If the Taliban takes no responsibility, then I will for saying shiki ought to stay away from the science and philosophy forum.

I said that because he is totally illogical, and his statements don't make sense. He argues with stating irrelevant stuff. He (or she) is not responding to issues, he just spews some incredibly illogical and non-sequiteurial stuff, and calls it a day.

Sure, the laws and rules and regulations allow any member on this site to post anywhere. But to clutter up the place with stupid statements that make sense only to this Shiki, is not my idea of what should be discussed in the science forum.

I ADMIT: It was incorrect of me to say he ought to stay away from this forum. I was punished for it, too. But I still say he does not belong here, provided the rest of us wish to have a meaningful discourse about scientific and philosophical issues. He makes no sense, none that I can see or understand. He befriended a lot of women of very late, granted he has charm, but I still insist he makes no or at best, very little sense.

I am happy to say he has diversified from talking strictly on religious issues, and bringing them to the philosophy forum. Now he is into a phase in which he portrays himself as an invincible lover of women, he pretends to have a harem, he talks about himself as the ultimate lover.

Women seem to like him, and the better for it for both the women and Shiki.

I am glad he has these visions, and has started to deal with them while no longer taking nonsense with him to this forum.

Ditto. You only see God as being hearsay rumors because you refuse to allow God to show you himself.



Faith is the most important and greatest thing in the world. Do you have faith you'll wake up tomorrow? Do you have faith you'll eat today? Faith doesn't just apply to God my friend.

God?

Oh no Cowboy. I don't see God as being hearsay rumors. I only see various stories about gods to be hearsay rumors.

Do you dismiss the concept of "God" because you see Greek Mythology as just being hearsay rumors? Probably not.

My rejection of the Hebrew stories has nothing more to do with "God" than does my rejection of the ancient Greek religion of Zeus.

Just because I don't accept the religious stories that you worship doesn't mean that I don't acknowledge God. On the contrary I most certainly do.

Just goes to show how you jump to conclusions about things you have absolutely no clue about. You are about as uneducated concerning my beliefs as a person can be. And that's mainly because you refuse to listen to anyone. All you do is talk AT them, you never listen to what they have to say.

I believe that Eastern Mysticism is the most likely description of "god" that we currently have.

If there exists a "god", then Eastern Mysticism most likely describes that "god".

I also believe that Jesus was most likely an enlightened Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva. Not unlike Buddha, and many others.

This doesn't mean anything to you because you can see outside of your box.

All you can do is talk AT people and totally disrespect their point of view.



I have absolutely no faith that I'll wake up every morning, yet thus far I always have. So clearly faith has nothing to do with that at all. In fact, there have been many times when I've gone to bed at night totally accepting the fact that I very well may not wake up the next day.

I also don't have faith that I'll eat everyday. Yet fortunately I usually do.

So clearly faith is not required for any of these things.

Obviously you're confused about the very meaning of faith and it's relevance to reality.

I believe that if there exists a God, then that God exists whether I have faith in Her or not.

I also believe that if there is no God, then that too is true, whether I have faith in that or not.

My faith in something has little, if anything, to do with the reality of something. You place far too much importance on faith my friend.

In fact, apparently from what you preach you have been convinced by the ancient Hebrews that if you refuse to have faith in their biblical God you'll end up in a place of everlasting punishment. Or if you place your faith in their God you'll win a trip to eternal paradise.

Well, it's no wonder you see faith as being a paramount concept. Without your faith you'll end up in a place of eternal damnation!

So faith is all-important to the religion that you've chosen to place your faith in.

Not isn't that ironic!

It's the very religion that you have placed your faith in, that demands that placing your faith in that religion is of paramount importance. In fact, if you dare to allow your faith to falter you could lose the approval of your God and end up in everlasting damnation.

So it's clearly your religion that places such extreme importance on faith. Drop that religion, and all of a sudden faith is no longer important.

Yes you do, you say it all day everyday right here on this forum. And no I do not dismiss Greek Mythology as being hearsay rumors. They are nothing but fantasies. There is but one God who art in heave. He sent his only begotten son to save the world, thought I told you already man.



Do you ever make plans for the next day? Doesn't have to be EVERYDAY you do this, but atleast once in a while do you make plans for the next day? If so sounds like you have faith you'll wake up. Do you work today to pay for tomorrow? Sounds like you have faith you'll wake up tomorrow. Do you eat today so you're body will have the strength for tomorrow? Sounds like you have faith you'll wake up tomorrow. If you had absolutely no faith in waking up tomorrow, why do you basically live? Eat, drink, sleep, ect. This is all done in hopes you'll be here tomorrow.



Faith is ALWAYS important. When dating a woman, do you have faith the relationship will last till tomorrow?

If you have no faith in tomorrow, what are you living for? Today? If you just live for today, how are you going to make your tomorrow better?

If that's the kind of faith you place in God, then all I can say is GOOD LUCK!



Of course I live for today. Have you not heard the wisdom of the great Buddhist sages?

