Bigdogg, I applaud you for most of your views, but the religion topic is a never ending debate, trust me you will just waste your time going back and forth in an unprovable topic, which holds no absolute truth except for people have different opinions and perceptions lol... I tend to be more grounded on the scientific look at creation and all aspects of life, because honestly I feel more evidence has been and still can be found about humans and the cosmos through scientific inductive research instead of believing in something and hoping it is true... But if you are seriously interested in subjects of why psychologically humans think, behave, believe, ect…, the way they do there is a great philosopher named David Hume that you should look into; Immanuel Kant studied his work for 11 straight years. Also defiantly look into Alfred Adler, a German psychologist which I feel everyone on earth should own copies of his works. My personal favorite book of his is What Life Could Mean to You, everyone at this forum should look into it even Lynch lol….
about all these post bout heaven , hell and afterlife
- Thread starter Bigdogg
- Start date
Soundmind,
You're talking about the Sumerians.
Oh yeah, bro. I've looked at every possibility before having made a judgement call.
I find the Sumerian tablets to be very very interesting.
They challenge both science and religion as we know it.
A few stories of the bible are backed by the sumerian tablets.
For instance, the great flood and the story of creation.
They are almost dead on identical.
The bible does talk about Angels coming down to Earth and who mixed with humans to create the Nephilim.
I think the Sumerians talk about a similar story right?
But there is some contradictions between the 2 though.
First the bible implys that the great flood came about because of how evil man became under the influence of the Nephilim.
This story is backed up by the book of Necronomican, whom Wicca and Satanists base their beliefs in.
The book of Necronomican was written by a twisted character but it has a lot of info on the pre-deluvial times.
Meaning before the Sumerians existed.
On the other hand the Sumerian tablets say that the Supreme God whom created men for slavery set them free to roam the Earth. But he was furious at the fact that men were naturaly wicked and one thing that stood out that the Supreme God wasn't happy with was the fact that we loved sex.
This puzzled him so much to the point that he wiped out the whole world.
For me though, I believe the bible is legit.
That's me personally but I cannot deny that the Sumerians tablets tell an incredible tale.
I mean they say that we were created by a race of supreme beings and I cannot rule out that possibility you know?
I know that we were created for sure, and like you I feel that it does't take a God like entity to create such beings as ourselves.
That's why I tell everyone to keep an open mind and to expand there thoughts.
My grip with the Sumerian tablets is that I don't feel alien beings are capable of creating anything else but life.
Meaning that just as our bodies look to be designed, so does the planet. And alien beings as suffisticated as they might be, cannot achieve such thing.
But regardless of that, I thought I read some where, where the Annunaki had a supreme God. And that this God was the one who created us?
Hmmmmm.... Can the Annunaki be angels, and there leader, the Supreme God that we know?............
But I tell you and everyone else, only time will tell
We'll know for sure if the Sumerians were bullshitting or not.
They say that our creators or creator come from a planet that enters our solor system every 3 thousand something years.
Well, it's been more than 3 thousand years since they wrote this info.
Soundmind, aren't planet X and Sumerian believers suggesting that the Annunaki planet will enter our solar system with in the next 15 years or so?
I thought that's what I heard. Well it would be logical to think that we should've already discovered that planet by now.
Oh well, I'll remain optomistic.
According to the Sumerian tablets, we should see this planet with in our life time.
Stay tuned in folks....
I urge everyone reading this to look into the Sumerian tablets.
They are very interesting........
Peace,
Miggidy
PS.... Bro you said the following:
"The scientific community acknowledges that the first civilization of man was 3800 bc at Sumer"
That theory has been disproven by the findings of flooded cities, temples, and monuments.
Most of which date back to 6 or 8 thousand years ago.
Supporting the biblical and Sumerian claim that civilization goes back further than just a few thousand years. Also it makes sense that these structures are under water, it's proof for the catastrophic flood. It seems that the Sumerians were of the surviving family of Noah. I forgot what the Sumerians called him....
You're talking about the Sumerians.
Oh yeah, bro. I've looked at every possibility before having made a judgement call.
I find the Sumerian tablets to be very very interesting.
They challenge both science and religion as we know it.
