religion is following the messenger and spirituality is following the message
Well said guys
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Have you ever been educated?
Yes. Far more than a 15 year old too.
Then you should know far better info, and also have proper grammar.
You're right. I was in Advanced placement English. So I'd say my biggest problem lemme there was sentence structure and syntax. Not grammar. I tend to type the way I speak, as I don't really take this app very seriously. But uh, "Know far better info" is also I correct sentence structure, so I don't know where you get off. Anyways. I've been a Christian and then when I was your age I was spiritual and a pagan and eventually I realized it's all nonsense. Most Atheists go through a spiritual phase. You'll be fine. Just keep seeking more knowledge and looking at the world logically.
I'm confused, you have a lot of typos in that. Sorry I don't really understand part of it. 😶. However, how could you be a Atheist without proof? I mean isn't it based on science? And science is based on facts. In which the scientifical scale that the world was made from nothing contacting nothing to create everything?
Um. There was one typo. My phone autocorrected 'incorrect' to 'I correct.' Or maybe I hit space bar instead of 'N.' Either way, you don't get be smug. I'm actually a practicing Theravada Buddhist. But the Buddha never said anything about worshipping a God or believing in magic, so yeah, I'm also an Atheist. Not that I would believe in a God is the Buddha said to. That would be overridden by his speech to Magandiya. It wouldn't make any sense. Anyways, this is a tangent, and one which to which I'm sure that you can't relate. So onto your Atheism stuff.
How could I be an Atheist without proof? Well it depends on what you mean by proof. If I'm looking for objective truth then no, there is none that disproves a Deistic God. However that sort of proof isn't really necessary, as the Deistic God hasn't been proven to exist. You're just shifting the burden of proof onto me. I've never seen a God, and no one has evidenced a God. You can't just make the claim that a God exists and demand I give you proof that it doesn't. You must first prove that it does. It's like if I said that I could summon a Pegasus to fly me around the world, and then I told you to prove me wrong. Well I haven't proven that my claim is correct, have I? So you need no proof to not believe in my Pegasus.
Anyways, the world is not made from a "Scientifical scale." That isn't a thing. Also since we're being grammar Nazis, "Scientifical" isn't a word. It's scientific. I'm not sure what the rest of that meant. It sounds like you rammed two sentences together. Did you mean "The scientifical scale says that the world was made from nothing contacting nothing to create everything?" I'm not sure. But if you're questioning the origins of the universe, you should read Hawking's books 'A brief history of time,' I think that's what it's called. Or Lawrence Krauss' book, 'A Universe From Nothing'. It discusses this. Basically what is outside of the universe is different from what we would consider nothing. Basically there were very low amounts of electrons and protons or some science mumbo-jumbo, don't quote me on this, but they caused the big bang which created our universe. That's fact. There is also the multiverse theory, but that hasn't been proven.
I wasn't getting smug. "You're right. I was in Advanced placement English. So I'd say my biggest problem lemme (?) there was sentence structure and syntax. Not grammar. I tend to type the way I speak, as I don't really take this app very seriously. But uh, "Know far better info" is also I (?) correct sentence structure, so I don't know where you get (?) off. Anyways. I've been a Christian and then (?) when I was your age I was spiritual and a pagan and eventually I realized it's all nonsense. Most Atheists go through a spiritual phase. You'll be fine. Just keep seeking more knowledge and looking at the world logically." Either way technical issues, sorry if I came off smug.
Anyways. Here's a counter point. Let's say that there was proof that the universe was not created by the big bang and made from nothing. You still couldn't insert a God without evidence. That's called the God of the gaps fallacy. Ancient people used to do it a lot. They didn't know how lightning happened, must have been Zeus. It rains, so it must be the rain God. There was no evidence, but they just inserted their gods.
Fair enough I get your point but you still haven't completely looked through both sides. Including the side of Faith.
Sorry for using "Scientifical," xD.
Wait so if you believe in Buddhism you dont believe in the big bang correct?
