Atheists are good at covering their fear up in their minds. But when trauma happens, this mental self control disappears.
So what is it proving ? it's human instincts against fear and particularly fear of unknown. There are no atheists in foxholes. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_no_atheists_in_foxholes.  |
|
|
|
The obvious is that God exists. If you want to suggest that faith in the obvious is breaking the 1st Commandment, then you are suggesting that the 1st Commandment is against itself.
Can you just kill the atheists or at least ignore them? Fixing your head on problems is the same of throwing shit on things: not a smart thing to do. Best regards. God doesn't want to kill the atheists. He wants to save them. If and when the atheists are to be killed, God will do it Himself. Jesus speaking in Matthew 13:24-30: 24 Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field.
25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away.
26 When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
27 “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’
28 “ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. “The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’
29 “ ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’ ” There was a time when you and I were unbelievers, just like the atheists. God had mercy on us, because He knew that we were part of His kingdom. He waited until we came to faith in Him, and here we are, in His kingdom. In other words, we were wheat while we were yet unbelievers. But when we came to faith, our quality of being wheat became evident. Give the atheists more time. Some of them are members of the Kingdom of God, and simply haven't come in yet. God, Himself, will determine when the times of the atheists are finished. |
|
|
|
---snip--- Actually, atheism is one of the strongest beliefs. Why? Because common sense suggests that something must have made the universe. In addition, science says that there is a God, when combining: 1) cause and effect; 2) complexity; 3) entropy. Since atheism is based on very strong faith against the obvious, atheism is a strong religion by finding all kinds of irrational points to hold itself in place. In simple words atheism is just the discouragement of the believes and i don't think I think/fear entropy every second of my life or even give it such attention so that i have to hold anything in me. A man would probably die out of depression if he gets to know what is around him and who or how small he is. To say it another way, since God made everything including science
when did that happen  Atheists are good at covering their fear up in their minds. But when trauma happens, this mental self control disappears. God made everything in the Beginning. Read the bible to find out. From http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm - go there to find out more details that aren't directly seen in this quote: Biblical Age of Earth
by David V. Bassett, M.S.
Beginning with the archeological landmark event of the fall of Jerusalem (which has now been corrected to 588 B.C., instead of 586-587 B.C.) and counting backwards the prophesied number of years between this event and the division of Solomon's kingdom (390 yrs. + 40 yrs., according to Ezekiel 4:4-7), brings us to 1018 B.C.
From the end of Solomon's 40-year reign to the start of the Temple in the 4th year of his reign takes us back another 37 years to 1055 B.C.
From the start of Solomon's Temple "in the 480th year" (1 Kings 6:1) back to the Exodus from Egypt (hence 479 years previous) brings us to near 1534 B.C.
From the Exodus out of Egypt to Abraham's entering Canaan from Haran was exactly 430 years to the day (Gen 12:10/ Exodus 12:40/ Gal 3:17), thus around 1964 B.C.
Since Abraham entered Canaan at age 75 (Gen 12:4), he was born approximately 2039 B.C.
From Abraham's birth to Noah's grandson (Shem's son), Arpachshad's birth, 2 years after the Flood started, was 290 years (Gen 11:11-26), this places the onset of the Flood at around 2331 B.C. [definitely 4,300-4,400 years ago].
The genealogy of Genesis 5:3-32 precludes any gaps due to its tight chronological structure and gives us 1,656 years between Creation and the Flood, thus bringing Creation Week back to near 3987 B.C. or approximately 4000 B.C.
Therefore, the biblical age of the Earth (using Scripture itself as a guide) is 6,000 years !! Mankind did not evolve 4 million years ago on an Earth which is 4.5 billion years old in a universe which was "big-banged" into existence 18-20 billion years in the distant past. Jesus Christ, the Creator Incarnate, said He made mankind male and female in the beginning (Mark 10:6), and that when the heavens and the earth were commanded into being (Gen 1:1), they "stood up together" (Isa 48:13) not billions of years apart !! |
|
|
|
Actually, atheism is one of the strongest beliefs. Why? Because common sense suggests that something must have made the universe. In addition, science says that there is a God, when combining: 1) cause and effect; 2) complexity; 3) entropy. Since atheism is based on very strong faith against the obvious, atheism is a strong religion by finding all kinds of irrational points to hold itself in place. Faith in the obvious is Idolatry which is a sin (1st commandement). Best regards. The obvious is that God exists. If you want to suggest that faith in the obvious is breaking the 1st Commandment, then you are suggesting that the 1st Commandment is against itself.
