Originally posted by vishvahetu God never personally interacts in this mundane world, but has agents to make sure the process of life goes on.
One of the agents that never sleeps is the law of karma, and on that particular day in New York when they had the storm, it was that mans karma to meet his demise. God has nothing to do with it, accept that the law of karma can only exists and ...[text shortened]... f then the law of gravity will be his demise also......god is not involved personally.
vishva
You don't think God works through avatars, gurus, etc.? If the truly spiritually awakened are identical with God, then God does personally interact with the world.
Originally posted by vishvahetu A blade of grass cannot move without the will of God.
vishva
What the?!
A blade of grass moves because of wind; wind occurs as a result of differences in the pressure of the air in an area; pressure differences and larges scale movement of air are a mixed result of the rotation of the Earth coupled with warming from the Sun.
Originally posted by galveston75 Just saw the Mayor of NYC commenting on the bad weather that went thru there yesterday. During his comments he said the damage and at least 1 death was an "Act of God."
Did God do this as he and many people believe? Comments?
I don't know the Mayor, but I'm guessing he doesn't actually believe some magical being reached down from the sky and created a storm. We use the term 'Act of God' to describe natural events that are beyond our control.
It's like when I say 'bloody hell' or 'for christ's sake' - I don't actually believe there's a hell, and I don't believe in the divinity of Jesus. They're just convenient sayings that come loaded with meaning we don't need to unpick for others to understand what we mean.
Originally posted by amannion I don't know the Mayor, but I'm guessing he doesn't actually believe some magical being reached down from the sky and created a storm. We use the term 'Act of God' to describe natural events that are beyond our control.
It's like when I say 'bloody hell' or 'for christ's sake' - I don't actually believe there's a hell, and I don't believe in the divinity o ...[text shortened]... aded with meaning we don't need to unpick for others to understand what we mean.
you don't believe that Christ was a divine being? on what basis?
Originally posted by amannion I don't know the Mayor, but I'm guessing he doesn't actually believe some magical being reached down from the sky and created a storm. We use the term 'Act of God' to describe natural events that are beyond our control.
It's like when I say 'bloody hell' or 'for christ's sake' - I don't actually believe there's a hell, and I don't believe in the divinity o ...[text shortened]... aded with meaning we don't need to unpick for others to understand what we mean.
Well yes it is a term that is used by many to describe a natural event. But then there are many that do take it literally and believe he did cause that event to happen and cause destruction and the loss of life. There are many churches that teach that. The usual comment is God had a different plan for them or needed them to do something else. Not a bible teaching.
Originally posted by galveston75 Well yes it is a term that is used by many to describe a natural event. But then there are many that do take it literally and believe he did cause that event to happen and cause destruction and the loss of life. There are many churches that teach that. The usual comment is God had a different plan for them or needed them to do something else. Not a bible teaching.
That's true, but merely highlights the ridiculous nature of such belief. It's pretty hard to have any sort of conversation about nature and natural events with someone who believes this.
Originally posted by amannion Belief in one supernatural entity - or two if we thrown in Jesus - allows for belief in any. How do you distinguish between gods and fairies?
there are no historical records nor any credible eye witness testimony to the existence of either ghosts or fairies, however, in the case of Christ, we have scripture, historical references that he existed as an actual person and some archaeological evidence concerning the events recorded in scripture which testify to their accuracy.
Now you shall point to your evidence for the lack of Christ being a divine being, if you please. Citing being an atheist is neither corroborative nor helpful.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie there are no historical records nor any credible eye witness testimony to the existence of either ghosts or fairies, however, in the case of Christ, we have scripture, historical references that he existed as an actual person and some archaeological evidence concerning the events recorded in scripture which testify to their accuracy.
Now you shall point to your evidence for the lack of Christ being a divine being, if you please.
No I shan't. Belief in the divine is ... belief.
Yes, there are some credible accounts of some aspects of Jesus' life - I never said Jesus didn't exist. But, birth from a virgin, miracles, and resurrection have no basis in anything other than conjecture and hearsay.
I would also add that if we're using literature as proof, then there's a pretty convincing amount of literature about fairies and ghosts. Does that support their existence?
Of course not.
Originally posted by amannion No I shan't. Belief in the divine is ... belief.
Yes, there are some credible accounts of some aspects of Jesus' life - I never said Jesus didn't exist. But, birth from a virgin, miracles, and resurrection have no basis in anything other than conjecture and hearsay.
I would also add that if we're using literature as proof, then there's a pretty convincin ...[text shortened]... of literature about fairies and ghosts. Does that support their existence?
Of course not.
so you hold a belief that can neither be corroborated by external evidence nor substantiated and i say it is therefore a purely religious belief as much as any fairy tale, is it not the case. Can we not also state that your belief that miracles, the virgin birth, the resurrection as being non events is also unfounded and without evidence?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie so you hold a belief that can neither be corroborated by external evidence nor substantiated and i say it is therefore a purely religious belief as much as any fairy tale, is it not the case. Can we not also state that your belief that miracles, the virgin birth, the resurrection as being non events is also unfounded and without evidence?
Yes, I've never claimed that my atheism is any more special than the religious beliefs of others - it is a belief, I don't deny that. I can't prove there is no god any more than you can prove there is.
As for resurrection, miracles and virgin birth? There is certainly no evidence for them, but that's not what you meant is it? I base my belief that they don't exist on three foundations - the first is my atheist belief in the non-existence of supernatural beings and events, the second is my scientific perspective of looking for evidence (there is no credible evidence of these events, or anything like them ever happening), and the third is my tacit approval of Ockam's Razor (there are certainly simpler explanations for these events than the supernatural.)
Act of God???
23 Sep '10 23:17
Back to Top