Add an additional faith to your faith
- Thread starter eanassir
- Start date
You want a sugar coated truth. I understand.
The majority of humans do.
That's why I usually don't talk about what I believe.
The truth is not necessarily always good.
Especially if where talking about the human truth.
I'm happy with the universe. Not so much the humans
And the part we play in it. We have the opportunity
To make something incredible, and we fail miserably.
Last edited:
Where do I source my truth? A book on how to ride bicycles? What makes you think it is sugar coated? Why do we fail? Because there are too many followers and not enough leaders to teach you how to really ride a bicycle.
Sorry, but no, that's just not true, there is no such evidence worth taking seriously, there are much simpler and more prosaic explanations for what those tests recorded, starting with human error based on wishful thinking.
You said the truth should bring you joy and serenity
That sounds very sugar coated to me.
Even if there where more leaders, no one wants to listen to the
Inconvenient truth. You can't help someone that doesn't want to be.
Last edited:
I'm not really worried about it that much,
it doesn't matter in the end. What the test proved is,
there is something there. It would take many more study
To find out what that something, really is.
There is a chance its total crap. I can't prove it
You can't prove it. Waste of both of our time.
Last edited:
The truth is relative to the beholder. It can only be comprehended by the level of understanding of the individual. A person can read a thousand books, but they mean nothing unless one actually experiences the truth (at their level of comprehension) and yes, by present day religious and scientific knowledge, the truth is almost impossible to reach because of the dogmatic nature to both. Their are many ways to take oneself outside the dogma of every day reality, which is necessary if one wants to get there. The truth cannot and never will be found inside the matrix (the socially conditioned mind). Losing that mind is the only way to find out who you really are and what is real.
Last edited:
Really? Then why try to make the argument at all unless you enjoy spitting into the wind? You claimed there's solid evidence for the human soul and solid evidence of souls leaving a body at death. Those are claims crucial to the dominant contemporary religions. If those claims don't matter, then neither do those dominant religions in any fundamental sense, a claim I'd agree with to some degree, but for different reasons, except that they do affect the world we have to live in, whether they're true or not, By the same argument, neither do your thoughts about life on the larger scale of the cosmos matter. You have no more evidence for that than there is to support the idea of souls, it's all just idle speculation and wishful thinking, with no roots in reality. I really don't see any point in believing something for which there is no evidence at all. I'd rather say I don't know, and neither do you, and leave it at that.
Ah, but I'm not the one making the claim, you are. I don't have to prove anything. You do, if you want your claims to be taken seriously.
That's why I said I usually don't bother talking about my belief.
Its just a waste of time. Don't worrie about it. Soul's
don't exist. Who cares
Last edited:
I'm not worried about it, I'm just endlessly curious about how other people think and why they think that way., especially people who disagree with me about fundamental things. I have my own carefully worked out ideas about what's most likely to be true and what's not and how to tell the difference, and I have a large, well-adjusted and well-defended ego, so some part of me has a hard time believing that anyone could reasonably disagree with me. Yet many people do. I'm sure most of us are like that, we all think we're right. But obviously many of us aren't, or we'd all agree on everything. Not even any two people will agree on everything, never mind a whole nation of them. Most disagreements seem to me fairly trivial in the larger scheme of things, but there are some really deep and fundamental disagreements--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are only the most obvious contemporary examples--that can do us all both much harm or much good, depending on how the differences are dealt with. Obviously any sane person would favour the "much good" option, but the next question is as blindingly obvious as the answer is unknown, and possibly unknowable: how can we know, how can we tell, which is the "much good" option?
I don't know the answer, I don't think anyone does, but I'm 100% sure that religious fundamentalists like eanassir and Mhz and alley DON'T have it. I'm not even convinced there IS an answer, but there may be multiple answers that'll work as long as the people who buy one of them accept the legitimacy of all the others and peacefully agree to disagree. Human nature and history don't suggest that's very likely, but if you can't have hope you might as well throw yourself under the next bus.
They turn away from every recent admonition coming to them from God
(No recent admonition comes to them from [God] Most Gracious, but they turn away from it in aversion.
So now they have denied [the ambiguous ayat of the Quran], but it will come to them the tidings of that [ambiguous ayat] at which they mocked.)
The above between brackets is the interpretation of the Quran 26: 5-6
وَمَايَأْتِيهِم مِّن ذِكْرٍ مِّنَ الرَّحْمَنِ مُحْدَثٍ إِلَّا كَانُوا عَنْهُمُعْرِضِينَ . فَقَدْكَذَّبُوا فَسَيَأْتِيهِمْ أَنبَاء مَا كَانُوا بِهِ يَسْتَهْزِئُون
The miraculous interpretation of theprevious aya 26: 6
The Arab used to calculate with their letters: i.e. to each alphabettical letter is a numerical value: e.g.these English letters:
a= 1, b= 2, c=3, d= 4, e=5, f=6, g=7, h=8, i=9
j=10, k=20, l=30, m=40, n=50, o=60, p=70, q=80, r= 90,
s= 100, t = 200 ...etc.
and this is in Arabic alphabet of course, then they say some poetry and arrange the words to date some events with those words of poetry.
