Yes, it could be that those bacteria have teams of tiny scientists working out antidotes to the antibiotics.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What matters, whats real?
- Thread starter We Never Know
- Start date
firedragon
Veteran Member
Yes, it could be that those bacteria have teams of tiny scientists working out antidotes to the antibiotics.
Maybe all the scientists are in bed with the bacteria. Its a conspiracy.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
In short, it doesn't. But often I find it is more an issue of representation and basic respect than someone believing in or not believing in a deity. Atheists (and more keenly anti-theists) often paint all Theists with a broad brush, treating us all the same regardless of creed, ignoring the many differences present in many different cultures and why a god is worshiped or not. Education pursuant to this misrepresentation is less an effort to convert people, and more an effort to steer them away from the view of "dumb people with imaginary friends".
It is important in regards to Interfaith interactions as well. Misrepresenting what another believes (as Monotheists are wont to do) is often highly disrespectful and insensitive. It is nearly impossible to understand where someone is coming from unless you first also understand their beliefs and what gods they worship. Even if one doesn't believe that particular god to exist.
Coolbair
New Member
A stronger belief is demonstrated by what a person is willing to sacrifice for it. Many say they believe, but they're unwilling to sweat or bleed for it, or even pay tithing or volunteer their labor. What I have personally found that strengthens my belief is my direct experiences with the divine, more specifically, the Holy Ghost. When I believe God has spoken to me, it's highly motivating to say the least. These experiences are often impossible to describe other than they are different than any other normal human emotion or feeling. Joseph Smith (founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) gave his whole life to defend his testimony that he saw God face to face. He was martyred along with his brother after 20 years of intense persecution. The 14 others who saw the gold plates the Book of Mormon was written on all lived out their lives staying true to their testimony despite persecution and even leaving the church. The early members of this church endured persecution and being chased at gunpoint out of their homes and completing a thousand mile journey under extremely difficult circumstances. I'd say their belief was very strong compared to many other religionists.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Humans live on one planet.
Nature is natural first.
Humans are natural first.
Then we see the human theist liar.
Who invented machine science to remove mass that was cold fused created in space a long time ago.
Humans irradiated life and sacrificed life because of their lying deceits. Humans scientists had to then fight and argue for presence natural versus occult removal as a gas heavens and a stone planet to be allowed to exist naturally.
As the total human reasoning why we said gods were planets against self destructive human theism.
We said earth as a God planet stone owned it's own spirit gases considered holy as a life support.
Humans never theoried why they existed we observed we did exist.
No argument.
The argument itself. Humans who practiced conversion of earth mass as the sciences hurt us. We had to fight argue for life continuance on planet earth.
Nature is natural first.
Humans are natural first.
Then we see the human theist liar.
Who invented machine science to remove mass that was cold fused created in space a long time ago.
Humans irradiated life and sacrificed life because of their lying deceits. Humans scientists had to then fight and argue for presence natural versus occult removal as a gas heavens and a stone planet to be allowed to exist naturally.
As the total human reasoning why we said gods were planets against self destructive human theism.
We said earth as a God planet stone owned it's own spirit gases considered holy as a life support.
Humans never theoried why they existed we observed we did exist.
No argument.
The argument itself. Humans who practiced conversion of earth mass as the sciences hurt us. We had to fight argue for life continuance on planet earth.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
It doesn't. What matters is how John Doe chooses to act upon his beliefs (such as attempting to impose those beliefs upon others, use those beliefs to justify discrimination, etc.) If his actions threaten the rights, freedom, or well being of others, then it's a problem.
Irrational beliefs often lead to irrational behavior.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Inventive science first theories as a human that it knows how created reaction created first. In space. Yet he is theorisng it for machine reaction ideals.
Yet it is only a thought.
As natural of billions of self owned forms exist everywhere.
Human men contemplated that they wanted to reinvent creation as if it did not exist involved as an instant machine reaction.
The placement for instant by science. Inside machine. As creation already was created.
The machine became the outside body of their creator.
Ignored.
As they continued to theory outwardly about everything except control of the machine within. What inside of the machine caused to what they placed within the machine.
Theory of gases thought about the heavens. Light constant gas burning. Cold pressurized cold gases voiding.
So science always said I want the highest coldest and named it immaculate.
Yet clear gases burning were voiding. Constant light voiding by vacuum. Day.
So he theoried light constant X two and wanted to wield it.
Yet the gas status was atmospheric and not earth stone.
In science that status is lying.
As a gas in space is not stone gases that he converts to obtain a gas.
So he taught light X three one natural day as light and two by science first burnt by causes a body of clear night gases that increased gas mass burning.
Reasoning God released stone radiation communicators to equals his theory. To cause. As theory first only belongs to natural bodies changing.
Machines only react by control.
Ignoring what he knew from natural advice began burning life in gas fallout as the voiding space vacuum activated removed light. The day he taught went dark.
Sciences claim of men in memory I invented the cold clear copy. A Cause.
Yet never did. He changed natural heavens in space.
He proved he wanted to copy gas heavens yet space and the heavens owned it. God stone never owned the state.
How he was taught he ignored the advice of three.
