Do you pray? Why?

[tizz]

I am not athiest by anymeans and I believe agnostic is simply a definition used to describe those that do not follow organized religion. I am not by definition wither. I believe deeply ina higher being but also acknowledge that it's existence is truly beyond my comprehension and always will be. I do not generally seek to understand god just to understand his presence here and use what tools have been given to lead a better life. As for rational thought and free will, sometimes I think that is not a gift but a challenge to overcome and force us to actually understand and achnowledge our choices as our own. this goes along with a beliefe in a reincarnation of sorts. I actually believe the "beasts" have overcome this challenge and can guide to see how to make better choices if you watch closley enough. What it comes down to is I believe that all answers lie in nature and it just takes time and the ability to view all perspectives to find those answers. God would not drop us here without some sort of guide book that is universal to all beings. The holy books are simply man's perspective given in man's language. Nature on the other hand is the only completely universal concept on earth.

[ALLAH IS GREAT]

'Are you sure about that?'

Absolutely,100%

 

'Could it be that nature existed and god saw a way to manipulate it just enough to creat our planet?'

NO.

 

'And to clarify are we saying nature in the global sense or the universal?

'

 

Darling,before each and every speck of sand God existed.

[tizz]

OK those are simple answers, care to back them up? If just for teh sake of debate?

 

Why are you sure?

 

And why is it impossible that god did not see nature existing and choose to manipulate it in such a way that it would support life?

 

 

To clirify here, I believe god is the greater existence that accurs when you have the sum of all parts. It is that unexp[lainable energy that exists and grown withe the combination of parts, this is why god seems to exists stroinger when many people come together and create a stronger energy.

 

OK now it's your turn. Explain yourself

[MR. DR.]

to ALLAH IS GREAT: I do believe in a kind of afterlife, albeit one that exists here on Earth. Those who do good are remembered througout time as shining exaples of the inherent goodness that is people. Martin Luther King Jr. is an example of this, even though he was an adulterer, he is only rmembered for the good things that he did. That reputation will never die(Heaven). Those who are wicked are remembered for their wickedness. Their names become hated and are synonymous with all that is evil. For example, any German youth given the name Adolf will be universally loathed, even if he is not a bad person. Even if Hitler did do some good, that good was eclipsed by his wickedness. His name is synonymous with evil and is permanently tainted (Hell).

[MR. DR.]

TIZZ you sound like a Deist in denial

[tizz]

I suppose kind of but not quite. I have spent many years trying to define what it is a believe but there doesn't seem to be any definition for me just the ones people assume about me. I suppose deist could be used in a pinch but still not quite it. I don't follow any particular definition just kind of let it be. My beliefes grow and change a bit as I get older and exzperience more of life. Actually change is not the right word so I will stick with grow here. I don't read up about religions or concepts that look good, I really just let my heart and mind come up with it. I believe the energy of god exists in us all and if you are able to allow it, that energy will just kind of let you know when you are on the right track. Simple I know but I don't believe the whole thing is quite as complicated as people want it to be. That is part of that rational thought that seems to screw us all up. Too much freaking thought!! LOL

[Jhony5]

'1) What did god make the universe from?

2)Was it always there, or did he make that?

3)If god made that, what did he make it out of?

4)Was it always there, or did he make that too......etc.

 

To walk out of the boundaries of Hawkings' pshyical science and assume an entity created the first piece of matter and set it into motion raises one question after another and another and infinity, which defies logical science.'

 

Science is something assumed by humans.

The scientific exlanation for the formation of the universe is 'the big bang'

This is the most stupid theory ever,but I'm willing to understand,so fire away your version of the creation of the universe and what it's made of.I'll be honest I can't answer the questions you listed,'cause God didn't disclose this information to us.

 

Science is only assumed when held in the context of theory and hypothosis. Once a theory is proved using known control factors it then becomes fact. We know that water is a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen. This is not an assumed theory, but rather a proven fact. There is no way to use science to definitivly show that god does or does not exist. Science however, can disprove many of the original biblical assertions about our universe. In short the bible stated many "facts" about the earth itself that have long been shot to pieces by known scientific fact. Carbon dating alone has made a mochery of many of the bibles claims. And if one can find such grevious errors in the bible than it goes towards the overall validity of any of the assertions made in biblical times.

 

As for the Qu'ran. There is alot of science in the Qu'ran as explained by Mohamed. Incomplete listings of minerals and other natural components can be found in the Qu'ran. Some of it is flawed but it is, none the less, a part of their teachings.