I think that I am right when I say that BitNow is not a 34 year old male as listed in "its" profile. Rather, BitNow is a 14 year old girl whose mother set her up in this forum because she had trouble doing it herself. This is one way for an Italian girl to improve her English. |
|
|
|
No, it is not cause if people were that skeptical then there wouldn't be any religions fucking around in 21st century.
you cannot chose any path if you don't have one and make it your believe that it's right.
Are you an atheist? Best regards. I have no religion, only theories none of which include any gods. And any theories I do have also arent beliefs, just could be 's.. My religion isn't atheism like many people in this thread are getting to push. All of this in your quote directly above is, then, is part of your religious belief, and your religion. You could say that he has some sort of belief system in place. Atheism is the lack of believe that is why I refuse the definition of atheism as religion.Best regards. Badecker you are confused between a "guy believing in some day to day strategies" and a "guy worshiping and giving elite/supreme importance to something most likely super natural stuff" Outside of the things that God does directly, there is no supernatural. All is complex science. To say it another way, since God made everything including science, and since man can only investigate science but not make it, everything is supernatural, because without nature being in existence, nobody could make it. |
|
|
|
No, it is not cause if people were that skeptical then there wouldn't be any religions fucking around in 21st century.
you cannot chose any path if you don't have one and make it your believe that it's right.
Are you an atheist? Best regards. I have no religion, only theories none of which include any gods. And any theories I do have also arent beliefs, just could be 's.. My religion isn't atheism like many people in this thread are getting to push. All of this in your quote directly above is, then, is part of your religious belief, and your religion. You could say that he has some sort of belief system in place. Atheism is the lack of believe that is why I refuse the definition of atheism as religion.Best regards. Actually, atheism is one of the strongest beliefs. Why? Because common sense suggests that something must have made the universe. In addition, science says that there is a God, when combining: 1) cause and effect; 2) complexity; 3) entropy. Since atheism is based on very strong faith against the obvious, atheism is a strong religion by finding all kinds of irrational points to hold itself in place. |
|
|
|
Since man is a rational being, a creature of reason, it is obvious that GOD would want man to think. BADecker implies that thinking is a religion, but it is perfectly fair to ask BADecker "compared to what?" Another question to ask of him is "how can we know that you are not misleading us into a false religion? what is the fruit of such a belief? why should one choose a belief which is irrational and against reason, which denies man's basic virtue? is it balanced to equivocate opinion and reason?", etc.
Compared to a religion of non-thinking. If you can't tell which religion is false, you don't really have any ability to be speaking logically in this or any forum. False religion is thinking that there is some way to save yourself from death by what you can do. The irrational belief is that man's rationality is great enough to figure out enough for life that does not die. After all, it is obvious from all the research done that mankind hasn't even figured a way out to extend his life to 200 years. But if you can find some oriental guy who figured out how to live for, say, 250 years or more, he is 1 in billions. It is obvious from what he writes that the reasoning abilities of 1aguar (and people like him) fall way short of their ideals. |
|
|
|
No, it is not cause if people were that skeptical then there wouldn't be any religions fucking around in 21st century.
you cannot chose any path if you don't have one and make it your believe that it's right.
Are you an atheist? Best regards. I have no religion, only theories none of which include any gods. And any theories I do have also arent beliefs, just could be 's.. My religion isn't atheism like many people in this thread are getting to push. All of this in your quote directly above is, then, is part of your religious belief, and your religion. |
|
|
|
The best country is the United States of America. Why? Because. The US allows people to live freely in ignorance. Gov doesn't know for a fact who is ignorant and who isn't. Because of this, they leave people alone. What does ignorance have to do with it? Smart people can beat the government in court any day of the weak. Gov knows this. What they don't know is which of the citizenry know this, and and which know how to do it. And they don't want the general populace waking up to this fact. Why don't they want people waking up to the fact and methods for beating Gov in court? It's all about money, and a little about prison for Gov people. If the general populace knew how to beat Gov, income taxes would be gone. Many IRS and police and Congress people would be in prison. This happens once in a while. Gov people go to prison because they are not discreet enough. People win big settlements in court because Gov failed to cover up how folks can beat Gov in court. Often income tax bills go away and people get a lot of money back from the IRS because they find the huge loopholes that exist. Almost no other country in the world has this kind of freedom available. If the American people woke up, virtually all the big government operations would go down, legally and lawfully. No other nation has the ease with which they can do this... although Canada and Britain and Australia are close. |
|
|
|
This is what I and many others are trying to tell you. The only way that might come close to suggesting that you have no religion is if you live your life spontaneously all the time. But this would still be your religion. Who exactly has tried to say that no one can avoid being religious in real life?? You figure it out. It is in the previous posts in this thread. Solomon in the Old Testament, and Saint Paul in the New Testament, both suggested that we are to live a life of moderation. The only way to live moderation moderately is to splurge once in awhile. What does moderation have to do with anything? The moderation thing is a unit in itself. If a homosexual moderates his desires, and yet "splurges" by occasionally having gay sex, does this make his life balanced and righteous? And why is it not "balanced" to be "devoted" to balance?? This definition only goes so far, and I will finally deconstruct it now: Your life is your religion, even if you have no formal religion.