Three wise men of God in science taught the same advice as the state three conditions of wanting to use the heavens natural light changed stone mass and also natural daylight.
It was a science teaching against science practice.
Yet it is only a thought.
As natural of billions of self owned forms exist everywhere.
Human men contemplated that they wanted to reinvent creation as if it did not exist involved as an instant machine reaction.
The placement for instant by science. Inside machine. As creation already was created.
The machine became the outside body of their creator.
Ignored.
As they continued to theory outwardly about everything except control of the machine within. What inside of the machine caused to what they placed within the machine.
Theory of gases thought about the heavens. Light constant gas burning. Cold pressurized cold gases voiding.
So science always said I want the highest coldest and named it immaculate.
Yet clear gases burning were voiding. Constant light voiding by vacuum. Day.
So he theoried light constant X two and wanted to wield it.
Yet the gas status was atmospheric and not earth stone.
In science that status is lying.
As a gas in space is not stone gases that he converts to obtain a gas.
So he taught light X three one natural day as light and two by science first burnt by causes a body of clear night gases that increased gas mass burning.
Reasoning God released stone radiation communicators to equals his theory. To cause. As theory first only belongs to natural bodies changing.
Machines only react by control.
Ignoring what he knew from natural advice began burning life in gas fallout as the voiding space vacuum activated removed light. The day he taught went dark.
Sciences claim of men in memory I invented the cold clear copy. A Cause.
Yet never did. He changed natural heavens in space.
He proved he wanted to copy gas heavens yet space and the heavens owned it. God stone never owned the state.
How he was taught he ignored the advice of three.
Three wise men of God in science taught the same advice as the state three conditions of wanting to use the heavens natural light changed stone mass and also natural daylight.
It was a science teaching against science practice.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
It is actually free to think for our own advancment in spiritually
sufi path is to look within. But yes Allah and quran and Muhammad is of course important.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Not just important, but inescapable, obligatory; whatever one personally thinks. Sarmad got beheaded for not saying ʾillā -llāhu
"Aurangzeb ordered his Ulema to ask Sarmad why he repeated only "There is no God", and ordered him to recite the second part,"but God". To that he replied that "I am still absorbed with the negative part. Why should I tell a lie?" "
"Aurangzeb ordered his Ulema to ask Sarmad why he repeated only "There is no God", and ordered him to recite the second part,"but God". To that he replied that "I am still absorbed with the negative part. Why should I tell a lie?" "
Mostly it doesn't, unless it infringes my rights (as I would want) or those of another.
I think this is an assumption. I don't know if there is or isn't a way for any god to show its existence, and I wouldn't necessarily rely on any human means of doing so, such as logic or something other.
As above - not sure if there is or isn't a way to prove any existence as to such. As of the moment I'm not convinced as to there being any such entity.
I don't have much to base my beliefs on regarding such - other than the validity of others' thinking and often related to how they see other matters. I can hardly discount what others believe when it goes against so much better evidence or is just derived from some texts from long ago, but which apparently have the air of legitimacy simply because so many others believe in them.
Last edited:
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Can you fix your post?
"So my question is what makes anyone think their belief is stronger than the belief of others?"
Well, I doubt it is rational in the strong sense. Rather it is how the everyday world apparently works for the difference between subjective and objective. If I do something, which is subjective in the sense that I can actually do it, but it is subjective, I can then claim it is objective. It is not objective, but I can do it, because I can do it subjectively.
So if subjective I believe that God doesn't exist, I can believe that and act further on it as long as II can actually act on it.
Did. My finger apparently caused offence to the system. Hi.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
I don't understand the bold one.
Well it's more about their capabilities as to thinking or not accepting evidence that is strong, so it's more about how we judge the opinions or beliefs of others. It's just a bit normal probably as to how we tend to judge others. I obviously have a much more difficult task when trying to assess those with a lot more knowledge than myself (so many) like scientists, or those with much better minds - too many of these too. If someone tends to believe one thing that is just not rational to believe then it does tend to impact how they might be viewed as to other things - even if such is a fallacy.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Ahh, yes. The belief in rational back to the old Greeks and the belief that everything can be done rationally. Well, that one has being refuted already in classical philosophy (Agrippa's Trilemma)) and effectively was put to rest with Rene Descartes.
So for me, I try to be as rational as possible, but also so rational, that I will admit when I can't use rationality.
Well we can only do our best. I don't tend to set myself up as any authority on anything, but if I tend to see something that is suspicious in what I perceive, whether I might support their position or not, then I will note such. Hence why I don't tend to get into any arguments as to person A being so much better than person B at whatever it is they declare.Ahh, yes. The belief in rational back to the old Greeks and the belief that everything can be done rationally. Well, that one has being refuted already in classical philosophy (Agrippa's Trilemma)) and effectively was put to rest with Rene Descartes.
So for me, I try to be as rational as possible, but also so rational, that I will admit when I can't use rationality.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, for better if better refers to what matters and what is real, there is apparently no way to do that rationally in a strong objective sense as without subjective bias.
I think I better exit now before I get too involved with this.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
I think I better exit now before I get too involved with this.
It is there in the consequences of the limitations of science:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
I think it has more to do with the limitations of my abilities - which I solemnly acknowledge.