| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
| |||||||
 CACA veteran Registered: 07/12/01 Posts: 1,122 Last seen: 24 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
and about the "no falsehood", jared: if you understood why it was true, you wouldn't be asking it and there isn't a single truthful way other than that to look at this situation. if you understood why this was true, you would know why. bah i have to go..
My head is hurting.. DO CACA! -------------------- "I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing." John 15:5
| |||||||
 Pynchon Slow Learner  Registered: 04/28/01 Posts: 578 Loc: New Zealand |
| ||||||
|
hubertd8,
I agree that religion never directly started a war, however it hardly discourages it...sure, the words in any religious document can be twisted, no matter how noble its intentions are...but religion usually attracts the sort of people who make a hobby of twisting words. People follow the preacher, and if we can't judge a religion by the people who preach it, what can we judge it by? "I think you're picking on christianity a bit much, rel. existed before this god kid showed up"...well, yeah. I didn't mention christianity I don't think, and I wasn't intending to limit "this god kid" to yaweh/jehovah... As far as to why people might be less-inclined to violence if we no longer believed in an after-life, I dunno, maybe we'd value life a bit more..? Or maybe it would make no difference at all...faith hasn't historically been much of a shield against violence, you have to admit.
| |||||||
|
hubertd8 Pooh-Bah  Registered: 07/13/00 Posts: 821 Loc: springfield Last seen: 15 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
"People follow the preacher, and if we can't judge a religion by the people who preach it, what can we judge it by? "
not everyone, i am a christian, but i really don't believe in priests/preachers, my view is that they are people just like everyone else, so how can they enlighten me? I have a mind of my own and will interpret the bible and what not in my own way. Every time someone passes down knowledge in there own interpretation there tends to be some loss of meaning and/or key aspects(perhaps the previous person didn't see them as anything relavent). So my take on it is everyone should interpret it in there own way and not really pay attention to preachers. ""I think you're picking on christianity a bit much, rel. existed before this god kid showed up"...well, yeah. I didn't mention christianity I don't think, and I wasn't intending to limit "this god kid" to yaweh/jehovah... " well maybe not but its a common tendancy here and most places to pick on christianity, mainly because these individuals have never been exposed to any other rel. "faith hasn't historically been much of a shield against violence, you have to admit." maybe you meant to say Religion instead of faith and in that case i'll agree. Usually i don't jump into arguements concerning rel. because i don't mind people having there own takes on it. But when a person like aluminum_can tries to bitch at something he knows nothing about i get kinda pissed off. He basically tries to get att. since many stopped paying att to him in the other forums he tries his hand here. -------------------- "There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." Bertrand Russell
| |||||||
|
CACA veteran Registered: 07/12/01 Posts: 1,122 Last seen: 24 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
actually, pynchon, religion HAS directly started wars. there is a "holy war" going on right now for Jerusalem and the Muslims believe that the only way to show that they are true Muslims is to fight, conquer and destroy until they get all the land "back" from the Israelites.