A few stories of the bible are backed by the sumerian tablets.
For instance, the great flood and the story of creation.
They are almost dead on identical.
The bible does talk about Angels coming down to Earth and who mixed with humans to create the Nephilim.
I think the Sumerians talk about a similar story right?
But there is some contradictions between the 2 though.
First the bible implys that the great flood came about because of how evil man became under the influence of the Nephilim.
This story is backed up by the book of Necronomican, whom Wicca and Satanists base their beliefs in.
The book of Necronomican was written by a twisted character but it has a lot of info on the pre-deluvial times.
Meaning before the Sumerians existed.
On the other hand the Sumerian tablets say that the Supreme God whom created men for slavery set them free to roam the Earth. But he was furious at the fact that men were naturaly wicked and one thing that stood out that the Supreme God wasn't happy with was the fact that we loved sex.
This puzzled him so much to the point that he wiped out the whole world.
For me though, I believe the bible is legit.
That's me personally but I cannot deny that the Sumerians tablets tell an incredible tale.
I mean they say that we were created by a race of supreme beings and I cannot rule out that possibility you know?
I know that we were created for sure, and like you I feel that it does't take a God like entity to create such beings as ourselves.
That's why I tell everyone to keep an open mind and to expand there thoughts.
My grip with the Sumerian tablets is that I don't feel alien beings are capable of creating anything else but life.
Meaning that just as our bodies look to be designed, so does the planet. And alien beings as suffisticated as they might be, cannot achieve such thing.
But regardless of that, I thought I read some where, where the Annunaki had a supreme God. And that this God was the one who created us?
Hmmmmm.... Can the Annunaki be angels, and there leader, the Supreme God that we know?............
But I tell you and everyone else, only time will tell
We'll know for sure if the Sumerians were bullshitting or not.
They say that our creators or creator come from a planet that enters our solor system every 3 thousand something years.
Well, it's been more than 3 thousand years since they wrote this info.
Soundmind, aren't planet X and Sumerian believers suggesting that the Annunaki planet will enter our solar system with in the next 15 years or so?
I thought that's what I heard. Well it would be logical to think that we should've already discovered that planet by now.
Oh well, I'll remain optomistic.
According to the Sumerian tablets, we should see this planet with in our life time.
Stay tuned in folks....
I urge everyone reading this to look into the Sumerian tablets.
They are very interesting........
Peace,
Miggidy
PS.... Bro you said the following:
"The scientific community acknowledges that the first civilization of man was 3800 bc at Sumer"
That theory has been disproven by the findings of flooded cities, temples, and monuments.
Most of which date back to 6 or 8 thousand years ago.
Supporting the biblical and Sumerian claim that civilization goes back further than just a few thousand years. Also it makes sense that these structures are under water, it's proof for the catastrophic flood. It seems that the Sumerians were of the surviving family of Noah. I forgot what the Sumerians called him....
@<MinD<>GonE>
Explain to me how the theory of relativity fits into what I stated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Res
First of all, yes more evidence can be found scientifically. No one here should be attempting to say that science is totally wrong or that religion is either.
Second, EVERYTHING that everyone believes are believed first and then the evidence supporting is looked for. Thats the way it works. You believe something and then you look for evidence supporting it. There isn't Millions and millions of people who believe in God because they're idiots. Your definition of God, if fashioned in your mind by any concepts, is faulty. You cannot argue against something that is beyond concept. Scientifically, we understand that our reality isn't exactly what it seems to be and can't be bound by our concepts. A good book is "The Tao of Physics" By Fritjof Capra. What you are truly arguing against is the popular views from many orthodox Christians who take everything they read absolutely literal and can't look deeper. Once you expand your "idea" of God beyond sigular, half-wise concepts then you will realize that there is no argument worthy of the name. Everybody is pretty much right and wrong in their opinion. It doesnt matter how much scientific "proof" one has. We are all half-wise to any truth when we limit our beliefs to a concept.
Explain to me how the theory of relativity fits into what I stated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Res
First of all, yes more evidence can be found scientifically. No one here should be attempting to say that science is totally wrong or that religion is either.