[tizz]

johny I just have to tell you that though I firmly believe that the holy books are great observations though extremely DATED!!! and I believe them to be nothing more than man's observations, be careful using carbondating as a proof for your side of it. Man is that a flawed practice. Just a little tip because you will see that come back in your face if you try it withteh wrong person LOL. Carbon dating is getting quite dated itself HEHE

[Jhony5]

johny I just have to tell you that though I firmly believe that the holy books are great observations though extremely DATED!!! and I believe them to be nothing more than man's observations, be careful using carbondating as a proof for your side of it. Man is that a flawed practice. Just a little tip because you will see that come back in your face if you try it withteh wrong person LOL. Carbon dating is getting quite dated itself HEHE

 

True, science re-invents itself and also disproves previously held ideas. Carbon dating has been refined and will continue to get more accurate as time goes on.

 

The bible, in a historical sense, must be kept within the confines of the region from which it originated. Lets discuss the "great flood" that reportedly engulfed the earth. It is true that around the time of this being written that there was a great flood. It was a massive flooding of the dead sea which swallowed much of that region. So to an ancient people it would seem as though the earth itself had been drowned in the ocean. But that was not the reported word of god (remember, god is omnipotent) The word of god said that it was the entire earth that was flooded. We know now that this absolutly did not happen. We know this from the very sound scientific principal of sedimentary layering theat occurs when water and solid matter come into contact with each other. From this we know that if there was a flood at this time in history, it would have left its fingerprint.

 

Lets not forget Pangia. For those of you who don't know, Pangia is the original world map where all the continents were touching. Christians have attacked this theory since its inception. In order for Pangia to have been so, the earth would have to be millions/billions of years old. Look at the east coast of Africa. It fits with precision with the west coast of Eurasia.

My thoughts on the bible. If it looks like bullshit and it sounds like bullshit, then it probably is bullshit.

[tizz]

OK so a flodd did not cover the earth but then how is it that around the same time the myans believe that their area of teh world was also flooded and have their own noah stories there? When you study any given religion and look into it's actual history, you are always best to study other religions and cultures of the same period and never discount oral histories. Anthropolgists are discovering now that oral histories are far more acurate than written ones. Also the single continent theories are still just that, theories. Becareful not to rely too heavily on science simply because it disproves what you choose not to believe in. Personally I look more to science than religion but also know that religion carries with it often very accurate history even if it is geographically specific. There is a fine line between the two and if you look at both closely you will see more truth in the two combine than wither one seperately.

[Jhony5]

OK so a flodd did not cover the earth but then how is it that around the same time the myans believe that their area of teh world was also flooded and have their own noah stories there? When you study any given religion and look into it's actual history, you are always best to study other religions and cultures of the same period and never discount oral histories. Anthropolgists are discovering now that oral histories are far more acurate than written ones. Also the single continent theories are still just that, theories. Becareful not to rely too heavily on science simply because it disproves what you choose not to believe in. Personally I look more to science than religion but also know that religion carries with it often very accurate history even if it is geographically specific. There is a fine line between the two and if you look at both closely you will see more truth in the two combine than wither one seperately.

 

 

Europe kept some remarkably long standing recordings through both word-of-mouth and written text. No mention or proof of flooding was ever uncovered having taken place in europe.

 

Also the single continent theories are still just that, theories.

 

 

It is theoretical as to exactly what the earth looked like. However, by studying the movement of tectonic plates and mountain & valley formations we know that the earths land masses have been moving for millions of years. This is not guess work, rather proven fact.

[tizz]

Yes we know that they have been moving but we only assume they once touched. Always keep in mind what has been proven and what is simply assumed simply from that observation. Hell darwin though we came from apes!!! But then given what proof he had uncovered it wasn't a horrible theory but too many people assumed it fact when it was nothing but a simple theory based on the limited information he had available. Never go beyond what has been proven or you will most likely end up eating your words. Even science has finally figured that one out. LOL MR. neandertal hehe

[Jhony5]

Yes we know that they have been moving but we only assume they once touched. Always keep in mind what has been proven and what is simply assumed simply from that observation. Hell darwin though we came from apes!!! But then given what proof he had uncovered it wasn't a horrible theory but too many people assumed it fact when it was nothing but a simple theory based on the limited information he had available. Never go beyond what has been proven or you will most likely end up eating your words. Even science has finally figured that one out. LOL MR. neandertal hehe

 

 

Minerals that are indigenous to certain areas have been found on the coast of other continents. Strongly suggesting, even proving, that two land masses that are thousands of miles apart, did indeed at one point touch.

 

The theory of evolution is indeed a theory. I reject much of it as there is not solid evidence. Science does infer that this theory is strongly possible, as even today we can site examples of animals and man evolving. Examples that are inarguable fact.

[tizz]

Well the theories about human eveolution are just theories but the concept of evolution existing in nature is proven

[Crispy Critter]

 

Why? What scientific merit do you have for that assumption? Good and evil are laws of nature and subject to opinion as to what these terms are defined as.

 

 

I said

[Jhony5]

Posted by Crispy Critter: Do you believe that humans are born other than evil?