"Take no thought for the morrow for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself"

In fact, Jesus taught this very thing did he not?

you seem to be a bit confused what faith means, cowboy... wiki defines faith as: Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing.[1][2] The English word is thought to date from 1200–50, from the Latin fidem or fidēs, meaning trust, derived from the verb fīdere, to trust.[1]

The term is employed in a religious or theological context to refer to a confident belief in a transcendent reality, a religious teacher, a set of teachings or a Supreme Being. It may be used to refer to a particular religious tradition or to religion in general.

Since faith implies a trusting reliance upon future events or outcomes, it is often taken by some people as inevitably synonymous with a belief "not resting on logical proof or material evidence."[3][4]

Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true,[5] belief in and assent to the truth of what is declared by another, based on his or her supposed authority and truthfulness.[6] Informal usage can be quite broad, and the word is often used as a mere substitute for trust or belief'.

there is no faith in science, nor is there faith in waking up... i hope i will wake up, i don't have faith that i will... science is testing theory's, and seeing the results... there might be a little faith in hoping the theory will turn out the way you want, but if it doesn't, where is the faith? faith actually applies to religions, not much else.... faith and hope are very similar, but not quite the same thing....

those quotes from the Bible make it sound like Jesus is patient zero for a zombie uprising.

You seem to be a bit confused on what we're talking about, mightymoe. The faith isn't in the science itself. But YOU'RE putting faith in someone else's findings in science. You're putting faith in that it's correct. That's where all this is derived from in this discussion. Abra said he had no faith, so I had to show him otherwise. They may have done studies and state that we are made up of many molecules. But less one did the tests themselves, that is purely faith taken. What you learn in school, history, science, and so forth. Especially with history, one is putting faith in that it's correct.

If you took no thought for tomorrow, why would you work today? You're not going to get paid today, in most cases. So why work today for money in the morrow? It's because you have faith that tomorrow will come.

well, if you can read, you can see all the results of experiments done.... no faith at all - science is based on logic and reason, faith is not... i was taught that 1+1=2...is that faith or fact? i may not agree with all theories out there, but whether through mathematics or other, they can be proven or disproven one way or another...can you say that about god or the bible? show me any positive scientific proof of either that can proven or disproven, and i will be quiet...faith is not a bad thing, just not a scientific thing...

Yes faith is a scientific thing.

1. Prove to me we are made up of molecules without using outside references. For if you use outside references you are putting faith in them that they are telling the exact fact truth.

2. Prove to me that we have landed on the moon without using outside references

3. Prove to me that the world is round without using outside references.

4. Prove to me that it is specifically oxygen we need without using outside references.

5. Prove to me that some animals have evolved from prior forms without using outside references.

6. Prove to me it's specifically oxygen we need, without using outside references.

7, Prove to me that dinosaurs are a certain age, without using outside references.

8, Prove to me anything in science without using outside references.

Again, I state specifically without using outside references, for if you do/did then you would be putting faith in them in believing it's true. And I'm not saying science is wrong either. I'm just showing how EVERYONE has faith in something along the lines. Not one of us are "faithless". Maybe faithless in "the Christian" God. But not faithless in general as Abra originally tried stating.

you do understand the learning process, right? something is proven to be right, by more than one person, and it gets built on from there... what has been proven correct in the bible? NOTHING...has it been proven that we need air? YES... has it been proven about evolution? YES... faith is believing in something from nothing... you have faith you are correct, you hope you are correct, but you are not 100% SURE that you are correct... i am 100% sure that i need oxygen to live, there is no doubt about that. i am 100% sure about evolution, there is no doubt about that. i have no need to prove anything i know as a fact. it has been proven to many times before by people smarter than me... now, i ask again, what is a fact about the bible?

How do YOU know all these things? Have you done scientific study on such? Have you done experiments to see if we need specifically oxygen to breath? Have you done experiments to see if we evolved from primitive beings? If not, again you're merely putting faith in what another person says. So many people except these things, so now it's turned into a popularity contest. So you follow what other people believe? For if so many people believe it, it's gotta be true, right?

lol... we could go in these circles all day long... i know what a fact is, and i know what faith is...according to you, everything is faith and there are no facts... enjoy your faith...

back to Jesus resurrection...
According to Christians, Jesus died, was dead for 3 days, then rose from the dead....

So if Jesus was dead for 3 days,
and Christianity is a monotheistic religion,
(Father, Son (Jesus) and the Holy Ghost (Spirit) are one entity..)
then according to Christian belief, the universe would have been without God for 3 days.

I guess this is just another example of how illogical and actually rediculous Christian Mythology is :(

And to think, it all started with a talking snake !!!

that could be the interpretation if the belief is that the mortal body is required for EXISTENCE

I personally, believe the Father Son and Holy Ghost have no ABSOLUTE form or entity, that the SON was sent in the flesh and that FLESH died, but that the SON is always with the Father,, in the form of the word


its a bit 'deeper' than science and a bit outside the box of what we think we already know as progressed , evolved, human beings

but its what I believe nonetheless

Wow, Wux - I'm beginning to think that the Sci & Phil forums are really a tough place. I just read another thread here in Religion in which M.Shiki apologized to Jenniebean for "making her uncomfortable" when he responded to a post she had made."