The interpreter said: if we calculate the numerical value of the sentence:
i.e.(But it will come to them the tidings of that [ambiguous ayat] at which they mocked.)
the result will be: 1325 After Hijra: the Arabic calendar: it is the birth date of the interpreter;
Then if you add to it 41 which is my age that passed until I wrote the first book of interpretation (The Universe andthe Quran), the result will be 1325+41= 1366 After Hijra: which is the date of publishing the first edition of my book الكون والقرآن: (The Universe and the Quran).
Therefore, this Glorious aya of the Quran indicates the interpretation of the ambiguous ayat of the Quran (at which they mocked) will come in the year 1366 AH which is the date of publishing the first edition of this book which included the interpretation of some ambiguous ayat of the Quran.
http://www.quran-ayat.com/shabaha/index.htm
(No recent admonition comes to them from [God] Most Gracious, but they turn away from it in aversion.
So now they have denied [the ambiguous ayat of the Quran], but it will come to them the tidings of that [ambiguous ayat] at which they mocked.)
The above between brackets is the interpretation of the Quran 26: 5-6
وَمَايَأْتِيهِم مِّن ذِكْرٍ مِّنَ الرَّحْمَنِ مُحْدَثٍ إِلَّا كَانُوا عَنْهُمُعْرِضِينَ . فَقَدْكَذَّبُوا فَسَيَأْتِيهِمْ أَنبَاء مَا كَانُوا بِهِ يَسْتَهْزِئُون
The miraculous interpretation of theprevious aya 26: 6
The Arab used to calculate with their letters: i.e. to each alphabettical letter is a numerical value: e.g.these English letters:
a= 1, b= 2, c=3, d= 4, e=5, f=6, g=7, h=8, i=9
j=10, k=20, l=30, m=40, n=50, o=60, p=70, q=80, r= 90,
s= 100, t = 200 ...etc.
and this is in Arabic alphabet of course, then they say some poetry and arrange the words to date some events with those words of poetry.
The interpreter said: if we calculate the numerical value of the sentence:
فَسَيَأْتِيهِمْ أَنبَاء مَا كَانُوا بِهِ يَسْتَهْزِئُون
i.e.(But it will come to them the tidings of that [ambiguous ayat] at which they mocked.)
the result will be: 1325 After Hijra: the Arabic calendar: it is the birth date of the interpreter;
Then if you add to it 41 which is my age that passed until I wrote the first book of interpretation (The Universe andthe Quran), the result will be 1325+41= 1366 After Hijra: which is the date of publishing the first edition of my book الكون والقرآن: (The Universe and the Quran).
Therefore, this Glorious aya of the Quran indicates the interpretation of the ambiguous ayat of the Quran (at which they mocked) will come in the year 1366 AH which is the date of publishing the first edition of this book which included the interpretation of some ambiguous ayat of the Quran.
http://www.quran-ayat.com/shabaha/index.htm
Last edited:
Could it be that wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia, etc are admonition from God toward the Muslim peoples for being so dogmatic and unaccepting of their brother's and sister's right to follow their own path back to God? Could Muslim intolerance toward other religions be the cause of all the suffering in the Middle East?
Nope. We just need to invade a friendly country like France before anyone gives a **** and it clicks in who we really are.
Few complained about Poland, Cz or Austria but when they took France....
Well of course!!
If there is a just God, he definitley would punish the Muslims for them practicing their barbaric ways in his name.
It is obvious God does not like the Muslims and the way they conduct themselves in his name.
That is the reason he is making them live a lousy life. It should be worse, in my opinion.!!
Is this relative?
Even if there is no God, doesn't this notion cheapen life? If it "doesn't matter" you are completely free from any moral implications of the choices you make in life - and that's dangerous thinking.
If you believe truth is knowable about any range of subjects, would this not also include whether or not God exists?
In principle yes, that should be knowable, and the available evidence so far indicates that he doesn't. There is no evidence or argument that can be advanced in support of the claim that he does, that doesn't apply equally well to any of the thousands of other deities humanity has invented (all but one of which I'm sure you don't believe in) and/or admit of more prosaic explanations than that extraordinary hypothesis. Has it not struck you that the more we learn about a subject, the less role there is for supernatural forces in it and the less willing we are to apply such explanations? God's been relegated to being an explanation for things we don't currently understand, and the more we learn the less there is for him to do. Any logical person wouldn't hesitate to extrapolate that record to the conclusion that the postulated deity probably doesn't exist.
Everything is relative. Morals are artificial rules for human behaviour created by humans, just like humans invented their gods. God exists for those who believe in it, just like the devil exists for those who believe in it. Satan is alive and doing well in Christianity and Islam.