Oh yeah Haha! I didn't even see that lemme. No idea. I already explained the I correct. But uh, I think you just don't understand idioms. "I don't know where you get off" is a shortened idiom that is used as a retort to show hypocrisy. Like "You do X, so I don't know where you get off telling me not to do X." It seems weird but that's why it's an idiom. I'm sure you've heard of it in conversation. The "and then when I was your age" part isn't a typo? I'm saying that I was once a Christian, and when I was your age I was a pagan, and now that I'm older, I don't believe in God's or magic. Throughout my time line, I've been several things. That's what I was saying. It's an appeal to Ethos, or to my credibility. But I'm sure you know what Ethos is.
Actually I do xD Just wrote a rhetorical analysis on a speech and ethos, logs, and pathos. Sorry the then when part confused me. Blah ok sorry besides grammar xD Ok let's go Pathos then, appeal of emotion. Then why is it worth living it we die and disappear forever. (for Atheist, no Buddhism obviously)
Excuse the typos I was typing fast.
I've seen the side of faith, darling. It slowly corrodes. Nietzsche examined this with his progression to Nihilism. Nietzsche stated that God is dead. His explanation wS that religion killed him. Or at least the desire to know the truth which religion inspires, killed him. His proof was that Religious created the various fields of science, to better understand God and his creation. But even in Nietzsche's time it was well known that Science had disproved many of the claims about God in the Bible. It's the same way with faith. I had faith that God existed, but not as much in all of the claims that religion makes. Like that there is a hell or that God makes it rain. It never made sense to me. So I kept adapting my faith. At first, I became a Cathar, a group of old French Christians who didn't believe in hell. But eventually I lost faith in God, and just became spiritual, a pantheistic pagan. Then I soon realized that I was just holding onto something that I knew had no evidence.
Oh please it's hard to believe science "disprove God." When the point of him is past science, the only way to do that would be to disprove the Bible and prove evolution etc.
Haha. Same here man. I type pretty quickly. But let me answer one of your earlier questions first. My posts are longer than yours, so you're ahead of me. Haha. As a Buddhist do I not believe in the big bang? No. I do accept that the Big Bang is a fact. Because it is. I'll accept anything g that's a proven fact. Buddhism is an Offshoot of the world's oldest religion, the ancient Brahminic tradition, which is now modern Hinduism. Buddhism isn't like other religions, in that it presents a whole model for the universe and creation. The Buddha was simply a philosophical visionary who would travel around teaching people how to free themselves from mental suffering, and how to be happy.
I may be totally wrong but doesn't Buddhism believe in reincarnation?
Another Question. Why is it WWorth living if we just die and go away forever. (The Buddha also didn't believe that we'd go anywhere after death by the way. Read the Samyutta Nikaya.) life is worth living because we are alive. It's a gift. I mean, we are pretty lucky. Most things are a rock, or dirt, or a couch. But we get to be alive, and feel things, and think, and laugh, and be happy. He universe doesn't need an objective purpose for, and we don't need eternal life for our time here to have value. You live for whatever makes you happy. Nothing lasts forever, not the sun, the sand, the rocks, food, dogs, cats, water, etc. Nothing. I don't know why people think that they should. I think it would get boring after awhile. Impermanence is what makes life interesting.
For whatever makes you happy? But Thervada seems to be very specific on no drugs, alcohol, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, gossip, idle chatter, and harsh speech.
Most of the claims of the Bible are already disproven. Sometimes they disprove themselves. Our modern bibles aren't even accurate. King James had it all changed about 500 years ago. And the Church decided which books got in and which didn't. You should look up the Christian Apocrypha. Older Christians read a very different Bible. As time went by humanity progressed and they had to take out a lot of books from the Bible, even if they were just as historical and written by the same people who wrote the ones they left in. Like the Apocalypse of Peter. It was written by the same people who wrote the gospels. But the description of hell is so graphic and disgusting that they removed it. And Evolution is a proven fact. Go read any book on Biology. We can talk about it if you want. Basically all of modern medicine and genetics is based on evolution.
Heh, not my biology book, actually is heavily set against it. But encouraged exploration.
Many schools of Buddhism teach Reincarnation, yes. But the Buddha never really did. He lived in Ancient India, which was a Brahminic nation. Everyone around him already believed in Reincarnation. But he himself never taught it. He is credited as creating our modern view of Karma though. See the Buddha was talking to a prince who was afraid of what he might be reincarnated as, so the Buddha just told him to be good in this life, and he will be good in the next. He never taught his monks that though. When one of his monks, Anuradha, asked him what would happen to him after death, they had a long discussion that ended with the Buddha saying that he didn't know, and that he only taught about suffering and the cessation of suffering.