 

I'd say that the word evil is a little strong. I would think that humans are born nuetral. Like a sponge ready to absorb what they surrounded by. If they are surrounded by evil, then it is likely that that is what they will absorb. My dog knows nothing of religion. But she knows its wrong to shit on my floor. She feels guilty when she eats out of the trash. I don't even have to see what she did. You can see the guilt. In a sense this is her "moral code". If I had been evil to her from a pup then she would likely bit children and shit on my floor with no sense of guilt or "morals".

 

If two humans were left alone from infancy (nevermind how they ate or what not) to raise themselves without outside influences, how would they act towards each other? Wouldn't they instinctively know it is wrong to kill each other? Would they not have morals just because they were not taught morality?

[tizz]

I actually think it makes more sense that infants are born with a memory of universal knowledge that is easilt lost as they are introduced to whatever world they live in. But then that goes along with my beliefe in reincarnation and souls and such. Oh and I don't believe in evil

 

I know this is between Johny and crispy but I am bored and I hate being left out so there hehe

[Jhony5]

Reincarnation huh? Well its to early for me to get into that. Its a novel thought I guess, but it sounds like fantasy to me. Don't know what reason one could possibly have for believing that. I like to believe that when I die I'll live in heavenly bliss sitting next to a mountain of skunk buds while getting my dick sucked for all eternity. But that too is fantasy.

[tizz]

Well I don't believe in an infinite number of souls, nor do I believe that life on this planet is pointless. Without believeing in a seperate heaven and hell, I am led to believe that we are hear for the benefit of our souls and learning from experience. Therefore I come to the conclusion that we come back to get it right.

 

That's why I believe in reincarnation.

[Crispy Critter]

I'd say that the word evil is a little strong. I would think that humans are born nuetral. Like a sponge ready to absorb what they surrounded by. If they are surrounded by evil, then it is likely that that is what they will absorb.

 

If two humans were left alone from infancy (nevermind how they ate or what not) to raise themselves without outside influences, how would they act towards each other? Wouldn't they instinctively know it is wrong to kill each other? Would they not have morals just because they were not taught morality?

 

Perhaps a little strong saying evil but barbarian would fit nicely. Anthropologists have studied people in places not in contact with the outside world and that is why I conclude they would be barbarians. If everyone in a new generation would stop believing in god the world would not instantly turn barbarian. Morals would decline, work ethics would decline, and people would be more about self and would not want to be bothered by many moral laws. An outside force would witness the weakness that would prevail in the same way we viewed the American Indians when we arrived and they would defeat us and we would be no longer unless they allow us to exist.

 

I actually think it makes more sense that infants are born with a memory of universal knowledge that is easilt lost as they are introduced to whatever world they live in. But then that goes along with my beliefe in reincarnation and souls and such. Oh and I don't believe in evil

 

I know this is between Johny and crispy but I am bored and I hate being left out so there hehe

 

Babies are born cute and cuddly so their parents won

[tizz]

Spend a day in pre k??????? UM I spend ever day in pre k I teach preschool and daycare!!!

 

 

Evil may exist in a form but it is created by man through free will, not a natural phenomenon. Evil is also a subjective term.

 

And babies are all but cute and cuddly when they are born actually they are kind ofreaky looking and get cuter as they get older. If a three year old kis wasn't cute they's be out the window real fast. Trust me I have one and watch 6 others everyday.

 

As for us taking over the natives, are you saying they have nor moral laws or beliefe system? If so........ ARE YOU DAFT MAN?????????? They have a much stricter and defined moral code than any other western beliefe system and they don't justify doing wrong iin the na,me of some god. I hope I am confused as to what you are trying to say there

[Jhony5]

Perhaps a little strong saying evil but barbarian would fit nicely. Anthropologists have studied people in places not in contact with the outside world and that is why I conclude they would be barbarians. If everyone in a new generation would stop believing in god the world would not instantly turn barbarian. Morals would decline, work ethics would decline, and people would be more about self and would not want to be bothered by many moral laws. An outside force would witness the weakness that would prevail in the same way we viewed the American Indians when we arrived and they would defeat us and we would be no longer unless they allow us to exist.

 

 

 

Babies are born cute and cuddly so their parents won

[tizz]

There has never been a case of someone existing without any living contact. There are children raised by dogs who end up taking on the characteristics of teh dags yet still holding onto some basic human characteristics, and tribes such as the one found in machu pichu in the late '70's that had not experienced human contact of anykind outside of themselves or other tribes and therefore never influenced by the modern world.

 

I believe you will have to define what you mean by barbarian

[tizz]

I can understnad a piece of this definition but I believe you are missing the true understanding of the word here. Using the word barbarian to simply describe a primitive society is rarely used and hardly accepted.

 

bar

[Jhony5]

I can understnad a piece of this definition but I believe you are missing the true understanding of the word here. Using the word barbarian to simply describe a primitive society is rarely used and hardly accepted.

 

bar