Moment of Clarity (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter ßöмßäяðîëя
- Start date
- Status
its not about your point being proved,its about you being hellbent on believing that god does not exist.what you mentioned,are assumptions put forward by the common man.have you done any proper research on the subject?.id be more than glad to listen to your point,IF you bring forward some credible sources.
Well you say what are the chances the Quran is partially right? So far what IS wrong with it? Just by stating the existence of God and such? You cannot deem that as "wrong" because religion and existence of God is perspective. Is there any fact in the Quran that is completely, utterly, provenly wrong? Not even the sciences in the Quran is proven to be wrong. So whilst you say it may not be right, it isnt wrong either.
And have you actually READ the Quran, word by word? I welcome all views even of those who arent same as mine but I am sure if you read it, you wouldnt have so easily and arrogantly discarded it. You might disagree with it even after you've read it but you certainly wont say it was the pure writings of a 'lunatic'
Its impossible to prove that these beings were inspired by a supernatural being. Try proving its NOT then. (merely BELIEVING its not doesnt cut it). Fact is we'll never know if it was or wasnt. Its just a matter of different faith.
And have you actually READ the Quran, word by word? I welcome all views even of those who arent same as mine but I am sure if you read it, you wouldnt have so easily and arrogantly discarded it. You might disagree with it even after you've read it but you certainly wont say it was the pure writings of a 'lunatic'
Its impossible to prove that these beings were inspired by a supernatural being. Try proving its NOT then. (merely BELIEVING its not doesnt cut it). Fact is we'll never know if it was or wasnt. Its just a matter of different faith.
How is evolution debatable? We've seen evolution over the years in various species and are all well aware it is happening all around us. The existence of some divine being, who despite nobody ever having seen/heard/touched/smelt and who lives where exactly is just not a plausible alternative to scientific theory, the product of many great minds over our race's history vs religious texts which could have been written by anyone, as far as I'm aware nobody has ever proven they were "divine revelations" or anything of the sort.
You can't have go at science for not disproving god. Surely its religion's duty if anyones to prove god's existence... otherwise I could just make up a few gods as well - nobody's proved they don't exist so they must exist, right? That seems to be your philosophy anyway
You can't have go at science for not disproving god. Surely its religion's duty if anyones to prove god's existence... otherwise I could just make up a few gods as well - nobody's proved they don't exist so they must exist, right? That seems to be your philosophy anyway
Martin what are you on about - the catapult thing? Science gradually replaces religion does not mean all aspects of science have superceded religious texts. Science is a massive area with all kinds of subjects contained within its scope. A book could never hope to contain that much diversity of information.
Like I said anyway, its not science's duty to disprove religion, it does that itself by being so far-fetched, illogical and of course unproven.
Like I said anyway, its not science's duty to disprove religion, it does that itself by being so far-fetched, illogical and of course unproven.
Im just saying while theres no proof to some that God exists, theres no proof to us that God doesnt either. We believers might consider certain things as proof of God's existence that others dont. It is, ultimately, a matter of faith; hence the different religions in this world that exist today.
Thanks for answering my question btw. I take it your previous post was just misinterpreted by me
Thanks for answering my question btw. I take it your previous post was just misinterpreted by me
@sallyinzaghi: Seven is the greatest man ever. Oh yeah, I'm writing on God's behalf here. Try proving I wasn't inspired by God for this one .
All I'm saying is that with the means we have and with the unlikeliness of the Qu'ran, the Bible and the Thora being right, believing is isn't the smartest and most logical thing to do. Chances of it being wrong are a billion minus one, chances of it being right are one in a billion. Hmm, what would I pick?
. All I'm saying is that with the means we have and with the unlikeliness of the Qu'ran, the Bible and the Thora being right, believing is isn't the smartest and most logical thing to do. Chances of it being wrong are a billion minus one, chances of it being right are one in a billion. Hmm, what would I pick?
OP
Exactly, Catholics take this devine inspirationg stuff like the words magically appeared on the page when in actual fact, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were actually people who wrote down what they thought, and it was compiled into a book of great stories.
So, in conclusion, if you are Catholic, Matt, Mark, Luke, and the J-boy are God.