My head is hurting.. DO CACA! -------------------- "I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing." John 15:5
| |||||||
|
ArCh_TemPlaR enthusiast Registered: 07/15/01 Posts: 200 Last seen: 24 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
In reply to: It would be crucial you specify which religion you are ranting about. It shows how weak your argument is from the beginning of your statement. In reply to: You're wacked. I don't entirely trust the Bible's infallible (as most Christians say) testament of Truth. The day I do is when it removes the concept God. In reply to: It's not imaginary. There is a difference between illusions and beliefs. One, what you think is real is not a reality outside the realm of your mind, without any pursuit of evidence. ^hint ^ hint The other is the common ground of one's thinking that's on the same line as others in the world: same school of thought. In reply to: A crutch. In reply to: Ah, the devil speaks. In reply to: Bwahaha. :o) Why don't you try applying your theory? You will see how quickly it'll crumble before the complexity of Past Life Regression Theory and Therapy. The concept of nothingness is baseless in academic science AND esoteric science. In reply to: The quintessential teachings [if I can call it that] of the Jesus' words is cultivation of love, compassion, kindness, and transformation of spirit. That is it. No more and no less. The path in reaching Perfection is more important than Perfection itself. Those are the words I see across all mystical systems: from Tao, Christainity, to Buddhist teachings. In reply to: It has already been proven across Tibetan buddhist teachings of afterlife: it does not end like you think it does. I even met people who knew their past lives existed and how it reflected in their current lives. As for your cynical arguments, I say this: Some of us are born spiritually poverished and need a manual to cultivate it. Unfortunately, some manuals are questionable by opinions, by evidence, and by facts. But there will be the few ones out there worth DYING for. Sun. The scientific community says that the chances of creation of life on Earth had to be perfect. Basically, what they are alluding is: the evolution of humans did not come by mere fluke. hey, you got to be genuine thats the name of this game. if you're real, then you aint got nothing to worry about, but if youre synthetic then starting tomorrow you're balls come off! I was once like you, bashing the Christian religion for it's failings and discrepancies, when I failed to see the obvious problem of all: Me.
| |||||||
|
ArCh_TemPlaR enthusiast Registered: 07/15/01 Posts: 200 Last seen: 24 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
In reply to: About Revelations? When you experience Revelations, that will be the truth.
| |||||||
|
Jared Stranger  Registered: 04/22/01 Posts: 8,783 |
| ||||||
|
Wicked post man... Wicked; I've never seen someone pick apart someone's post so intricatly. Bravo.
"When you experience Revelations, that will be the truth. " Word. Go here : http://jsr.hobbiton.org
| |||||||
|
Phyl old hand Registered: 01/17/00 Posts: 597 Loc: United Kingdom Last seen: 16 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
|
i dont believe in religion
That's nice, but what do you actually mean by that? Religion is a building block to base your beliefs on. Whether you choose Christianity, Bhuddism, Paganism, Science, or anything else then this is your religion. You seem very stuck on the fact that religion = Christianity, but this simply isn't true. Just as a christian bases their beliefs on the bible, a scientist can base their beliefs on scientific fact, and IMHO both are valid religions. something made to make people feel good about themselves and keep themselves from breaking rules This is something organised religion has become through corruption and greed. This is not why religions were created, but a product of our political system. Religions were created to help provide answers to the unanswerable questions of life and existance. before you are born youre nothing, your brain hasent devoloped and theres nothing. you dont exist yet. thats how it is when you die. theres nothing. you dont exist anymore If this is your view, then fine, but please do not present this as being the ultimate truth, as you do not know this. What happens after death is an area that current science simply cannot venture into, and your beliefs have to be based either on your own faith, or your own experiences. You could very well be correct on this issue, but so could the christans, or the buddhists. We simply have no way of knowing. right now youre probably thinking "well mister smarty pants aluminum can, how were we created?" well i have perfect explination for that. the sun The sun created life? What is that supposed to mean? The sun shone on a rock, and all of a sudden there was moss on it? Where did the moss come from? It didn't come out of the sun... Also what created the sun? Scientists tend to use the big bang theory to explain creation, but this theory is full of huge holes. I mean how can nothing explode? If there is no space and no time, where and when can the explosion take place? IMHO science is great for explaining the world that we can perceive, and as such has allowed great advances in human evolution, but no scientific theories. Even the most basic theories such as Einsteins theory of relativity fall apart under certain situations. Many new scientific discoveries are even more bizarre. Some of the theories of quantum physics and string theory now throw questions into every single area of science. This is where religion or faith comes into the equation. If science was able to answer all the questions, then there would be no need for religion, but whilst it cannot then religion is needed to fill in the gaps. Take care Phil
| |||||||
|
Kid Carpal Tunnel Registered: 07/21/00 Posts: 2,365 |
| ||||||
|
> Bwahaha. :o) Why don't you try applying your theory? You will see how quickly it'll crumble before the complexity of Past Life Regression Theory and Therapy. The concept of nothingness is baseless in academic science AND esoteric science.