Maybe M. Shiki just needs to learn how to play nice - so I was providing what I think was a fair opportunity to learn: that being this thread so he could post his sincere and honest reply to what he began.

Oh well I suppose we will never hear the punch line.

You'll have to take that up with your lord and savior Jesus. He taught you to take no thought of the morrow. If you take that as a verbatim command you'd be violating his directives if you take a Job or plan to build a house, or even plan to have children.

Any thought of the morrow would violate your lords directive.

Clearly there's more to the concept of living in the now than you are prepared to understand.

I understand these concepts best from the teachings of Buddhism and other Eastern Mystical spiritual traditions. Those traditions helped me to understand what appears to be contradictions in the teachings of Jesus. Once you see the larger picture then you can better understand what Jesus was attempting to convey. Once you recognize that Jesus was actually teaching the wisdom of the Eastern Mystics it will all become clear to you, and you will no longer be confused.

What are you calling "outside references"?

If the references are related to the inquiry, then they aren't "outside" of it.

You have totally missed what is important here. What is important is that evidence that is brought forth must simply be from "independent sources". That give it far more credibility than if you only have rumors that come from a single source, with potentially no actual evidence beyond that.

The simple reason is that if you have a lot of independent evidence then the only way that independent evidence could be false is if there was a very LARGE ORGANIZED HOAX intended specifically to fool you. Sure, that could be the case, but face it, it's highly unlikely when you're speaking about thousands of independent sources.

So if you're equating "independent sources" to "outside references" then you have totally misunderstood the concept here. You aren't likely to "prove" anything to anyone without demonstrating that many "independent sources" can be shown.

Cowboy wrote:

Again, I state specifically without using outside references, for if you do/did then you would be putting faith in them in believing it's true. And I'm not saying science is wrong either. I'm just showing how EVERYONE has faith in something along the lines. Not one of us are "faithless". Maybe faithless in "the Christian" God. But not faithless in general as Abra originally tried stating.


You're statement here also shows your gross lack of understanding of the concept of "independent sources".

If the claims made of the character and actions of the God of the Bible where common to to all religions, then those claims would indeed have some credibility. Because the only other explanation would be organized HOAX.

However, it's crystal clear that claims that the Abrahamic religions make about God do not coincide with other religions in their details. In fact, the closest religion that contains a God that has the character traits of the biblical God was indeed the Greek religion of Zeus. Yet, almost everyone who believes in the Biblical God totally discount the Greek religions as being mere mythology.

So they even reject the closest religion they have as an 'independent source'.

What you are attempting to do is EQUATE the type or level of 'faith' that is placed in things that have must 'independent evidence', like scientific observation and experiment (which is also scrutinized using strict logic and reason), to the type of level of 'faith' a person might place in Santa Claus, Zeus, or a story about Jesus.

Sure, if you want to start speaking in terms of being "realistic" you could claim that the story of Jesus probably has more clout than the story of Santa Claus. Whether it has more clout than the story of Zeus is less obvious.

But what should be blatantly obvious is that scientific discoveries have far more clout than any of those. So much more that it isn't even meaningful to compare them.

Yet, you're attempting to place them on EQUAL FOOTING.

And why do you feel a need to do this?

We clearly, it's because you yourself know full well that if they are actually recognized to have different levels of credibility Science would TOWER over religion so far that religion wouldn't even be worthy of a second glance.

So you're attempting to REDUCE science to being as "untrustworthy" as religion just so you can proselytize YOUR RELIGION as something that people should specifically place their faith in!

But what you can't seem to see is how you have shot yourself in your own foot.

By claiming that everything must be placed on precisely EQUAL FOOTING when it come to faith, you have just proclaimed that it would be EQUALLY SOUND place your faith in any of the following or more:


The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Greek Mythology
Christianity
Buddhism
Wicca
Cinderella
Santa Claus
The Tooth Fairy
Science

Because in the end, it's YOUR ASSERTION that there is NO REASON to believe in any of these things over the other. Because according to you, they are all EQUALLY FAITH-BASED IDEALS

So how does this help to support your religious views?

Bottom line is that it doesn't.

All you're doing is trying to argue that any and all guesses are equal because you're trying to make a case that even since is no better of a "guess".

So you haven't gotten very far with this approach. You're just spinning your wheels getting nowhere, and all you've done is reduce everything to a pure guess that has no more merit than any other guess.

You wouldn't get very far in the field of science with an attitude like that. That's for sure.

Well, you said, "Shiki believes that if you use logic, science, and reasoning, the Resurrection of Christ can be proven."

So rather than dismissing science like Cowboy, Shiki seems to be suggesting that he can use science to prove his assertion.

My suggestion to him (which I have already posted), is to submit his hypothesis in detail to the scientific community and see whether it will stand up to the rigorous logic and reasoning that they subject it to.

If it does, then he can come back here waving his Nobel Prize at us saying, "See I told you so!"

But until then, like so many laymen, he just has an idea that obviously isn't very convincing.