You are religious only if you are "devoted". Most people are devoted to their life. They struggle to keep from dying, especially when they know death is near. People who are voluntary martyrs are even more devoted to what they are doing. After all, they have to fight their natural survival instinct. What's so hard about this. You need to think life over a little more. If you never "believe something too much", then you don't have a religion, then you are called "rational" since you can intelligently evaluate new ideas when presented.
This can be accurate. Solomon says that if you are overly wicked, you will wind up destroying yourself. He also says that if you are overly righteous, you will wind up dying before your time. Ecclesiastes 7:16,17: Do not be overrighteous, neither be overwise—why destroy yourself?
Do not be overwicked, and do not be a fool—why die before your time?
It is good to grasp the one and not let go of the other. The man who fears God will avoid all extremes. |
|
|
|
All religion was created by man to control other men.
god didnt create man, man created god. Just standing out in the cold, it might not be very visible as to how man was created or made. Since science hasn't figure it out yet, and since science has figured out that there is a God, if God didn't create man, where did man come from? Sounds pretty much like God created man to me. You keep saying this as if it is somehow self evident and writ in stone. It's not. If you mean the part about God creating mankind, it is self evident. How? In the science that shows that God is behind everything. Which science is this? Newton's 3rd law - action reaction/cause and effect. Everything in the universe is caused by something. God is the Great First Cause. This has been known in science for at least a hundred years, now.
Your religion cannot be reconciled with evolution. Not the theory, the fact. There is no fact of mankind coming about through evolution. There may be some bits and pieces that suggest that parts of it could have happened, but there isn't even a plausible theory for the whole thing available that doesn't have big enough holes in it to drive a cement truck through. In addition, if someone develops a true and complete, working theory, about the way mankind might have come about by evolution, this doesn't mean that some other theory cannot be developed that shows that mankind came about by evolution in a different way, a different form of evolution. On top of that, even if working theories came about, there is no way to go back and see what really happened. So far, the best we have is the eye witness record of the Bible. There is nothing else other than speculation. It cannot be reconciled with the actual age of the earth. The Bible is not meant to be an actual history of the age of the earth. But... Real, factual, science that is not theory fiction places the earth in the range of 10,000 years old, and not more than 25,000 years old. it's predictions would show that all animals are distinct, with no overlap, yet we share 99 percent of our DNA with Chimpanzees, and even more with Bonobos. It makes claims as to how AND WHERE man originated, that are false. Civilization indeed seems to have started in the Euphrates valley, but the origins of humanity are much older, and in Africa. The eye witness reports of the Bible are way more accurate than any guestimations by a bunch of self-styled scientists.
Also, earlier, you made a statement that the bible holds no contradictions, and does not command murders. Yet, according to the "new testament", the old law is never to pass away and ALL commandments of god are "right". This in itself is contradictory, but how about this? According to the old testament, there both is and is not an afterlife (Elisha consults Elijah's spirit, yet psalms states that the dead are dust and conscious of nothing). The new Testament pretty much is in favor of an afterlife, but not totally.
The Bible is often a record of people speaking, or of something that someone said or thought. Just because someone is recorded in the Bible to have said something, doesn't make it necessarily part of what God commands. Elisha doesn't consult Elijah's spirit. The afterlife is a theme throughout the entire Bible.
Further, throughout Exodus, the Israelites are commanded to put entire populations to the sword, leaving not a man, woman, or suckling infant alive. Demonstrate to me how the FUCK that does not command murder. Oh, and what evil did those infants commit?