The concept of nothingness in NOT entirely baseless in science or philosophy. Scientists and philosophers are probably always asking themselves 'what was there before something?' 'why is there even something?' I guess you can say nothingness is baseless because that's exactly what it is: nothing. You can't simply state that it's invalid. Past life regression? You really believe in that shit? Let's play the 'just suppose' game: Suppose at some point in the future humans can be taken apart and put back together (like lego). So, for instance, I can take person X apart and take person Y apart and mix them together to make person Z, and discard the rest. Who is person Z? Or suppose I can take X and Y apart and mix them and create persons A and B. Who are A and B? are they X and Y? Now, think of a tree. You know what a tree is and you consider it a tree when it is alive. When it is dead, it is not longer a tree. Correct? Consider now that the tree has died, the next day a dandelion has grown. Can the tree now possibly be the dandelion? Now at this point you'll probably want to rebutt by saying that "souls" are made up inmaterial substances. This brings up all of the problems of Cartesian dualism (seperating mind from body), especially in the areas of sensation and free will. If you want to insist that mind and body are seperate and that souls are eternal and for whatever reason progress from human to human, for whatever absurd reason, I suggest we start a new thread. Or to put my point simply, past life regression is a crock of shit! > The scientific community says that the chances of creation of life on Earth had to be perfect. Yes, by definition, effect must have a cause. Thus, the effect is perfect for the cause, by your word use. > Basically, what they are alluding is: the evolution of humans did not come by mere fluke. That's how you take it. Based on various cosmological variables, the chances for life occuring in the universe are estimated at 1 in 10 to 10^25 (ten with 25 zeros following), against. It's probability. Really, nobody knows.
| |||||||
|
Kid Carpal Tunnel Registered: 07/21/00 Posts: 2,365 |
| ||||||
|
> something made to make people feel good about themselves and keep themselves from breaking rules
This is something organised religion has become through corruption and greed. Philosophy is created to answer the questions of existence. Religion seems to fulfil a human need for ceremony. > Scientists tend to use the big bang theory to explain creation, but this theory is full of huge holes. I mean how can nothing explode? If there is no space and no time, where and when can the explosion take place? Scientists will admit that the theory of the big bang does not explain the *creation* of the universe. It explains the very earlies stages of the universe. Most scientists will admit that even science's most grand theories can't explain WHY anything exists! > This is where religion or faith comes into the equation. If science was able to answer all the questions, then there would be no need for religion, but whilst it cannot then religion is needed to fill in the gaps. People continue to hold religious beliefs that contradict scientific evidence.
| |||||||
|
Phyl old hand Registered: 01/17/00 Posts: 597 Loc: United Kingdom Last seen: 16 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
|
Philosophy is created to answer the questions of existence. Religion seems to fulfil a human need for ceremony.
Philosophy in it's self does not answer the questions of existance. When based upon religion, philosophy can expand and evolve the religion, but it ultimately is peoples religions that answer the questions of existance. Religion doesn't have to be about ceremony. Worship is about ceremony, but if your religion doesn't involve worship then ceremony would be useless. Scientists will admit that the theory of the big bang does not explain the *creation* of the universe. It explains the very earlies stages of the universe. Most scientists will admit that even science's most grand theories can't explain WHY anything exists! Which is exactly my point. Many people have a need to answer these fundamental questions, and if science is unable to provide these, but religion can, then obviously they will turn to religion. People continue to hold religious beliefs that contradict scientific evidence. Such as? In many cases science contradicts science.
| |||||||
|
Phyl old hand Registered: 01/17/00 Posts: 597 Loc: United Kingdom Last seen: 16 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
|
I guess you can say nothingness is baseless because that's exactly what it is: nothing. You can't simply state that it's invalid.