Hmm Okay fair enough.
Haha. Theravada means "the Elder teachings." It's focused around the Tipitaka, whi h is the oldest documentation of the Buddha's life and his teachings. It the more historically focused school of Buddhism. Who you read comes from the Janika. I think that's the specific book. It's in the Vinaya Pitaka. His rules for his monks. But I'm not a monk. And some of those are sub rules anyways. The Buddha had four main rules for his monks, and if they were broken they'd be kicked out of monkery. Haha. That's not a word, but it's fun. His other rules were just things to adhere to, but if you broke one you would just be encouraged to not break it again with a meeting of the Sangha.
And you must be in some religious school, or living in the South if your science books are anti-science. All credible biologists, and genealogists understand and apply the theory of evolution to their work. It's the entire foundation of life and speciation.
Wow. Lots of typos. I'm also making Chicken sandwiches. Don't kill me.
All credible scientist? Wrong, all popular scientist.
Ha. Okay. I guess maybe you have Kent Hovind? Are you claiming that there is some conspiracy in science that's gone back 150 years to cover up the truth that Evolution isn't real? That's ridiculous. Why don't you actually make arguments against the science instead of making silly accusations. Scientists become popular by being intelligent and correct. Science doesn't care about politics or religion or anything but truth. Many Biologists are religious. But they still understand that Evolution is reality. It's like Lawrence Krauss said. "When we go into the lab, we don't all ask ourself 'Is there a God?' Its irrelevant."you can be a Christian and a biologist. You just can't not accept scientific reality and be a biologist.
Anyways. Let's discuss the science. How can you explain the diversity of life without evolution? And how can you explain the time lines through which we see current species form based on genealogy and fossil findings? For example. Modern Homo Sapiens came about around 200,000 years ago. The oldest humans in General however, came about around 6 million years ago. Evolution shows the evidence that the earliest Homos came from a common early ape-like ancestor, which ties the homonin family with the hominid. And that Homo-sapiens are the most current in that line. If you are claiming that you have evidence that this is not true, then what is that evidence? If not, how do you explain these facts without Evolution?
Geez talking about putting words in my mouth. I never claimed anything of the sort. Nor denied. And sorry for not being able to craft long paragraphs. I'm on a phone and I have work and school to do.
You claimed that the theory of Evolution is incorrect. Id like to know why.
I do believe it is incorrect, however, I never said that.
What? So you believe that evolution is false, but you have no alternative to explain the diversity of life. That's silly.
Have you no eyes man o. o
Yes. And they have read science books. Which explain the diversity of life that explanation is evolution by natural selection.
Ah ok I see, selective hearing and sight then.
Yes. It's called logic. We shouldn't be believing in things without evidence. Anyways, this is just a tactic that people use to dodge the real issue. Put up or shut up. If you have real evidence that Evolution is untrue, then show it. You don't get to just say that you're right, not prove it, and then blame me for not wanting to see it. I want to see the evidence. Show me.
Also, that argument has no base. I could say the same thing to you. You just don't believe in evolution because you choose to not see the evidence. Blah blah blah. It's silly. If your argument can be reflected back onto you verbatim, it's not a good argument. You have to back it up.
You may think you know what I'm saying xD But looking at what you respond with. You don't. Hehe I mean it's unrelated responses.
How? My responses are about Evolution and your contention that it's false. Thats a major point of this conversation. But I've lost interest and don't even really remember what's going on. Haha. So hi.
Ok then. Welp I'm done because it's hard to have a conversation when it's a stubborn one.
Not a stubborn one. The opposite actually. I literally opened up and gave you a platform to explain your views.
And each to his own
I guess. So long as you don't go cutting off people's heads for your own. I've never been a fan of that. Like no. Some opinions are not only factually incorrect but actually harmful, Also it's "To each, his own."
Technicalities, I apologise yet again for my poor knowledge. May you forever be happy with science. Good day.
And you as well.
The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!