God commanded it at times. God owns everything, including you and me. He is the boss. Consider this. Let's imagine that you have a daughter that you love dearly. And let's say that some joker rapes and murders her. Which would you rather have? The guy go free? Or the guy be removed from the earth through execution. In the case of Israel at the time of the Exodus, the execution of bad nations was judged by God, commanded by Him, and some of the time carried out by Israel. Other times God did it Himself. He owns it all. He is the boss. What He says goes. Be glad that He has given you a time of grace to repent of your obstinacy against Him.
I mainly respond to you because there is an audience. You mischaracterize things in scientific theory, KNOWING FULL WELL THAT YOU ARE DOING SO. If you cannot offer the extraordinary proofs that you're extraordinary claims require, that's ok. But to lie about it, that is not ok.
Well, I don't know what you mean. In science, there are a handful of facts. Most of science is theory = fiction... until it is proven otherwise. Expressing this truth is something that I know full well that I am doing. |
|
|
|
You forgot to read the little line that I said, pointing at the definition of the word religion. Read number 6 in the definition of religion quoted above. It says, "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice." Don't take my word for it. Go to the link and look up the definition for yourself. The fact that you are constantly explaining and defending what you believe - it doesn't matter what it is - shows that you have religion. If you happen to include some of the other definition points in your religious beliefs, your religion is even stronger. I don't believe in anything or follow it devotedly (maybe bitcoin, but I don't believe anyone would believe bitcoin is a religion). I'm explaining my own views because you keep ascribing me views that I don't have. The fact that you express your views whatever they are over and over shows that you have a religion in your views. Your views are the doctrine of your religion. In the definition of "religion," as I stated above, religion is "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice." Here you are, devotedly responding that you don't have any religion. But the way you are devotedly responding says that you do, according to the definition of religion.
Is it religion to prove you are innocent of some action or thought? Does every lawyer believe that the law is a god? Yet they "constantly explain and defend" what they mean.
According to the definition of "religion," if a lawyer "believes in and follows devotedly" some things regarding law, he has his own personal religion therein. And it is even deeper with a lawyer, because law often pertains to "a point or matter of ethics or conscience."
You seem to believe that any action one takes suggests religion? Are there any actions one can take that *do not* suggest religion? Or suggest *no religion*?
This is what I and many others are trying to tell you. The only way that might come close to suggesting that you have no religion is if you live your life spontaneously all the time. But this would still be your religion. Solomon in the Old Testament, and Saint Paul in the New Testament, both suggested that we are to live a life of moderation. The only way to live moderation moderately is to splurge once in awhile. Your life is your religion, even if you have no formal religion. |
|
|
|
By the way, I'd just like to clarify, I don't HATE Islam
I'm 'phobic' of it and find it worrying, even threatening
But most of all, I just wish it would grow the fuck up
I mean, two billion people worshipping a guy that 'rode into space on a winged horse' and 'sliced the moon in half with his finger' not to mention speaking to 'angels' is quite frankly, pathetic.
Come on guys, fairy tales. Grow up.
the nature of religion is to require a believer to believe ten impossible things every day before breakfast. That is the essence of "faith." The nature of the Christian religion is to require a believer to obey the law of love perfectly. when the believer finds that he can't do this, he looks to God for forgiveness. God provides the forgiveness through the sacrifice His Son Jesus made on the cross. |
|
|
|
ISIS only needs beautiful woman for sexual things they are sick and i dont belive they afraid from women unlike they want to get alot of woman in isis
Many beautiful women are way more intelligent that one might expect. A beautiful, intelligent woman is way too smart to have anything to do with ISIS. |
|
|
|
this is just my point of view.
the human consciousness is not something that can be definitely quantified and explained, and as far as im concerned, quantum mechanics is a specialized theory dealing in the state of extremely small particles at a given time. that view of mine is not something that will not change, not until a veritable theory linking the human mind to a quantifiable explanation is found. so far, i dont think this is something that will be achieved anytime soon, perhaps in the next decade, but its a mystery as far as im concerned.
