. You believing a miracle occured, in your perception of the word miracle, means you feel god was proven to exist for you. Congratulations on that. I do not believe in god as you claim it, therefore, the miracles as you claim them just mean to me that something may or may not have happened that may or may not have been unlikely - who knows? I would classify myself as agnostic, however, rather than atheistic. I do not think that it's impossible that miracles, as you define them, are impossible, just highly improbable. This might be why I equate any improbability with being "a miracle" and why I don't see it as being related to the religious world. Yay, I won the lottery, it's a miracle. Does this mean I believe in god? No, it means that odds might be improbable, but still possible. I'm glad your mind is happy with your beliefs. :xx:

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is being hard on me? I hardly think so. A "miracle" to an atheist is someone else being fooled into thinking the supernatural has occured when it was merely something they just didn't understand.

Sort of like being fooled into believing macro-evolution? I mean, how many pig's teeth and orangutan skull fragments does it take to build a missing link?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sort of like being fooled into believing macro-evolution? I mean, how many pig's teeth and orangutan skull fragments does it take to build a missing link?

 

Christianity is based on Bible. Bible is a book, not a God. God maybe a intelligent creature inside the Bible. You can't prove the creature really exists because it's a fiction. The writer was one of the best prophets we've ever known. Enjoy reading.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Christianity is based on Bible. Bible is a book, not a God. God maybe a intelligent creature inside the Bible. You can't prove the creature really exists because it's a fiction. The writer was one of the best prophets we've ever known. Enjoy reading.

:xx: No. Christianity is based on Jesus (as Confucianism is based on Confucius' life and sayings). Christianity is not based on a book, like Scientology is. We use The Bible as a guide and to give us the history of our early church fathers. They faced similar situations in their day as we do now and their responses to issues help us respond properly today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
:xx: No. Christianity is based on Jesus (as Confucianism is based on Confucius' life and sayings). Christianity is not based on a book, like Scientology is. We use The Bible as a guide and to give us the history of our early church fathers. They faced similar situations in their day as we do now and their responses to issues help us respond properly today.
Scientology isn't based on a book, either. It's based on the ideas of its founder, L. Ron Hubbard.

 

As a student of SF, I find L. Ron's life fascinating. I suspect that he founded Scientology as an outrageous joke, which only grew funnier when it wound up making him more money that his decades of professional fiction writing, and his many shady business dealings.

 

Scientology has a conflicted nature. On one hand, it is, as the name implies, entirely un-supernatural. Then it has a complicated mythology that's more supernatural than any of the major world religions. Things had a tendency to do this around L. Ron.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Scientology isn't based on a book, either. It's based on the ideas of its founder, L. Ron Hubbard. As a student of SF, I find L. Ron's life fascinating. I suspect that he founded Scientology as an outrageous joke, which only grew funnier when it wound up making him more money that his decades of professional fiction writing, and his many shady business dealings. Scientology has a conflicted nature. On one hand, it is, as the name implies, entirely un-supernatural. Then it has a complicated mythology that's more supernatural than any of the major world religions. Things had a tendency to do this around L. Ron.

OK, I meant Hubbard's ideas as presented in a book, namely "Dianetics."

 

I have never read any of his fiction, but am a fan of the genre... would you recommend his fiction (other than Dianetics) to others?

Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, I meant Hubbard's ideas as presented in a book, namely "Dianetics."

 

I have never read any of his fiction, but am a fan of the genre... would you recommend his fiction (other than Dianetics) to others?

Yes, I would recommend Hubbard's SF. Whatever anyone may say about him, he surely could write.

 

I still recall reading his 1000+ page "Battlefield Earth", in a sort of rapt marathon fugue - I could barely stand to put it down. That it was made into a arguable awful movie is no reflection on the virtues of the book.

 

For a bit of interesting history on science, SF, and Hubbard, I also recommend "Sex and Rockets: The Occult World of Jack Parsons" http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0922915563

Link to post
Share on other sites

I Think God Do Exist !!?? why u people think Not Who do u think Made us i mean if u read books u will know ???Hmmm and <<Scintist Must be the most Beleive In God People>> lolz Coz while They Searching And traveling And sit ages to study they will absoulotly Faced Wonders Like Who made The Earth the sun ??The Whole Galaxy DONT U WONDER LIKE ME??? :shrug:

Any way i do beleive that there is A GOD coz we r breathing Now and we r moving

Take Care PPl

*+QuEeN_Of_LaVa+*

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...