Absoloute nothing is an abstract concept just as infinity. Neither can really exist and are just used for convenience. Past life regression? You really believe in that shit? What evidence do you have that reincarnation doesn't exist? There is quite a large ammount of evidence that supports peoples claims of previous lives, however mainstream science will never accept reincarnation as valid, as it is impossible to collect material evidence of it. Based on various cosmological variables, the chances for life occuring in the universe are estimated at 1 in 10 to 10^25 (ten with 25 zeros following), against. It's probability. Really, nobody knows. What idiot made up the equation to work this out. As we have not found evidence of life on any other planet, we simply cannot make such a calculation without making most of it up as we go along.
| |||||||
|
Kid Carpal Tunnel Registered: 07/21/00 Posts: 2,365 |
| ||||||
|
> Philosophy in it's self does not answer the questions of existance.
Philosophy attempts to answer the mysteries of existence. Religion is a system of beliefs; to believe is to take something as true; to take something as true always requires some amount of faith. Philosophy is concerned with knowledge; yes, it requires faith, but philosophy itself is not systematized belief. > Many people have a need to answer these fundamental questions, and if science is unable to provide these, but religion can, then obviously they will turn to religion. Or why not accept that there still are mysteries? I do. Or why not come up with your own answers? The "so many people can't be wrong" argument is silly: either way you slice it a lot of people are wrong (as different religions do contradict each other). > Such as? That miracles occur. Science simply denies that a human could turn water in to wine; could walk on water, etc. Science denies that people can reliably predict the future (Revelations). > In many cases science contradicts science. Such as?
| |||||||
|
Beatnik addict Registered: 12/18/00 Posts: 241 Loc: Australia Last seen: 24 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
Im coming in a bit late but still.... im not a christian, but i believe that the bible was meant to make people think about their lives, what it all means, as well as a guide book to live by. But all the people then were basicly un-educated peasants who lived very superstitious and hard lives, so the bible was written the way it was in such a way to make it easier for them to grasp, this is where all that shit about mary being a virgin, and the storys etc, but if studied hard could be broken down into "chunks" the core of christian belief. I believe the core is essentially good, and usefull to everyone, i dont believe that it is unique to christianity but basicly human truths. Unfortunately some people took it way to far, hense all the attrocities commited in by the followers.
You said: "something made to make people feel good about themselves and keep themselves from breaking rules " What is wrong with that? i like to feel good. Those peasants lived extremly harsh lives. Your life is heaven compared to theres, somone could do ANYTHING to you and get away with it. Life expectancy was so low, you had to watch everyone you loved die because of disease, beatings, starvation, rape, etc Making them feel good is one of the only gifts that could be given them that was worth anything. As far as following rules, if everyone followed the same belief to the letter, and it was the "only" belief then nothing would be wrong. the same for any other belief. while many people died because of christianity, imagine how many would have been saved if all those christians followed the ten commandments? The problems didnt stem from the bible, they stemmed from the humans reading it. Im not a religious person, but i have studied religeon and am trying to find the "core" of each of them, so far they are not that different from each other, but studying even one religeon is a huge undertaking, so this will take a while. My suggestion is forget the humans, looking past the padding, find the core, then take bruce lees advice, find whats good for you and adopt it, sofar you seem to be getting stuck at the first bit. Support the FSR! or the smilie gets it! 
| |||||||
|
Kid Carpal Tunnel Registered: 07/21/00 Posts: 2,365 |
| ||||||
|
> Absoloute nothing is an abstract concept just as infinity. Neither can really exist and are just used for convenience.