So, in conclusion, if you are Catholic, Matt, Mark, Luke, and the J-boy are God.
You, Burke, were the last person I would expect a post like this from.
I agree with you. This is also what Seven means when he says religious people are scared- as in, since this is an answer to the biggest questions asked.
Its very strange you also say this aswell, because I was looking at the moon with my friend yesterday and we had a discussion about religion aswell. We discussed whether in 2,000-3,000 years people will look back at the religions today and call them ' make believe ' like we do to the Gods of the Roman and Greek times. People no doubt believed equally as strongly in them, and perhaps in the far future people will look at christianity and call Jesus a make believe prophet.
I agree with you. This is also what Seven means when he says religious people are scared- as in, since this is an answer to the biggest questions asked.
Its very strange you also say this aswell, because I was looking at the moon with my friend yesterday and we had a discussion about religion aswell. We discussed whether in 2,000-3,000 years people will look back at the religions today and call them ' make believe ' like we do to the Gods of the Roman and Greek times. People no doubt believed equally as strongly in them, and perhaps in the far future people will look at christianity and call Jesus a make believe prophet.
swag said:
Nice clarity, Burke.
As an aside, you know the Scientologists think we're all descendents of space aliens, but it's questionable whether I'd call that a religion or not. One thing is for sure according to science: as Moby says, we're all made of stars.
I guess I don't get hung up on there being a singular religion of absolute truth. To try to simplify where I am, I see that almost all religions are like colored glasses through which the people of different cultures and times perceive a shared sense of existence and their relationship with things greater than themselves. It's almost as if they are all different parables that tell common stories in their own way. To me, it also has a large element of the Hindu fable of the blind men and the elephant as well.
Oh, I still have my doubts about whether some eternal creator exists per se -- as if the concept of what a "creator" really means is something that's not just a construct for our feeble brains. But what I find intriguing is the concept of all these cultures from different lands and times, often not even meeting each other in the past at all before these concepts were brought out, and yet they have innately come out with identical questions about life and existence ... and with very similar if not identical stories and explanations for it.
That, to me, is in itself almost a miracle of truth. As if every human throughout history was born with some kind of common signature in how humans think and feel about themselves in the world, and how they have a need for explanations, and how come to explain it. Philsophers like Martin Heidegger and some modernist contemporaries like Vaclav Havel and comparative religion types like Joseph Campbell have also referred to a sort of common "antenna" that's innate to all humans and broadcasts these common signals.
Again, probably too much to get into here. I've gone on in other threads, for example, how the main stories of Christianity are largely knockoffs of what you can find in the ancient religions of Sumeria some 4,000 years before Christ.
As an aside, you know the Scientologists think we're all descendents of space aliens, but it's questionable whether I'd call that a religion or not. One thing is for sure according to science: as Moby says, we're all made of stars.
I guess I don't get hung up on there being a singular religion of absolute truth. To try to simplify where I am, I see that almost all religions are like colored glasses through which the people of different cultures and times perceive a shared sense of existence and their relationship with things greater than themselves. It's almost as if they are all different parables that tell common stories in their own way. To me, it also has a large element of the Hindu fable of the blind men and the elephant as well.
Oh, I still have my doubts about whether some eternal creator exists per se -- as if the concept of what a "creator" really means is something that's not just a construct for our feeble brains. But what I find intriguing is the concept of all these cultures from different lands and times, often not even meeting each other in the past at all before these concepts were brought out, and yet they have innately come out with identical questions about life and existence ... and with very similar if not identical stories and explanations for it.
That, to me, is in itself almost a miracle of truth. As if every human throughout history was born with some kind of common signature in how humans think and feel about themselves in the world, and how they have a need for explanations, and how come to explain it. Philsophers like Martin Heidegger and some modernist contemporaries like Vaclav Havel and comparative religion types like Joseph Campbell have also referred to a sort of common "antenna" that's innate to all humans and broadcasts these common signals.
Again, probably too much to get into here. I've gone on in other threads, for example, how the main stories of Christianity are largely knockoffs of what you can find in the ancient religions of Sumeria some 4,000 years before Christ.
I just watched a south park episode about scientology yesterday. Jesus, I thought they were making that shit up.
OP
- Status