-
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!
Would your beliefs be affected if...
- Thread starter tree
- Start date
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
vanityofvanitys said:
This does't bother me so much as the fact that god has also seemed to make himself absent.
I believed there was a god most of my life. It wasn't until I actually asked myself this question, and tried to answer it, that I realized that there wasn't one.
This is just absurd, and only true to those who don't actually understand what science is.
See above. The spirit world is not the concern of science. Science concerns itself with what can be experienced by the five natural senses. Science concerns itself with what can be observed, tested, and proved. Does the spirit world fit this? No, it doesn't. So you're analysis is wrong, or should I say, biased.
Again, see above. This is just absurd, unfounded, and based on religious bias.
Science doesn't concern itself with the spirit realm, precisely because that's not what it's concern is. It's concern is for the natural realm. The problem comes in when theists think that science is trying somehow, in some great conspiracy, to do away with god, which simply isn't the case. God does a good enough job of that on it's own by being completely absent. When I lost faith in god, I did so, not because I accepted scientific claims for the explanation of natural events, but because there was no evidence for god's existence, surely not in my life. I also examined the claims of theists, and found that there were many problems, attempting to rationalize something that simply wasn't there, in the most illogical of ways. Faith and reason don't mix. And when I seen that god wasn't doing anything, in my life, or the world, I began to question why I would blindly accept something that, if it did exist, found no reason to give any evidence of it's existence, either in my life or the world. I decided that I was tired of rejecting my own thinking mind, and blindly accepting the claims of theists, when there was no evidence in support of their claims. I spent, or rather, I feel like I wasted most of my life on what amounted to nothing more than fairy tales. I'm still religious. I'm still spiritual. But I've found that I can do that all without a belief in some invisible, or rather, absent god, and I can do so, and still accept the claims of science, which is based on what can be known, seen, and experienced.
Rational_Mind
Ahmadi Muslim
It would confirm my beliefs. This is a perfect time to mention that the Quran is unique in saying explicitly that extraterrestrial and that we will make contact whether in this life or the next. The contact can be either physical or communication.
The Quran and Extraterrestrial Life
The Quran and Extraterrestrial Life
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
Islam is not alone among religions that believe in other intelligent life forms in the universe.
From a talk given by Ajahn Brahmavamso:
Did you read my Jonathan Swift quote? If you insist that science does not concern itself with the existential world, then that relegates science to a minor importance for the good of man.
But science, despite itself, does prove God. What they have discovered contained on the Shroud of Turin cries out “Impossible!” No man, no medieval forger, no Einstein of a mind could ever replicate the inexplicables contained on that cloth. Too many to mention here. But what it says, to any man of reason, is super natural. Nothing in the natural world could ever have created this. And I detest the recurring cop out explanation “We just have not discovered the answer for it yet” which implies science insisting “all matters must have a natural explanation for them.” NO, they do not!
You say faith and reason don’t mix --- Pope Benedict says faith without reason is false. Please do not be so unkind to think the Christian faith is based on blindness. Christianity is based on evidence that demands a verdict.
Fatima, Portugal 1917, three children younger than 10 insist the Virgin Mary is appearing to them. The scoffers are aplenty. So on July 13th Mary tells the children to tell the people on October 17th I will perform a great miracle so all will know my message comes from God. And that is what makes this evidence beyond doubt. Three little children predict a miracle 90 days in advance and the great miracle occurs on the very day they predict it will. Before 70,000 eye witnesses the sun defies cosmic laws and “dances.” It bounces, it spins like a pin wheel, it covers the entire sky and the faces of the crowd with blue, then red, then yellow, spellbinding all present. Then after 12 minutes it turns blood red and charges the earth as though it will explode upon them. Total panic. Then the sun recedes in the sky and all is peaceful. The day was soaked with rain and mud. Now after 12 minutes the ground and the people’s clothes are bone dry. Marxist reporters for the anti-clerical Lisbon newspaper “O Seculo’ --- there to mock the event --- are awestruck. They reluctantly report the truth in their paper.
I could supply you with evidence that would fill pages as to Is there evidence for God? I can assure you, our faith is not blind.
Question: why would one presuppose that it would have an effect on religious beliefs?
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Nope. In fact, they would enhance them.
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
vanityofvanitys said:
Yes, I read the quote. And I disagree that science is just of minor importance to the good of man. I really don't understand how you can say that, when all you have to do is look at technology and medicine. Science explains things that ancient man explained using myths of supernatural beings and deities, not because they were real, but because that's the only way they could understand them at the time. Not until science came along, do we really understand what's going on in our world.
I've seen all the debates on the Shroud, and I have yet to see anything that cannot be explained by science. I have yet to see any evidence of the supernatural when dealing with the Shroud. And to drive the point home, do you think Christianity is the only religion with 'miracles'? No, it's not. Most religions have their fair share of the unexplained. But unexplained does not mean unexplainable. Or is your contention that, at the very outset of science, it should have automatically been able to explain everything if it was valid?