Just as God is an abstract concept, yet funny that Anselm used this abstract concept in the Ontological argument to "prove" God's existence. Obviously nothing cannot exist, for once it has existed, is it not something? Nothing is the absence of anything, but then in saying that have I not just stated that nothing is something (that something being an absense)? You're forgetting a very basic premise: EXISTENCE IS NOT A PREDICATE. I also ask you, by signifying nothing with the word "nothing" what are you signifying? Why can't something which is signified possibly exist? As for infinity, in my reading of the Ontological argument, God is infinity (meaning that what I consider to exist as God based on that argument is infinity). > What evidence do you have that reincarnation doesn't exist? You read my examples yes, on identity? I simply have basic problems with separating mind and body. What's the point of inserting a mind into a brain? The brain would function fine on its own, and the human would act the same with the brain right? Or does the mind interfere because it has free will? So then the mind interferes with the natural laws of nature? I don't have any evidence that it doesn't exist, but the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absense. Just as you have no evidence that it does exist. > There is quite a large ammount of evidence that supports peoples claims of previous lives, however mainstream science will never accept reincarnation as valid, as it is impossible to collect material evidence of it. You realize you contradicted yourself. Here's what you said, "There's quite a lot of evidence... [but] it is impossible to collect material evidence..." Unless you're saying you have immaterial evidence? Which means what? It means people imagined stuff. > What idiot made up the equation to work this out. As we have not found evidence of life on any other planet, we simply cannot make such a calculation without making most of it up as we go along. Actually they've found evidence that life may have existed on Mars.
| |||||||
|
Phyl old hand Registered: 01/17/00 Posts: 597 Loc: United Kingdom Last seen: 16 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
|
Just as God is an abstract concept, yet funny that Anselm used this abstract concept in the Ontological argument to "prove" God's existence.
God is not an abstract concept in the same way as Infinity or Absoloute nothing, as there is a possibility god may exist. Absoloute nothing and infinity by definition cannot exist. As for infinity, in my reading of the Ontological argument, God is infinity (meaning that what I consider to exist as God based on that argument is infinity). I don't believe that god is infinite (I don't actually he exists in the orthodox form). He is omnipotent, but this is very different from infinite. If god were infinite then we would be god. I don't have any evidence that it doesn't exist, but the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absense. Just as you have no evidence that it does exist. So you don't have evidence, just opinion. This is what any debate on science vs religion comes down to. People have different opinions, and ultimately neither side can prove themselves right or wrong. You realize you contradicted yourself. Here's what you said, "There's quite a lot of evidence... [but] it is impossible to collect material evidence..." Unless you're saying you have immaterial evidence? Which means what? It means people imagined stuff. Circumstancial evidence. People have described events from past lives, only to have these later confirmed by historians. People have described buildings, and archeologists have then excavated the location and found exactly what the person recalled. None of this evidence will be accepted by science as it's not 'material' evidence, and cannot be repeated at will. Yes it could be imagined, or just lucky, but I think the chances of that are pretty slim...
| |||||||
|
Kid Carpal Tunnel Registered: 07/21/00 Posts: 2,365 |
| ||||||
|
> God is not an abstract concept in the same way as Infinity or Absoloute nothing, as there is a possibility god may exist. Absoloute nothing and infinity by definition cannot exist.
Anselm uses the definition that God is that which no greater can be conceived. Greater makes the concept abstract. Absolute nothing and infinity have nothing in their definition that says anything about existing. Zero (nothing) exists, as well as infinity does in math. Again, existence is not a predicate. You can't define something with "it exists". > People have described events from past lives, only to have these later confirmed by historians. I'd like to see one report on this.
| |||||||
|
Phyl old hand Registered: 01/17/00 Posts: 597 Loc: United Kingdom Last seen: 16 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
|
Or why not accept that there still are mysteries? I do.
