I don't hate Muslims, but Islam does. That's why Muslims are trying to turn to peace. They realize that the violence in Islam is destroying them.
|
|
|
Forms of spirituality usually include deeper thinking, and, meditation at least in a small way. Consider placebo action. Google it. To my way of thinking, placebo action lies not only in some sugar or starch pill given in double blind tests. Rather, it can be anything, including meditation, suggestions of doctors and friends, and in the case for believers in God, even cures from God at times. I have seen studies that suggest that placebo action occurs in as many as one third of all health activities. The interesting thing about this is that placebo action can work both ways. If you think you are going to get healthier, you will get healthier. If you think that you are going to get sicker, you will get sicker. Look at this interesting point. If you get a cut on your finger, and it bleeds a little, in two weeks it is healed, almost without a trace. It happens naturally. You don't have to believe it. You don't have to be spiritual about it. In other words, health problems come and go all the time in your body. Imagine that you have a health problem. You have this lingering pain, so you finally go to the doctor. The doctor tells you that you have bad cancer, and that you are only going to live for 3 months. The doctor's words are like a placebo. What do you do? You die in 3 months. The doctor tells someone else that he has bad cancer and will die in 3 months. But, there is a treatment that works for this kind of cancer 95% of the time. And if you get on the treatment, you will almost for certain, live. What do you do? You get on the treatment and you live. But was it the treatment? or was it the placebo action that healed you? Personally, I don't want a doctor influencing my spiritual activity. The human body is so complex that, now that medicine has found out as much as they have, your symptoms could fit all kinds of illnesses. Doctors are continually misdiagnosing things all the time these day. I don't want their mixed up placebo-action-diagnosis messing up my life. I'll self cure, using info that I and my friends dig up on the net, where I don't have to listen to some words of gloom and doom. Of course, the doctor could tell me my problem is nothing. But I know enough about medicine, that I don't trust that he knows what he is talking about.
|
|
|
Like it or not, it's still pseudoscience.
No. It is real science. It is based on Newtons 3rd Law which is real science law.
|
|
|
Because science proves that God exists.
True science must adhere to the scientfic method, thus true science can never prove or disprove God. What you speak of is pseudoscience, which can however. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PseudosciencePseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to the scientific method. Don't feel badly that you don't understand, Fluffer. Not everyone has a mind that can understand these things. There's nothing wrong with that. You are probably very good at some other things.
|
|
|
Religion is poison. They are reasoned by books that have no evidence or witness. and i don't know if there are any cure
That's the point of this thread. The religion of atheism is poison. Why? Because science proves that God exists. Wut? Never know that atheism is a religion. Science proves that god exists? I wonder which god? And if it is I will not definitely call him a god because it might be an alien or extraterrestial. Look up what atheists say about atheism (on the Net). Then look up the definition of religion. There are categories of the definition that apply to atheism. The fact that God has been proven to exist make atheism more a religion than ever. The science that proves God exists is when you combine cause and effect, complex universe, universal entropy. There is only one God. People have many idols that they call God. God is certainly alien to us in many ways. God certainly is extraterrestrial, even though He has walked on earth in the form of man. If your god is true. How come many people diffirentiate their what they call god? If you're born in bangladesh your god will be allah, if in india, vishnu. If US, jesus. So how true is it If the definition of your god is depend on what country you are born? IF your god exist, it should have an objective truth like 1+1=2. But it's not. Do you think your god is real? Or you have been taught by your parents that a god is real. Is it really a god that you think or it's more like a brainwashed thing that's been told to you since you are young tad? The way that scientific investigation works is very exacting. Since science has proven that God exists, all one need do is check out the God that science has proven to see if their god matches the little that science has shown us about the real God. Science has shown us that God caused the universe to come into being. If somebody says that god has only caused the earth to come into being, but not the rest of the universe, there is a conflict. The other god is a false god, because science has proven that God caused the whole thing. Now if two people of different religions both say that their god has a ring on his spiritual pinky finger, they could be talking about the real God, or they could be talking about some false god. Why? Because nothing in science has proven one way or the other, whether or not God has a ring on His spiritual pinky finger. Maybe these people have the same God/god and simply don't know it. Or maybe their God/gods are completely different and they don't know it.