Second, EVERYTHING that everyone believes are believed first and then the evidence supporting is looked for. Thats the way it works. You believe something and then you look for evidence supporting it. There isn't Millions and millions of people who believe in God because they're idiots. Your definition of God, if fashioned in your mind by any concepts, is faulty. You cannot argue against something that is beyond concept. Scientifically, we understand that our reality isn't exactly what it seems to be and can't be bound by our concepts. A good book is "The Tao of Physics" By Fritjof Capra. What you are truly arguing against is the popular views from many orthodox Christians who take everything they read absolutely literal and can't look deeper. Once you expand your "idea" of God beyond sigular, half-wise concepts then you will realize that there is no argument worthy of the name. Everybody is pretty much right and wrong in their opinion. It doesnt matter how much scientific "proof" one has. We are all half-wise to any truth when we limit our beliefs to a concept.
Yes, but as we all know Russia fell in 89. I also feel that when Castro dies so will Communist Cuba. We'll see....
I feel that communism is a good 'idea'. It just does not seem to be proved to work as of yet or in my opinion to work effectively in the future.
It was never against the law to believe in God. Lenin just thought it was absurd to have one relying on the Supernatural to fix society's problem, or the individual for that matter.
I'll pull quotes out tomorow.
I feel that communism is a good 'idea'. It just does not seem to be proved to work as of yet or in my opinion to work effectively in the future.
It was never against the law to believe in God. Lenin just thought it was absurd to have one relying on the Supernatural to fix society's problem, or the individual for that matter.
I'll pull quotes out tomorow.
That’s the main problem; thanx for bringing that up, it’s called deductive reasoning. It’s the universal assumptions caused by social conditioning that later goes to specifics or particular theories, the worst possible way to go about anything… That is why I prefer science over religion because scientific knowledge requires the method on induction, from particulars to theories, always tested by experiment and open to revision unlike religious dogmas….
BTW, I am talking about Christianity for the most part but also any religions that believe in Gods, supernatural powers, afterlife’s, ect.… Taoism I have no problem with and I have studied much of it in philosophy classes in college, for the most part I would agree to be a Taoist before I would ever be a Christian. Confucius is someone everyone should read about…
But I am a psychology major and I have studied a lot about the brain and I must agree with David Hume who believed that all experiences are merely perceptions. I especially feel this way after seeing dead bodies, people with disabilitating brain damage and many with psychological disorders. Everything is filtered through our consciousness as Kant would say. & my thinking is once that consciousness is dead there is nothing to be interpreted or filtered to become a perception.
BTW, I am talking about Christianity for the most part but also any religions that believe in Gods, supernatural powers, afterlife’s, ect.… Taoism I have no problem with and I have studied much of it in philosophy classes in college, for the most part I would agree to be a Taoist before I would ever be a Christian. Confucius is someone everyone should read about…
But I am a psychology major and I have studied a lot about the brain and I must agree with David Hume who believed that all experiences are merely perceptions. I especially feel this way after seeing dead bodies, people with disabilitating brain damage and many with psychological disorders. Everything is filtered through our consciousness as Kant would say. & my thinking is once that consciousness is dead there is nothing to be interpreted or filtered to become a perception.
^^^^
Deductive reasoning is like for one to say "when it rains the street gets wet." How is this the worst way to go about things?
Inductive reasoning is like for one to go all over the world and see only white ducks and then conclude that all the ducks in the world must be white.
This is the logic you lean more toward?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, experiences are merely perceptions. All is mind. You definitely should read The Kybalion.
"Life is not birth, it is perception. And death is not destruction, it is dissolution." --Hermes Trismegistus
Deductive reasoning is like for one to say "when it rains the street gets wet." How is this the worst way to go about things?
Inductive reasoning is like for one to go all over the world and see only white ducks and then conclude that all the ducks in the world must be white.
This is the logic you lean more toward?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, experiences are merely perceptions. All is mind. You definitely should read The Kybalion.
"Life is not birth, it is perception. And death is not destruction, it is dissolution." --Hermes Trismegistus
Inductive and Deductive Reasoning
Many people distinguish between two basic kinds of argument: inductive and deductive. Induction is usually described as moving from the specific to the general, while deduction begins with the general and ends with the specific; arguments based on experience or observation are best expressed inductively, while arguments based on laws, rules, or other widely accepted principles are best expressed deductively. Consider the following example:
Adham: I've noticed previously that every time I kick a ball up, it comes back down, so I guess this next time when I kick it up, it will come back down, too.