I do too. I do not assume that any religion (Including science) can supply definitive answers to everything. Unless I have proof in the form of my own experiences, I find it difficult to accept anything whether faith or science based. Or why not come up with your own answers? I do. I am very religious, but I do not follow any of the orthodox religions.. I doubt there is a single other person on the plant who has the same beliefs that I do. The "so many people can't be wrong" argument is silly: either way you slice it a lot of people are wrong (as different religions do contradict each other). This is largely irrelivent as the ultimate truth will become apparent after we die. No-one is claiming that all religions are correct. Religions guide us through life, and each offers their own opinions on death. That miracles occur. Science simply denies that a human could turn water in to wine; could walk on water, etc. Science denies that people can reliably predict the future (Revelations). I have my doubts about the miracles. Like I said, I'm not christian. Having said that though, science used to deny that it was possible to travel faster than the speed of sound, That man could walk on the moon and that life could exist without light. All of these have now been proved. I have also seen many of the 'miracles' performed extremely realistically by illusionists. As for predicting the future, I don't believe science has proved this. Scientific opinion is that it is not possible, but this has not been proved either way. Such as? Virtually all scientific theories colapse in extremes. I don't have any specific examples to hand, but I have them at home and will post them later if you are interested. Quantum physics questions the very nature of reality, in that it says everything jumps continuously between states of existance and non-existance, so nothing truely exists. Quantum mechanics has also proved that we must inhabit a world consisting of 11 separate dimensions, however we are only aware of 3 of them (Possibly 4 if you include time as a dimension, although this is pretty controversial). In experiments involving high speed-collisions of sub stomic particles, it has been proven that the act of observing the experiment has a direct influence over the results. These three things alone go against many of the fundamental ideas of physics.
| |||||||
|
Kid Carpal Tunnel Registered: 07/21/00 Posts: 2,365 |
| ||||||
|
>Or why not come up with your own answers?
I do. I am very religious, but I do not follow any of the orthodox religions.. I doubt there is a single other person on the plant who has the same beliefs that I do. That's NOT a religion. That is your own belief system. A religion is a formalized expression of belief. > irtually all scientific theories colapse in extremes. I don't have any specific examples to hand, but I have them at home and will post them later if you are interested. And virtually all religous theories collapse at a superficial glance. > Quantum mechanics has also proved that we must inhabit a world consisting of 11 separate dimensions, however we are only aware of 3 of them (Possibly 4 if you include time as a dimension, although this is pretty controversial). That is not quantuum mechanics NOR is it prooved at this point. That is *string theory* and there is far from enough evidence to support it, though it seems to fit the bill. > In experiments involving high speed-collisions of sub stomic particles, it has been proven that the act of observing the experiment has a direct influence over the results. You don't need a partical accelerator to figure out Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. > These three things alone go against many of the fundamental ideas of physics. They go against the *CLASSICAL* ideas of physics (eg/ newtonian physics) and are used to describe extremely small states (Plank scale). At this point quantuum physics is incompatible with special relativity (large scale physics). String theory (the 11/12 dimension theory, 3 extended, 1 time, and 7 or 8 "wrapped up" in a torus shape) promises to bridge that gap. A theory beyond string theory is being glimpsed at even though string theory is far from complete; it is called M-Theory.
