There are no objective Or subjective, repeatable, peer-reviewed studies that provide any evidence that reincarnation does NOT exist. That's why with most religions confidence is underlying.
Not too different is suspension of disbelief when you see a movie which makes no sense.
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 12:22:48 GMT, Jangchub wrote: - Refer:
There are no objective Or subjective, repeatable, peer-reviewed studies that provide any evidence that the Invisible Pink Unicorn does NOT exist. That's why with most religions confidence is bullshit.
So, religion makes no sense. Now we are getting somewhere!
But THAT IS your religion. Your religion is telling people that religious confidence is bullshit. I support your right to believe that.
I didn't say it makes no sense. It doesn't make any sense to YOU. What you say about religion makes sense to me, but it's your interpretation and ours are different. It all doesn't matter. You're entitled to your theories and I'm also entitled to mine.
I think the who faith based initiative is the bullshit, not the sects which collect the money for their "community." In that we agree fully.
Jangchub skrev:
Is the above supposed to have some meaning?
Right, it is make-believe.
Jangchub skrev:
That is utter nonsense. You make the word meaningless.
Thank you very much. Coming to rational conclusions is not a religion.
Which are based on nothing of any substance.
Bill M wrote in alt.atheism
That used to be right above the orbit of Saturn, in the so-called 7th heaven. Through space exploration, we now know that there's no god or souls floating around up there above Saturn, so the whole idea of heaven should be discarded as an ancient fantasy and false science, don't you think?
Why create two sexes and a predatory food chain as well?
A race of non-sexual solar-powered beings that didn't have to eat anything but sunlight would seem to make more sense to me.
Yes, it means there is no imperical evidence to support either the existence or non existence of reincarnation.
You think it's make believe. That doesn't mean it is. I am also not saying it's real, only that as an atheist I find I can be Buddhist. It's a lovely way to live, good moral conduct, mindfulness, benefit to others, etc. It works for me. If it doesn't mean anything to you that's fine also. It's your thing, do what you want to do.
Sorry, but that's not a religion.
I support your right to believe
That's nice.
Jangchub skrev:
And, since the only rational conclusion to be drawn from such a fact is that there is no objective reason to believe in reincarnation, or leprechauns or magic spirits in lamps, what possible reason would you have to make such an obvious statement?
No, the fact that there is no objective reason to believe in it makes it make-believe when somebody believes anyway.
I am also not
Your behavior, moral or otherwise, is not what is being questioned. Furthermore your right to believe in anything is not being questioned. You have a right to believe in fairy tales if you want to, but you have no right to be free from people pointing out the illogic; especially when you present your beliefs in a public forum.
No, it's not nice at all. It's a right we all have in the United States as written in the Constitution of Independance. We don't have to agree, we do have to respect one another for a civilized world.
You are very disrespectful. Do what you want, but to call something I believe in a fairytale is just obnoxious and of NO use to anyone. It sounds like you are a fanatic who has to prove something. You haven't shaken anything out of me. I know who I am.
Sorry, but we don't have to respect one another either. There are very few people I do respect and I can assure you that I am quite civilized. It's not a requirement.
Why are you getting your panties in a wad? Perhaps Usenet isn't for you.
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 16:47:55 GMT, Jangchub wrote: - Refer:
Tell that to your President and his untouchable theistic genocidal murderers. You really live in a fantasy world, don't you?
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 16:51:05 GMT, Jangchub wrote: - Refer:
Calling a fairy tale a "fairy tale" is in no way offensive. These religious mind infections generate that reaction in their hosts in order that they can propogate successfully. The belief has manipulated your mind to generate this entirely false reaction to the reality of your condition.
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:46:04 -0400, "Robibnikoff" wrote: - Refer:
She/he has demonstrated clearly that 'reality' is not for them, that much is 100% sure.
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:46:04 -0400, "Robibnikoff" wrote: - Refer:
Would you feel better to have them called myths? Faith is opposed to reason and if reasonable people view myths only as that, it's not necessarily disrespectful that many of us can be enriched by a poetic sacred fiction without having to give up our capacity for reason.
The disrespectful thing would be if someone otherwise fond of mythology & fairy tales disliked scripture merely because it has its believers. Your belief cannot spoil my love of myths. My unwillingness to supplant reason with faith shouldn't make you feel disrespected for your belief in the unreal, unless your faith is already shaky, in which case everything scientific or rational will seem assaultive even if it's not.
Now if I were to note what a dumbass you are that might be regarded as disrespectful. But I am perfectly capable of respecting people of faith if they're not dumbasses, & they in turn rarely seem to have trouble respecting me.
-paghat the ratgirl
I happen to agree with you on Bush. He is the worst president in US history. He's an embarrassment. He's a dictator. It's what happens when you have a fanatic of any sort telling you how to think.
I'm not telling anyone how to think. I'm not trying to convince you of anything.
Ahem, just for the record - I didn't write what you're replying to.
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 12:46:53 GMT, Jangchub wrote: - Refer:
Then why are you posting anything, especially to the rag-tag collection of newsgroups as you have been? I don't live in your wonderful United States, and am not bound by your constitution, even in terms of my interactions with US citizens. I would ignore it even if it did apply. I rely upon my personal integrity as the source of my moral guidance. Not laws made by christian business-men, nor incoherent 'holy' books, nor moronic principles that have gained a patina of respectability solely through being ancient.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.