Rizik: That's Newton's Law. Everything that goes up must come down. And so, if you kick the ball up, it must come down.
Adham is using inductive reasoning, arguing from observation, while Rizik is using deductive reasoning, arguing from the law of gravity. Rizik's argument is clearly from the general (the law of gravity) to the specific (this kick); Adham's argument may be less obviously from the specific (each individual instance in which he has observed balls being kicked up and coming back down) to the general (the prediction that a similar event will result in a similar outcome in the future) because he has stated it in terms only of the next similar event--the next time he kicks the ball.
As you can see, the difference between inductive and deducative reasoning is mostly in the way the arguments are expressed. Any inductive argument can also be expressed deductively, and any deductive argument can also be expressed inductively.
Even so, it is important to recognize whether the form of an argument is inductive or deductive, because each requires different sorts of support. Adham's inductive argument, above, is supported by his previous observations, while Rizik's deductive argument is supported by his reference to the law of gravity. Thus, Adham could provide additional support by detailing those observations, without any recourse to books or theories of physics, while Rizik could provide additional support by discussing Newton's law, even if Rizik himself had never seen a ball kicked.
http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/induc/ind-ded.html
I prefer the induction method, cuz I am not just going to take someone’s word, I need to subjectively and objectively experience things first and then come to my own conclusions....
Many people distinguish between two basic kinds of argument: inductive and deductive. Induction is usually described as moving from the specific to the general, while deduction begins with the general and ends with the specific; arguments based on experience or observation are best expressed inductively, while arguments based on laws, rules, or other widely accepted principles are best expressed deductively. Consider the following example:
Adham: I've noticed previously that every time I kick a ball up, it comes back down, so I guess this next time when I kick it up, it will come back down, too.
Rizik: That's Newton's Law. Everything that goes up must come down. And so, if you kick the ball up, it must come down.
Adham is using inductive reasoning, arguing from observation, while Rizik is using deductive reasoning, arguing from the law of gravity. Rizik's argument is clearly from the general (the law of gravity) to the specific (this kick); Adham's argument may be less obviously from the specific (each individual instance in which he has observed balls being kicked up and coming back down) to the general (the prediction that a similar event will result in a similar outcome in the future) because he has stated it in terms only of the next similar event--the next time he kicks the ball.
As you can see, the difference between inductive and deducative reasoning is mostly in the way the arguments are expressed. Any inductive argument can also be expressed deductively, and any deductive argument can also be expressed inductively.
Even so, it is important to recognize whether the form of an argument is inductive or deductive, because each requires different sorts of support. Adham's inductive argument, above, is supported by his previous observations, while Rizik's deductive argument is supported by his reference to the law of gravity. Thus, Adham could provide additional support by detailing those observations, without any recourse to books or theories of physics, while Rizik could provide additional support by discussing Newton's law, even if Rizik himself had never seen a ball kicked.
http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/induc/ind-ded.html
I prefer the induction method, cuz I am not just going to take someone’s word, I need to subjectively and objectively experience things first and then come to my own conclusions....
@Res
I see your point on inductive and deductive reasoning. But, what if Adham had kicked the ball up and it got stuck in a tree? would he then deduce that everytime he kicks the ball up it would get stuck in a tree???
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
I prefer the induction method, cuz I am not just going to take someone’s word, I need to subjectively and objectively experience things first and then come to my own conclusions....
In any case, I do not believe in God because a book told me. I don't blindly follow any doctrine. But, at the same time, niether do I look for ways that specific doctrines are wrong. I am more on the lines of reconciliation. It isn't Science versus Religion. And it never really was! People who still wish to argue the 2 against each other must have nothing better to do. Its entertaining for some, I suppose. I used to love it when I was atheist. So, I understand where it comes from. Either way, coming from an atheistic point or an orthodox Christian's, its a battle for supremacy of ego.
I see your point on inductive and deductive reasoning. But, what if Adham had kicked the ball up and it got stuck in a tree? would he then deduce that everytime he kicks the ball up it would get stuck in a tree???