It has so far. Science evolves as more information is gathered. If that weren't the case, we'd still be believing that natural disasters weren't natural, but the anger of the gods. Or that stars were just a pinprick just out of reach. Or that the world is flat and the center of the solar system. Christianity's cop out is that anything that is currently not explainable is automatically proof of god, which simply isn't the case. The more science presses on, the less god is needed to explain anything. But, like I said, I don't see anything supernatural in the Shroud. You do because you want to, and even if the evidence was clear that it is natural, would you have the ability to accept it?
Pope Benedict says alot of things that I think are simply untrue. And to say faith without reason is false, doesn't necessarily mean that people of faith accept reason and logic. Einstein said something similar, and yet he didn't accept a personal, all-mighty creator god.
I've read Josh McDowell too. Funniest thing I've ever read. If Christianity is based on "evidence", then what about all the other religions? As far as the existence of god is concerned, and we'll use this as an example, the best philosophy can do is offer a "first cause", but can say nothing about it. Even if we were to assume that this first cause is a god, which god would it be? Christianity has it's own answers to questions it finds perplexing, and yet not much, if any of it, is based on actual logic.
People see miracles because they want to see miracles. When I was a Christian, I did the same thing. I seen miracles everywhere. When I left Christianity, I realized that alot of things I attributed to god were nothing more than happenstance, coincidence, or natural causes. And, like I said before, Christianity is not the only religion with it's share of 'miracles'. So, miracles, in and of themselves, are no proof of a religions veracity. I could give you numerous miracles found in Buddhism. I could also point out miracles from various other religions. Does this prove these religions are true? No, no more than it does for Christianity. And, like I said, just because something is unexplained, doesn't mean it's unexplainable.
I, and many others, would disagree. I've examined the evidence. I spent 30 years doing so, believing in Christianity. Once I began to think for myself, I left Christianity, because I seen no evidence for it. I had convinced myself that I had rational reasons for believing. Then I realized I was just rationalizing my beliefs. You can supply your evidence for your beliefs, and I can do the same for mine. What does it prove?
Gharib
I want Khilafah back
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
Notice the lack of response to this thread from conservative branches of Abrahamic religions, and you'll have your answer.
Rational_Mind
Ahmadi Muslim
Note that I said "and". Maybe I am not aware but is there a scripture that says there is extraterrestrial life and you will meet it?
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
I don't have the reference handy, but not only does the Lotus Sutra mention that contact is possible, but it's happened before.
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
If you'll notice, I tried to always put miracles in quotations. I think people believe that things they don't understand they term miracles. Like I said, if you had read my posts, just because something is unexplained doesn't mean it's unexplainable. The point I was making is that 1. I believe that all 'miracles' are just as yet unexplained phenomenon, or even phenomenon that the individual experiencing them can't explain, but does have a natural explanation, and 2. what are commonly called 'miracles' can be found in every religion. This does not mean I believe in the supernatural, but that people attribute supernatural explanations to events which are, in fact natural.
I'm not sure I'd read into that. I haven't noticed a plethora of users on this forum representing this group in the first place. It doesn't seem they're particularly well-represented here among the regular users.
Ok, fine, but I think we are at an impasse then. I would be repeating myself that your explanation under #1. is a cop out position. Wooden statues of the Virgin Mary just do not weep tears of blood in front of countless eye witnesses and cameras ---- where the scientist present can say this is a natural event, we just cannot explain it yet.
No, God is speaking plainly in Marys tears. And when you start to add up all of the miracles over the centuries, it looks quite desperate when science keeps saying coincidence, hallucinations, or not yet explained. Science makes many conclusive arguments based on probabilities alone, not absolute fact. But when it comes to supernatural manifestations, now the probabilities --- of this being a fake or having a natural explanation that cannot be ascertained in the least for the present --- no longer matter.
Just as the probability of a godless, mindless molecules creating a human cell with one thousand machines in it all working harmony --- all done by pure chance --- borders on the infinite.
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
You might be right about that. It does seem that they are in the minority here, never-the-less, there's still some here. Us liberals and alternative religious types are arguing with somebody
But while I do think you're right, there are still some here, and I would be interested on their take on this subject.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
It wouldn't affect my religious beliefs.....
"oh my God!.....where's my handgun?"
Let me explain...
If we are visited by anything in a ship...it won't likely be a friendly visit.
"It" would have traveled for centuries to get here.
"It" would be in serious need of resources.
The next leg of "It"'s travel would prompt serious acquisition.
Are we not made of meat?
What's the matter?....doesn't anyone watch science fiction any more?
But if Someone was to touch down without a ship....in a form not having physical need?
That would the Deity Himself.
No problem.....maybe.
Last edited:
