Try to prove to me your religion.

[Taylor Seraphim]

Do you recognize the ongoing stream of rebirth? That is, like a river which is constantly changing, "you" are also in a constant state of flux and change, and that you are not the same as you were 7 years ago, much less 1 second ago?

Change tends to happen subtly overtime, which would not be a "rebirth".

 

[LuisDantas]

Wel if you compare it to philosophies like Buddhism, Daoism, Neo-Platonism, and Confucianism. You can see that they attempt to use logic as a starting point and faith is not a virtue.

And that is a good part of their merits.

In religions they try to use supernatural things as a starting point and more often than not faith is a virtue.

I don't adhere to that idea of what a religion is expected to be, personally.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Simply put, the Buddha's Way taught conformity to the laws of Reality as found throughout the "natural and supernatural" realms, so I see it as both a philosophy and religion, and more.

By definition something that is supernatural does not exist.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

And that is a good part of their merits.


I don't adhere to that idea of what a religion is expected to be, personally.

I was just showing some common tendencies, it is not how I define the two.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If thatis true then a person doing mostly good things still would ne d up with a mostly good life.

And that is not the case.

Please do not yell at me. I do not appreciate that. I read all of your posts. Please read all of mine. They answer your questions.

What which is true?

I gave you a full list of answers to all of your posts. Which are you talking about?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Please do not yell at me. I do not appreciate that. I read all of your posts. Please read all of mine. They answer your questions.

What which is true?

I gave you a full list of answers to all of your posts. Which are you talking about?

Your answers where not satisfactory

You keep saying that good actions bring good and bad actions bring bad.

So logically a person with mostly good actions will have a mostly good life.

But I have seen people who have had mostly good actions to have terrible lives.

Also my "yelling" is simply trying to get you to read my post. But it seems you read and can not/ do not want to understand.

 

[Corthos]

If thatis true then a person doing mostly good things still would ne d up with a mostly good life.

And that is not the case.

PLEASE READ THE ABOVE STATEMENT BEFORE RESPONDING.

Hmm... I'd be inclined to disagree. "More likely" doesn't mean "Guaranteed positive gain." And, I think it would be faulty to assume that physical gain is the only form of gain a person might get... Psyche plays a big part as well. =)

Someone who donates to Toys for Tots will feel good that the toys they donate will go towards kids who wouldn't have something to open for Christmas. When someone does a good deed for someone, they remember that and are more likely to return the deed in the future, or they may feel inspired to do something nice for someone else. Positive exertion in the world will more likely influence the world (or yourself) in a positive way.

When someone smokes meth, they are more likely to become addicted to it, and they are more likely to start down a self destructive path... And when people break their conscience, and do something they feel is wrong, they will damage their perceptions of themselves, incur a debt of guilt, or will simply tune out that inner compass... And when you do that, eventually it will stop guiding you altogether, and that will hinder your ability to interact with others in a cohesive way... which makes it more likely for someone to form a grudge against you. Negative exertion in the world will more likely influence the world (or yourself) in a negative way.

Is it guaranteed? No... But the decisions we make DO have consequences. =)

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Hmm... I'd be inclined to disagree. "More likely" doesn't mean "Guaranteed positive gain." And, I think it would be faulty to assume that physical gain is the only form of gain a person might get... Psyche plays a big part as well. =)

Someone who donates to Toys for Tots will feel good that the toys they donate will go towards kids who wouldn't have something to open for Christmas. When someone does a good deed for someone, they remember that and are more likely to return the deed in the future, or they may feel inspired to do something nice for someone else. Positive exertion in the world will more likely influence the world (or yourself) in a positive way.

When someone smokes meth, they are more likely to become addicted to it, and they are more likely to start down a self destructive path... And when people break their conscience, and do something they feel is wrong, they will damage their perceptions of themselves, incur a debt of guilt, or will simply tune out that inner compass... And when you do that, eventually it will stop guiding you altogether, and that will hinder your ability to interact with others in a cohesive way... which makes it more likely for someone to form a grudge against you. Negative exertion in the world will more likely influence the world (or yourself) in a negative way.

Is it guaranteed? No... But the decisions we make DO have consequences. =)

If we say someone is "more likely" but not always then it is an untestable claim meaning there is no way to prove or disprove it, meaning that if you believe it you are being irrational, which means that any philosophy or religion that would promote it is irrational.

 

[LuisDantas]

I was just showing some common tendencies, it is not how I define the two.

Don't you find that a bit unfair?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Your answers where not satisfactory

You keep saying that good actions bring good and bad actions bring bad.

So logically a person with mostly good actions will have a mostly good life.

But I have seen people who have had mostly good actions to have terrible lives.

Also my "yelling" is simply trying to get you to read my post. But it seems you read and can not/ do not want to understand.

