that is why i wont be able to follow any religion. all religions except sience as normale on a daily base. but they do not want to except the basics of science that is a guideline to make 100% sure that all results of experiments are facts. by denying evolution.
The OP didn't care about the facts. He just wanted to know which one had the most specific rules for how to live. This has nothing to do with evolution or which religion you like the most or least. You can start those threads if you want to.
Though even 12-13 thousand can still easily be proven wrong the same way 6,000 can.
People have limited even when imagining proportional to their intelligence. I believe their alter ego prevents them to develop their mind capasity.
but they do not want to except the basics of science
And who are they to speak on God's behalf ?It is nonsense already thinking God rested forever and decided to do something 10000 years ago based on religion. I believe Abrahamic religions have capasity to fullfill the existing system but according somone or idea with flawed design,its hard to maintain accuracy on righteousness. Besides we have instincts to rely if used properly.
The OP didn't care about the facts. He just wanted to know which one had the most specific rules for how to live. This has nothing to do with evolution or which religion you like the most or least. You can start those threads if you want to.
the OP wrote: "Actually, this thread was created to give others a chance to show their views according to their religion"
a religion is a believing in "god" and that this "god" is the reason why there are humans and other living things.
what i believe in is not a religion because it is new to this world. (compared to religions) i have all right to give my view according to what i believe.
but they do not want to except the basics of science that is a guideline to make 100% sure that all results of experiments are facts.
Not exactly a true statement you can't get 100% sure and an experiment is meant to test the facts gathered.
I believe Abrahamic religions have capasity to fullfill the existing system but according somone or idea with flawed design,its hard to maintain accuracy on righteousness.
How is it any different from any other religion? What do you mean by existing system?
[quote]what i believe in is not a religion because it is new to this world.quote] Well, if you believe it, it's a religion, just still an unrecognized one.
Well, if you believe it, it's a religion, just still an unrecognized one
a religion is always there to honor a "god" i do not believe in any "god" there is not a single religion that has no "god" (even scientology has) so what i believe can not become a religion.
Not exactly a true statement you can't get 100% sure and an experiment is meant to test the facts gathered.
you can be 100% sure if the result that you are getting is the same time after time after time. and a experiment is not there to test facts. a experiment is just a way to test a hypothesis (A hypothesis is just an idea of what you think that might happen)
here is a link where the basics of science are explained in a easy way. (not 100% compleet because it's ment for childs) thesciencefair.com/guidelines.html
a religion is a believing in "god" a religion is always there to honor a "god" i do not believe in any "god" there is not a single religion that has no "god" (even scientology has) so what i believe can not become a religion.
HahiHa is right. For example Buddhists and Jainists don't believe in a God. Religion defined by dictionary.com :
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. 3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions
you can be 100% sure if the result that you are getting is the same time after time after time.
In science, everything must be falsifiable. So it doesn't really make sense to say that we are 100% sure.
Buddhisme started of whit the Tripitaka. it's from 500 BC under leading of Mahakasyapa. in the Tripitaka there are several gods. for example the highest god Baka Brahma. Baka Brahma is one of the high gods of the Buddhist cosmos, which they thought it was permanent, eternal, complete and unchanging was, and that he was not born, not older, would not die, nor born again.
you can be 100% sure if the result that you are getting is the same time after time after time.
oke, let's deny gravity xD
You don't need to deny something because you don't have 100% certainty. For example let's say we tested that what goes up must come down. You throw something up into the air every day and each time your result is the same. The object you threw drops back to the ground. But one day you manage to throw your object so hard that it escapes earths gravity. The object doesn't come back down. So even though you get the same result time and time again you still can't be 100% sure that the next time you run your test you will get a different result. Just because we got a different result the last time doesn't mean we have to deny the previous results either.
a experiment is not there to test facts. a experiment is just a way to test a hypothesis (A hypothesis is just an idea of what you think that might happen)
Alright I misworded, it's to test a claim or hypothesis only testing one variable.
Buddhisme started of whit the Tripitaka. it's from 500 BC under leading of Mahakasyapa. in the Tripitaka there are several gods. for example the highest god Baka Brahma. Baka Brahma is one of the high gods of the Buddhist cosmos, which they thought it was permanent, eternal, complete and unchanging was, and that he was not born, not older, would not die, nor born again.
Quite contradictory views have been expressed in Western literature on the attitude of Buddhism toward the concept of God and gods. From a study of the discourses of the Buddha preserved in the Pali canon, it will be seen that the idea of a personal deity, a creator god conceived to be eternal and omnipotent, is incompatible with the Buddha's teachings. On the other hand, conceptions of an impersonal godhead of any description, such as world-soul, etc., are excluded by the Buddha's teachings on Anatta, non-self or unsubstantiality.
In Buddhist literature, the belief in a creator god (issara-nimmana-vada) is frequently mentioned and rejected, along with other causes wrongly adduced to explain the origin of the world; as, for instance, world-soul, time, nature, etc. God-belief, however, is placed in the same category as those morally destructive wrong views which deny the kammic results of action, assume a fortuitous origin of man and nature, or teach absolute determinism. These views are said to be altogether pernicious, having definite bad results due to their effect on ethical conduct. Source Buddhists accept the existence of beings in higher realms (see Buddhist cosmology), known as devas, but they, like humans, are said to be suffering in samsara,[17] and not particularly wiser than us. In fact the Buddha is often portrayed as a teacher of the gods,[18] and superior to them.[19] (...) While Buddhist traditions do not deny the existence of supernatural beings (e.g., the devas, of which many are discussed in Buddhist scripture), it does not ascribe powers, in the typical Western sense, for creation, salvation or judgement, to the "gods". They are regarded as having the power to affect worldly events in much the same way as humans and animals have the power to do so. Just as humans can affect the world more than animals, devas can affect the world more than humans. While gods may be more powerful than humans, none of them are absolute (unsurpassed). Most importantly, gods, like humans, are also suffering in samsara, the ongoing cycle of death and subsequent rebirth. Gods have not attained nirvana, and are still subject to emotions, including jealousy, anger, delusion, sorrow, etc. Thus, since a Buddha shows the way to nirvana, a Buddha is called "the teacher of the gods and humans" (Skrt: ÅÄsta deva-manuá¹£yÄá¹aá¹). According to the Pali Canon the gods have powers to affect only so far as their realm of influence or control allows them. In this sense therefore, they are no closer to nirvana than humans and no wiser in the ultimate sense. A dialogue between the king Pasenadi Kosala, his general Vidudabha and the historical Buddha reveals a lot about the relatively weaker position of gods in Buddhism.[54] Source
Long story short: Buddhists don't believe in a creator God.