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
I prefer the induction method, cuz I am not just going to take someone’s word, I need to subjectively and objectively experience things first and then come to my own conclusions....
In any case, I do not believe in God because a book told me. I don't blindly follow any doctrine. But, at the same time, niether do I look for ways that specific doctrines are wrong. I am more on the lines of reconciliation. It isn't Science versus Religion. And it never really was! People who still wish to argue the 2 against each other must have nothing better to do. Its entertaining for some, I suppose. I used to love it when I was atheist. So, I understand where it comes from. Either way, coming from an atheistic point or an orthodox Christian's, its a battle for supremacy of ego.
Yes, the ball would be stuck up there for eternity and there is nothing he can do about it lol... No, but if he used inductive reasoning he would quickly see from the experience of kicking the ball up into the tree he would have to get a ladder, climb the tree, throw a rock, or any other possible way there is to get a ball out of a tree simply from figuring the shit out himself. If he were to use deductive reasoning then he would have to have previously read a book or heard a theory to understand how to get the ball out of a tree....
Neither do I, I just question the infallibility of religious doctrines and any notions of absolute truths….
Neither do I, I just question the infallibility of religious doctrines and any notions of absolute truths….
He could also use common sense. Common sense is a combination of things you've learned in your life and things you've experienced (deductive and inductive).
There must always be left room for flexibilty. We know not the absolute. I can read the bible and yet perceive it much different than another Christian. So who is absolute? I firmly believe in growth. That is why I do not subscribe to the idea of finite things. Or things that are of a pessimistic attitude. They have no root in mind for growth. I can sit and look at the biblical doctrines and find fault with literal interpretations, easily. But, it is NOT the bible I am finding fault with. It is the perceptions of those who have abused its teachings to build their own egos.
Yes he could use deductive and inductive reasoning (common sense), the theory of Newton's law (science) and figuring it out on his own to a general understanding. But with religion I do not feel that this applies especially with religions that are authorities and you must be subordinate underneath them....
That is why I first question the infallibility of religious doctrines and any notions of absolute truths and discuss it openly instead of conforming and then questioning what the hell I am believing in...
That is why I first question the infallibility of religious doctrines and any notions of absolute truths and discuss it openly instead of conforming and then questioning what the hell I am believing in...
I once thought that Communism isn't that bad too.
But then I've come to realize what an impact it can have to an entire nation. A negative impact, and not just because America tells us that Communism is bad.
You see, what if you are a doctor or an engineer?
You've put so much effort into your studies just to make the same amount of money that a janitor makes?
This will encourage people to aim low you know what I mean?
There won't be any rewards for putting your time and effort into a much needed career such as a teacher.
Hell if your gonna make just as much as a teacher simply by flippin burgers, then there is no point to go to school and go after a better career.
Think about it, communism couldn't work this way.
Now as for the belief in god being against the law.
I could be wrong but I have old school Russian friends who lived it. People had to secretly meet in their basements for bible sessions.
One lady became a Christian simply because whe was repeatedly told that there wasn't a god.
They would really enphasize it in school and in all aspects of society. She asked herself, "why is everyone trying to tell me that God doesn't exist?"
Then she realized that it's because maybe God does exist.
Interesting story.........
But then I've come to realize what an impact it can have to an entire nation. A negative impact, and not just because America tells us that Communism is bad.
You see, what if you are a doctor or an engineer?
You've put so much effort into your studies just to make the same amount of money that a janitor makes?
This will encourage people to aim low you know what I mean?
There won't be any rewards for putting your time and effort into a much needed career such as a teacher.
Hell if your gonna make just as much as a teacher simply by flippin burgers, then there is no point to go to school and go after a better career.
Think about it, communism couldn't work this way.
Now as for the belief in god being against the law.
I could be wrong but I have old school Russian friends who lived it. People had to secretly meet in their basements for bible sessions.
One lady became a Christian simply because whe was repeatedly told that there wasn't a god.
They would really enphasize it in school and in all aspects of society. She asked herself, "why is everyone trying to tell me that God doesn't exist?"
Then she realized that it's because maybe God does exist.
Interesting story.........