In my answers, I said "that is not always the case".

I don't see it the way you do.

I see good with good and bad with bad.

I do not see good causing bad and bad causing good.

That does not mean illnesses, war, etc does not occur to good people. Nor does it mean happiness, salvation, and seeing their children after five years in prison does not occur for bad people.

It's a yin/yang, Lotus, balance.

Life can't exist without it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Your answers where not satisfactory

Also.

Like I said in the first two or three posts. What are you basing what you hear on (what do you define as true) to where you get answers that satisfy you?

What is the basis for you to receive satistaction for religions that you don't care to look into/experience?

 

[Corthos]

If we say someone is "more likely" but not always then it is an untestable claim meaning there is no way to prove or disprove it, meaning that if you believe it you are being irrational, which means that any philosophy or religion that would promote it is irrational.

?... But it IS observable in the real world. (Edit: Something being more or less likely doesn't mean it can't be tested. That is a fallacy. Take counting cards for instance.. People who apply themselves and learn to count cards are more likely to win a game of Black Jack then someone who doesn't. You can test that yourself.)

Someone who is passionate about law and applies themselves towards that goal are more likely to get into a career in law then someone who sits in their basement all day and watches Judge Judy. There are no guarantees in life, but your actions (or inaction) absolutely have consequences.

 

[Thief]

First of all you are laboring over the delusion that the big bang brought energy into being which is untrue.

The Big Bang brought energy into its current state, energy is eternal it cannot be created or destroyed.

So why think that energy which by all observations is eternal was created by an eternal being which you have no evidence for?

already stated why I believe.

Spirit as energy?....energy as we know it?
science is already pointing to forms of energy we cannot detect.....matter we cannot touch....
science would insist the greater portion is beyond affirmation....so far

you would contend ...all of creation is 'self' starting?
science claims nothing moves until something moves it.

back to the beginning....again

 

[1137]

Interesting. Very interesting.

 

[1137]

For one thing there is polarity. There's hot and cold, dark and light matter, positive and negative energy. Once you accept that there is unconscious matter you're forced to accept there is conscious non-matter. I've also been playing with the idea of Forms, pretty much Jung's archetypes but on a universal level. Every chair has a chairness, ever tree has a treeness, every human has what makes us human, the human psyche. On that point, it's also clear that the psyche cannot be entirely natural. Nowhere else do we see nature violating itself to the point of being able to destroy itself or accelerate it's processes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No shortcuts. Read God's word, starting with the Gospels and ask for God's direction in understanding what you read. Don't skim, but dissect what you read and analyze it.
Stop and meditate on what it is trying to teach you. Ask questions and digest the answers. Throw away pre-conceived ideas and start with a clean slate. Avoid speculative rubbish and keep what your heart genuinely responds to. Truth will resonate.
Jesus said, "you will know the truth and the truth will set you free"....this is what it did for me.

Since all of us have limited time, can you give any reason why reading the Bible is more likely to lead to "the Truth" than reading:

- the Quran
- the Bhagavad Gita
- the Guru Granth Sahib
- the Tao Te Ching
- a Book of Five Rings
- The Principia Discordia, or
- Moby Dick

 

[aoji]

Please try to prove to me your religion is true.

Please try to prove to me your political party is true.

 

[1137]

Ok if you agree with the idea that something can be eternal. Then why do you choose to believe that energy (which we have never seen be created or destroyed) is not eternal and a being you have no evidence exists is eternal?

Energy goes with matter in motion, something still had to set the matter in motion.

I was not complaining about the death.

If you read what I posted I was complaining about the life that was terrible up until death.

Please read my post before quoting it.

We know this isn't necessarily true. When you do a good deed it tends to cause positive psychological change. This can not only cheer us up, it can make our whole day, over time it can even change our self image. Same with negative actions which can create guilt, stress, etc.

Agnosticism is: Does not have any evidence for the existence of a deity or deities so does not believe in them until there is.

Actually agnosticism is the stance that we do not have or possibly have means of attaining evidence for god, and so you remain neutral. Your definition is atheism.

 

[savagewind]

So you believe in the bible because it is more interesting than reality?

I believe in the people of the bible because they are more interesting than real people.

 

[buddhist]

Change tends to happen subtly overtime, which would not be a "rebirth".

I define "rebirth" as the process of birthing or creating something new from that which was old. What we consider parts of "ourselves" one second ago gave birth to what we are now, in the immediate present. This is an endless process that continues all through life, and continues through apparent "death", when our constituent elements recycle back into the earth and universe to give birth to other things.

By definition something that is supernatural does not exist.

That is true, that is why I quoted it, using it in language conventually understood. I see the "supernatural" as the "natural" which is not normally observed with our five natural senses.