This view is also held by every good scientist that uses quantum mechanics. Why? Because as Brian Cox explains in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcfQkxwz4Oo, QM is simply complex probability. Probability explains nothing factually. It only offers the investigator some ideas about what might be true, so that he can go about proving it through regular channels. Generally speaking, most of the scientists who investigate things, do not investigate the depths of consciousness and the mind. Scientists are directed by the schools where they train to be more materialistically minded. If a "mind scientist" had enough incentive, he might apply QM to his investigation of mind so that he could get some ideas about how to go further in his investigations. |
|
|
|
I still can't believe someone would even think about this. Don't you have something better to do in your life? Probably not. The point still stands; you can build a cheap mini rocket and fly it upwards with a camera.
yup.. and because of the tidal bulge it's actually technically more of a football shape. partially because of the sun's gravity but mostly because of the Moon's gravitational pull. the side the moon is facing gets drawn up and pulled on and then the opposite side of the earth gets the same. ..a football shape. Really? Look at the evidence without your preconceived biases and you'll see the problems also. Here is a few problems with the standard model among hundreds...What is keeping the all powerful vacuum of space from sucking off earths atmosphere? Please Explain to me how the moon gravity is strong enough to pull our oceans yet earths gravity hasn't pulled the moon into us yet. I could literally go on for hours about this. Why was relativity created to dismiss experiments such as Aires failure which prove the earth isn't moving? Clear thinker using common sense video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv6vjpgYbzQ enjoy watching. 1) What properties do you believe space has that would necessarily suck away Earth's atmosphere? What is the basis for your assumption? To make such an assumption, you must have a theory or model of how and why this would work. 2) With regards to the Earth and its oceans and the moon, first you need to know what gravity is. According to general relativity, objects with mass create curvatures in space. The effects this curvature has on other nearby objects is what we call gravitational force. We know that space curves as a result of mass because this was confirmed by astronomers testing Einstein's theory. Initially, this was confirmed when astronomers were able to observe distant stars that should have been blocked by the Sun but were visible because their light bent around the Sun due to the curvature in space as a result of its mass. So, because the Moon and Earth are also mass objects like the Sun, they also create curvature in space. The gravitational forces created by each body affect the other, but because Earth is something like 80 times more massive than the Moon, its gravitational pull is much greater. This doesn't mean the Moon's pull is negated; it still exists, and we see its effects on our oceans (i.e. The tides). The moon doesn't crash into Earth because it's in orbit. If you imagine throwing a rock horizontally, the rock falls to Earth due to gravity. If you were to throw a rock really, really far (say, a few kilometers) it would fall to Earth too, but to hit the ground it would need to fall farther to account for Earth's curvature, and so it would. Now, if you threw a rock really, really, REALLY far, it's possible that you could throw it so hard that it would keep falling and falling but never hit the ground, and instead it would circle the Earth as it continually falls around Earth's curvature. This is what happens with the moon; it's continually falling towards Earth but never hits it because it is at the right speed and distance from Earth that it stays in orbit. And so 'round and 'round it goes. According to general relativity ONLY. It is just one of many man made theories. Is it in line with the Word, the LOGOS? ......i don't think so. And according to observation, experimentation, replication, etc. I have no idea why you're bringing up religion. The "word" doesn't even provide an explanation whatsoever for the issues mentioned in the post (i.e. Some vague notion that space should "suck off" Earth's atmosphere, tidal motion, etc.). Are you suggesting that your evidence for a flat earth is a book (the Bible) that gives zero explanation for these things? Hypothetical conversation: Me: The earth is round because of x, y, and z. You: The earth is flat because the Bible doesn't even mention x, y, and z. Me: The Bible doesn't provide any alternative explanation, either. You: And that means the Earth is flat. Me: ...the hell?  First things first. Nobody is bringing up a religion, that is your first fail and i will not continue to count many of them. Your "reasoning" is not quite correct. In fact it is very poor. If A then B...blahblah... Not necessarily. The surface of earth is not round. Your X,Y and Z are false evidence. You were framed  The surface of our living place is flat and The LOGOS reveals that and of course you have plenty of observational evidences let alone in this thread. LOGOS is eternal idea of the Creator of all things. So obviously He is the best source for that not nasa...  If you need to repair your car you won't drive it to the butcher's workshop  LOGOS also stands for ultimate logic. Puzzling is that atheists are always so keen in emphasizing the word logic and at the same time they are failing to acquire the ultimate one. Though i know why is that. Ignorance of LOGOS is darkness, comprehension is light. So basic instructions are: check what LOGOS has to say about the subject. Find that through your PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, natural observation, experiment or whatever your abilities gifts or talents are, and... BAM, it will be a perfect match for you. Winner, ACE, home run, you name it you claim it. It is so simple folks. Wish you all the best on your flat earth quest journey. PS and earth is not a pancake. I noticed someone mentioned that, though it is funny. The real reason why the earth is not flat is not because it isn't, necessarily. The reason is this. Round earth physics has a rather complete physics to it. Flat earth physics does not. Round earth physics may have some flaws in it. All they are is flaws. But flat earthers try to use the flaws to say that the earth is flat, when all the flaws do is suggest that round earth need some additional explanation. In other words, flat earth theory is not even theory, technically, because round earth is not theory. Round earth is fact, even though it has a few mistakes in the understandings about it. |
|
|
|
....