|
|
|
Religion is poison. They are reasoned by books that have no evidence or witness. and i don't know if there are any cure
That's the point of this thread. The religion of atheism is poison. Why? Because science proves that God exists. Wut? Never know that atheism is a religion. Science proves that god exists? I wonder which god? And if it is I will not definitely call him a god because it might be an alien or extraterrestial. Look up what atheists say about atheism (on the Net). Then look up the definition of religion. There are categories of the definition that apply to atheism. The fact that God has been proven to exist make atheism more a religion than ever. The science that proves God exists is when you combine cause and effect, complex universe, universal entropy. There is only one God. People have many idols that they call God. God is certainly alien to us in many ways. God certainly is extraterrestrial, even though He has walked on earth in the form of man.
|
|
|
If there were only men, there wouldn't be any aliens. If there were only women, there wouldn't be any aliens. But since they both exist and interact, there are aliens all over the place. The only possible advantage to same sex marriage is, that you wouldn't be marrying an alien.
|
|
|
Religion is poison. They are reasoned by books that have no evidence or witness. and i don't know if there are any cure
That's the point of this thread. The religion of atheism is poison. Why? Because science proves that God exists.
|
|
|
The non-existence of a given belief (or claim thereof) is never proof for the existence of said belief.
This is what I have been saying all along. Since atheism is self contradictory, it doesn't really exist, and therefore certainly can't be proof for its own existence. What's the big deal? How can you simultaneously claim that atheism is a religion, and atheism doesn't exist? Those claims are not compatible Please get your story straight before dictating my beliefs to me... thanks But atheists believe atheism exists. So, they have a religion involving something that is non-existent. So, it is a religion of non-religion. That's like claiming Christianity doesn't exist because Jesus is a fictional character http://www.richardcarrier.info/Historicity_of_Jesus.pdfThat doesn't stop over a billion people from formally believing the religion, right? The difference is, science proves that God exists, thereby debunking atheism. There might be little evidence outside of the Bible for the existence of Jesus, but, as CoinCube pointed out in one post, there is less evidence of Julius Caesar.
|
|
|
Do you really want to start your own religion? Bernie has the best and safest way. Contact him at his contact points here https://apeacefulsolution.wordpress.com/. This site shows you some details about how, but the nitty gritty lies in you and at least one other person getting together and simply agreeing that you have a religious society going. Since everyone has religion, you have your own religion already. If you are trying to make it big, like becoming a TV evangelist or something, you need protection. Do it the right way. Contact Bernie.
|
|
|
The non-existence of a given belief (or claim thereof) is never proof for the existence of said belief.
This is what I have been saying all along. Since atheism is self contradictory, it doesn't really exist, and therefore certainly can't be proof for its own existence. What's the big deal? How can you simultaneously claim that atheism is a religion, and atheism doesn't exist? Those claims are not compatible Please get your story straight before dictating my beliefs to me... thanks But atheists believe atheism exists. So, they have a religion involving something that is non-existent. So, it is a religion of non-religion.
|
|
|
Complete misinterpretation of the findings. I didn't interpret anything... I only asked a question, which you avoided answering... Thank you for explaining... about you lack of interpreting. So the answer wasn't something that you could understand, eh? To clarify, if you are talking about evolution links, there aren't any. This means that there aren't any that are missing, simply because there aren't any to be missing.
|
|
|
The non-existence of a given belief (or claim thereof) is never proof for the existence of said belief.
This is what I have been saying all along. Since atheism is self contradictory, it doesn't really exist, and therefore certainly can't be proof for its own existence. What's the big deal?
|
|
|
Complete misinterpretation of the findings.
|
|
|
one cannot prove that god does not exist. its just that there is no sufficient evidence that god exists. "there is probably no god" is a good enough statement. the same way we cannot prove there is no santa claus but we are convinced enough that there isnt.
Study cause and effect, complex universe, and universal entropy, and you will see that God exists, scientifically. WOW. how do you define God? we could be playing with words here.. anyway i dont have time, energy, nor motivation of insisting my ideas to others. im just curious how you were able to prove god "scientifically". The dictionaries define what we mean when we say "God." In brief... Cause and effect is all around us in abundance. It is upheld by Newton's 3rd Law if nothing else. Nobody has found pure random. Everything operates by cause and effect. There is complexity in the universe. Complexity comes from cause and effect just like everything else. We have no example of lesser complexity becoming greater complexity. The closest we can come is to say that we just don't know what caused certain complexity. Whatever caused the complexity in the universe is more complex. Since the mind of man is intelligent, whatever caused the mind of man is more intelligent than man. The fact that He/It could create a universe through cause and effect as it is, shows that He/It has great power and ability and intelligence, way beyond the understanding of mankind. The fact of universal entropy shows that the universe had a beginning. If it didn't, entropy would have reduced everything to non-complexity long ago. Entropy also shows that the present intelligence of mankind is not as great as it was in mankind of the past.
|
|
|
No, I don't seem to be saying that dictionaries are religions. I'll write this more simply for you:
In all dictionary definitions of "religion" the vast majority are not consistent with atheist belief.