| |||||||
|
ArCh_TemPlaR enthusiast Registered: 07/15/01 Posts: 200 Last seen: 24 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
In reply to: Have you ever heard of theories based on nothingness? Buddhist traditions have attempted to address it but is acutely too abstract and convoluted. That is basically what nothingness comes down to: circular interpretations of creation when we have not the capability to understand even ourselves, in particular. It's a subject that equates to the quest for God. The word 'invalid' has greater emphasis than what is lightly meant by baseless, but the meanings are the same: a subject without basis of reason or fact. Or it means a subject is not factually valid. So does Nothingness have any facts? Based on collective reasoning of all philosophers? In reply to: This is a slanted algorithmic logic problem. You're entire argument is based on genetic engineering , DNA sequencing and cloning, and cryogenics! At best, your questions could be bridge with Past Life Regression: when a person retrieves his or her past lives, it might not be entirely their past live memories they are collecting. A collection of lives bridged by one soul. *** I have yet to determine where exactly the soul exists at all on the consciousness hierachy. *** I have yet to understand fully why people have such different and contrasting past lives and concurrent ones - so I cannot offer much depth to my answers. It is based from what I know and what I heard from talking to actual people with Past Life experiences. In reply to: It is still a tree. There is no separation of identification. If the tree stops to serve a function for nature, it will continue to serve another function after one of its transition in life: death. The tree becomes part of the dandelion. Just as an old man dies and is buried, his decomposition will provide nutrients for the earth's soil to furthur nurture growth and life. Thus, the endless cycle of life and death in its complexity as one. In reply to: Souls. It is immaterial to the majority of our physical senses. We are not trained and most of us are not gifted enough to see higher vibrating light (souls) that are energy fields. *** There was time of emotional cyclones that I broke hold of believing one possessing it: our soul is our Guardian, but we do not possess it. It is not ours to control and to own. Until you have gained the bloody tears of discipline and sacrifce, *it* will stay immaterial and unimportant to you. Mind. What is it? a vessel of prethoughts and thoughts that cannot discriminate from good, bad, negative, positive, evil, bad, etc el.. One must train and discipline it. The mind is not yours, control of it is an illusion. Body. A vessel that viscerally shows what suffering, pain, and despair means, so one could savor the happiness, peace, and bliss in the present journey of life. *** I don't insist on anything but ask to engage in exploration and investigation before spewing out self-manifested, mentally suffocating perceptions. I never hinted any idea about eternal life of souls. What I imply is a pattern of continuation of life in death and in birth. Personally, I haven't gather enough information to form any kind of belief structure. I seek out of curiosity because I have an inquiring mind and as a reflex thinker based on progress and learning Just as physics explain the machinery and the mechanics of how this world functions, so does esoteric physics. Can physics explain why such laws exist? No. It just is. In reply to: That took alot of intelligence to spew out. :o) Have you explored the subject in depth enough to voiced such an ego-angst opinion? Why don't you try taking up your argument with the Tibetan tradition, a system well-versed in theory and application on Past Lives Regression. You will be pitted against wisdom, knowledge, and secrets spanning thousands of years. Do you have that experience? No. FYI, most likely useless tidbit, I've met two people whose past lives were of Tibetan masters/buddhists. In reply to: Quantum Cosmology?? In reply to: It's agreeable. :P Lastly, I leave this quote: "The snake that cannot shed its skin perishes. So too with the minds who are prevented from changing their views; they cease to be minds." What does that mean to you? Peace
| |||||||
| |||||||
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
The relationship between drugs and religion |  manna_man |
2,324 | 10 | 04/28/23 04:00 PM by Cory Duchesne |
|
|
What is philosophy? / Have you studied academic philosophy? *DELETED* *DELETED* (  1 2 all ) |
 Lakefingers |
5,252 | 35 | 11/15/05 11:01 AM by CosmicJoke |
|
|
Gods and religion are different and seperate. ( 1 2 all ) |
 Visionary Tools |
3,476 | 36 | 10/28/07 03:02 PM by Silversoul |
|
|
Eastern Religions XI: Warring State Thinkers: Zhuangzi |  Kremlin |
1,024 | 4 | 11/13/03 10:54 PM by Kremlin |
|
 |
Science isn't philosiphy?!?!?! ( 1 2 all ) |
 gluke bastid |
3,207 | 36 | 10/11/02 08:32 AM by Anonymous |
|
|
Is Islam a tolerant religion? ( 1 2 all ) |
mirrorsaw |
5,587 | 31 | 08/18/02 12:23 PM by Anonymous |
|
|
Eastern Religions IV: Vedism | Kremlin |
723 | 1 | 11/05/03 05:15 AM by Spokesman |
|
|
More questions about Religion ( 1 2 all ) |
shroom-girlie |
4,179 | 24 | 08/07/01 10:50 AM by CosmicJoke |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum 10,470 topic views. 0 members, 177 guests and 20 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||