There might be some benefit in our discussing these things here, but we can read the Bible....
No, there is no benefit in your discussing crap other than "Why do people hate islam" on an Internet forum thread entitled "Why do people hate Islam." That's exactly why the Bible is being discussed. It is the non-crap, pure sense, of the Bible that talks about some of the reasons that people hate Islam. |
|
|
|
Reality is quite the contrary actually. Only a handful of events occur in nature that is not yet described and linked mathematically to a theory.
In addition, just because there is a theory doesn't mean that there might not be a host of other theories about the same thing, some of them precisely opposite of others. Nor does it mean that the theory necessarily is going to be found out to be fact. Theory is a good guess, and sometimes, a not so good guess. thats actually more or less true. there are some inconsistencies between the quantum mechanics theories and the relativity theories. separately, and within the domains they respectively work on, these theories are 100% accurate, but as soon as you say, apply quantum theories to larger objects that QM does not cover, you can start seeing some inconsistencies that are large enough to be observable. bpth theories describe the state of objects at a given time, but of small and larger sizes (QM and relativity). this is just 1 case though. Good. Now you have to understand how QM applies to consciousness. Enter the Orch OR theory of Penrose and Hammeroff; it is a scientific hypothesis about mind which invokes QM and it has not been defeated thus far. To understand philosophy of mind (which is really just metaphysics of mind), the first step is to realize that the materialist, reductionist framework cannot apply; this follows immediately from the Orch OR hypothesis since it can be readily seen that feelings ("qualia") came BEFORE the brain; apparently even a single-cell organism (paramecium) has rudimentary feelings and is capable of some clever behavior; according to the hypothesis, this is a result of QM interactions with the microtubules. This hypothesis has a track record and understanding it presents the most viable solution to the hard problem of consciousness. I linked to an explanation by Hammeroff and will link it again, and it is advised to follow the relevant links to understand the argument; the comments are a good read too! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stuart-hameroff/more-rational-than-thou-a_b_7515498.htmlIt is also VERY interesting to note the correspondence between the human experience of NDE and the "quirky" principles of quantum physics: http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a22More information about QM's link to the mind was posted here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg11835498#msg11835498And that is just getting started. If you wanted to apply QM to consciousness via String Theory, you would see that the whole universe has consciousness. The question is, does God have consciousness outside of the universe (remember, universe means everything)? |
|
|
|
Now, look at the points you made above. Most of them are points about your religion. They are your doctrines. The more you emphasize them, the stronger your religion becomes. Notice in the definitions, #6, below. From Dictionary.com at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?s=t: religion
[ri-lij-uh n]
noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:
a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.:
to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites:
painted priests performing religions deep into the night.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion:
a religion to one's vow.
EDIT: Besides, saying the truth isn't ad hominem. What are the points I made that are religious in nature? All I wrote is that I have no opinion about the existence of gods, and that I find the whole idea pointless and boring. I don't think about the topic at all, unless I'm faced with someone trying to tell me what I should believe. How is that a religion? It does not fit any of your dictionary's eight points. You forgot to read the little line that I said, pointing at the definition of the word religion. Read number 6 in the definition of religion quoted above. It says, "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice." Don't take my word for it. Go to the link and look up the definition for yourself. The fact that you are constantly explaining and defending what you believe - it doesn't matter what it is - shows that you have religion. If you happen to include some of the other definition points in your religious beliefs, your religion is even stronger. |
|
|
|
More than 95% accurate, this early detection cancer test could save your life without the risk of radiological screenings One of the greatest tools in beating cancer is early detection, and no, this does not mean you should include radiological imaging as part of your annual checkup, as that can cause more cancer.
However, a little known test called the AMAS test, or the Anti-Malignan Antibody Serum test, is incredibly beneficial for cancer screening and monitoring. The best part? It's relatively inexpensive and over 95% accurate.
Developed by the brainchild of neurochemist Samuel Bogoch, M.D., Ph.D., the AMAS test "definitively determines whether or not cancer is present" by testing for anti-malignin antibodies, which are produced by all cancers. Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/052380_AMAS_testing_GcMAF_cancer_detection.html
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