Of course, to atheists they wouldn't be. Atheist say, we not have a religion by dictionary definition. By saying this, they are showing that they have a religion by the dictionary definition. Silly atheists. You're either not understanding or being intentionally obtuse so I'll explain for you one more time. "Not consistent with atheist belief" means that the definition of religion includes supernatural agencies. Nearly all dictionary definitions require a belief in the supernatural in order to be a religion. Therefore nearly all definitions of religion are not consistent with atheism. "Not consistent with atheist belief" shows atheism as a religion because of the word "belief." That word alone points out that atheism is probably a religion. When you add to "belief" the rest of the dictionary definitions of "religion," you find that atheism is either religion, or so extremely close to religion that you can't tell for a fact that it is not a religion.<snip> Not true. Just because I believe something without being able to prove it doesn't mean I have religious beliefs about it. As an example I believe you're a dickhead. I can't prove it, but I'm not making a religion of your dickheadedness. Further, if someone is able to prove you're *not* a dickhead, then I'll change my mind about you. As a contrast, people with religious beliefs are unable to change their minds about their religion even in the face of opposing proof. Now you have added the slang word "dickhead" to your personal religion. Or was it there all along and you had simply never proclaimed it before? Keep on. The more you proclaim this and that, the firmer you make your religion... even when it is the religion of atheism... the religion of non-religion. All of your proclamations help to fit your religion into the dictionary definition of "religion." So your proof for the existence of something I believe is a statement from me that it is not something I believe? Unfortunately that's not how discussion works. If I was suggesting the proof of your faith, I could easily be wrong, because I don't know you well enough for that. It was your idea that I have proof. The proof that everyone has religion goes beyond knowing that you have a particular kind of religion.
|
|
|
I thought you would be happy about your religious background. Instead you contradict yourself.
Above you said, "... 99% of religious people believe the religion of their parents... ." If you are an evolution believer, aren't fish in the line of our evolutionary "parents?" But if they aren't, what is to go back to the inanimate? Or do you have a limited amount of time you go back when you say that 99% of religious people believe the religion of their parents? What might this limited time might be? One thousand years? 10,000 years? 100,000 years? Why would you set some arbitrary number of years? Or don't you believe in evolution after all? Or is it that you are simply self-contradictory and that your whole atheism is like your evolution... simply something that is a complete fantasy science fiction?
What part of " Obviously, humans invented religion" did you miss? So, where do you want to divide the human from the non-human in the evolutionary line? You can't. Such divisions are all arbitrary. They gotta be there, right? We simply haven't found them, right? There aren't any! I didn't make the line, but scientists have declared that modern humans (homo-erectus) start around 100,000 years ago (based mostly on archaeological evidence from skeletons) Before that it was homo-habilis or something... not human https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionI like a good science fiction story. I wish these scientists would stop trying to make their SF into the truth when they have little more than their imagination to back it up as truth. It takes away from all the good science fiction stories that I like when they do this.
|
|
|
i know a lot of smart people who are atheist but they really struggle with accepting that their so-called free will is illusory.
I know a lot of not smart people who know very well that free will is illusory. Where does that leave us ? Free will is only illusory if god exists... but, since god does not exist, your will is free from god's manipulation The only impediment to your free will is your susceptibility to manipulation (read gullibility) free will cannot be true because it contadicts causality. they cannot both be true. one of them must go. if you believe that the physical universe is governed by causality, then there is no room for freewill in any consistent model of the universe. God is so extremely great, that He can allow free will while making things operate completely by cause and effect. We may not understand it easily, but we can understand how it works, basically.
|
|
|
one cannot prove that god does not exist. its just that there is no sufficient evidence that god exists. "there is probably no god" is a good enough statement. the same way we cannot prove there is no santa claus but we are convinced enough that there isnt.
Study cause and effect, complex universe, and universal entropy, and you will see that God exists, scientifically.
|
|
|
|