ReservoirDog,
That is why I think the theory of evolution shouldn't be taught in school since the theory of natural creation is against the law.
You have to look at both sides of the coin and not rule the other one out with out proving it wrong.
Just like an Atheist feels offended by the concept of God being brought up at school, a Christian is offended by Evolution, the theory against God.
All I'm asking for is fair play....
Like you said, people shouldn't be forced to believe or not to believe.
But in this country we are forced not to believe. Only that it's done in such a slick way that no one can realize it.
Like I said before, I do not blame Atheists for this;
there is someone else influencing us on the subconscious level....
That is why I think the theory of evolution shouldn't be taught in school since the theory of natural creation is against the law.
You have to look at both sides of the coin and not rule the other one out with out proving it wrong.
Just like an Atheist feels offended by the concept of God being brought up at school, a Christian is offended by Evolution, the theory against God.
All I'm asking for is fair play....
Like you said, people shouldn't be forced to believe or not to believe.
But in this country we are forced not to believe. Only that it's done in such a slick way that no one can realize it.
Like I said before, I do not blame Atheists for this;
there is someone else influencing us on the subconscious level....
@basically & miggidy and whoever wants to talk.
I will talk more tomorrow, but...
Are you guys both telling me that Capitalism is NOT what is the problem today???
How many people live on this Earth? Is it not 6.2 billion?
How many of these people are living poor?
How many of these people are unhappy?
How many people live in America? Is it not 240 million people?
How many countries are our allies? How many people are our allies?
Do the math.
Since america was born how many countries became poor?
Since america was born how many people died or became poor?
Anwer me ALL of these questions before you can say shit.
I will talk more tomorrow, but...
Are you guys both telling me that Capitalism is NOT what is the problem today???
How many people live on this Earth? Is it not 6.2 billion?
How many of these people are living poor?
How many of these people are unhappy?
How many people live in America? Is it not 240 million people?
How many countries are our allies? How many people are our allies?
Do the math.
Since america was born how many countries became poor?
Since america was born how many people died or became poor?
Anwer me ALL of these questions before you can say shit.
Why not teach evolution it makes perfect sense, did u read the post where I talked about human evolution??? I suppose you don’t want people knowing about dinosaurs and prehistoric animals either…. Also what law are u talking about?
First off, no one has proven any religion what so ever to be correct, also I have listed a shit load of flaws within the Christian Bible, and since there are flaws then there is plenty of room for questioning...
God/religion shouldn’t be taught at school that is what church is for. School is for academic learning not sure if u are aware of that. I don't know of any Christian's offended of the theory of evolution and if they are offended then it's because they are afraid of the truth about where humans really came from...
I don't see anyone being forced to not believe, and thankfully there is separation of church from state... & all hope is lost if you disagree with that and if u do then you better read up on your history and find out why that is.....
First off, no one has proven any religion what so ever to be correct, also I have listed a shit load of flaws within the Christian Bible, and since there are flaws then there is plenty of room for questioning...
God/religion shouldn’t be taught at school that is what church is for. School is for academic learning not sure if u are aware of that. I don't know of any Christian's offended of the theory of evolution and if they are offended then it's because they are afraid of the truth about where humans really came from...
I don't see anyone being forced to not believe, and thankfully there is separation of church from state... & all hope is lost if you disagree with that and if u do then you better read up on your history and find out why that is.....
@miggidy
evolution is not the theory against God.
And we are not forced in this country to not believe in any thing. We have every right to believe as we wish. If a parent doesn't like what is being taught in school then they can teach different. The whole idea that we're teaching evolution doesn't mean that we're going against God. Thats a big misconception. Evolution doesn't go against creation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
evolution is not the theory against God.
And we are not forced in this country to not believe in any thing. We have every right to believe as we wish. If a parent doesn't like what is being taught in school then they can teach different. The whole idea that we're teaching evolution doesn't mean that we're going against God. Thats a big misconception. Evolution doesn't go against creation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
first off WHAT is the "christian bible" and can you direct me to these flaws you speak of?
if evolution is a "theory" how is it truth?
http://godandscience.org/apologetics/nogod.html
:h:
if evolution is a "theory" how is it truth?
http://godandscience.org/apologetics/nogod.html
:h: