Should we blame God for Katrina?

[0roo0roo]

katrina is definetly by gods hand. assuming you believe in the god of the main religions out there where god has a personal interest in everything. you know.. intelligent design and all. them black people suffering? they were meant to. its a test. yes a test, gods testing us. for those that lived god has a plan, and for those who died, that was the plan. god works in mysterious ways.

9/11 was not an act of nature.

 

[Mik3y]

always finding someone to blame, eh?

 

[JulesMaximus]

There is no god.

 

[bandana163]

Originally posted by: walla

I don't believe accepting something without evidence is foolish - in fact, it is human. How do you accept the fact that you exist? Even if you don't believe in God, science has no proof for how all matter suddently existed. Nor does it make sense to believe it came from no where since that violates various scientific laws. How do you reconcile the apparent fact that you exist without indisputable proof as to why?

My point is that I think God is like science - rooted by certain principles which humans will never be able to prove. However, believing these principles as true or undeniable allows use to construct some relative meaning of existence.

I try to differentiate between necessary and unnecessary definitions and ideas. Whether I exist or not can be proven via empirical methods. Whether a supernatural entity exists or not can not be proven at all, so it's irrelevant. It has no effect on my life and I can't change its (non)existence, so it doesn't matter and can be considered surreal.
I think that I don't have to prove a theory with no basis of reality wrong.

IMO, reality is what I experience and what can be described via rational, empirical means and there is no difference between something non-existent and something that has no effect on anything.

 

[walla]

Originally posted by: Vaerilis

Whether I exist or not can be proven via empirical methods.

To a point, existence can be explained through observation and scientific relationships. But undeniable proof through this manner is impossible. You could define a human as matter, consisting of molecules, consiting of atoms, consisting of subatomic particles, consisting of subsubatomic particles...but this proof is infinitely long. That is, unless you believe there is a point at which matter is indivisible, consisting of a particle that is self-defined. We'll call this the God particle

In conclusion, I think science and religion are completely relative. Religion says "God" is, and everything is build on the root of "God". Thus every idea can be "absolutely" proven within this logical landscape, but exists based on a single unprovable premise (the antithesis of scientific logic). Science says "God" isn't, is build on the idea of using human observation as "truth". However, every observation in science is followed by subsequent speculative observation, and, if not recursive, it must continue infinitely. Thus, I believe scientific truth is never completely defined or absolute.

I promote neither science nor religion as being truth. I would say either is equally likely.

 

[Rock Hydra]

I blame mother nature. That bitch.

 

[Neos]

Originally posted by: pyonir

He was being sarcastic and spelled it incorrectly on purpose.[

I know that.

 

[Neos]

Originally posted by: Vaerilis

I don't accept every single bit of history and I question almost everything I read. However, historical characters are different from mythological figures.

Jesus was not a myth. He claimed to be God. Thats pretty strong. Either he was a madman - or he was who he said. He probably has had more influence on the world over the centuries. The spitefiul - idiotic things that many did (and still do) in his name is nothing but religion - full of pride and evil.

My point is: Beliefs don't change reality, god either exists or not, and accepting something without any evidence (like the existence of supernatural entities) is foolish.

There is evidence - but most who take a position such as yours would not even dare to search it out.

.[/quote]

 

[IronWing]

Where's the poll?

 

[pyonir]

the quotes really aren't that hard to figure out. :roll:

 

[Neos]

Not really. I was not trying to incur the wrath of idiots. The topic - to me - is one of importance. It is to a lot of folk.

Our world is in trouble. It has truly gone insane. There are very few with integity enough to call a spade a spade. We have been going down a slipperly slope for many years now. It is a shame that we can't learn from history.

All this tells me is that left to his own devices, man will destroy himself and this beautiful planet. Sin and depravity are such wicked masters.

I relent. I would have thought that there would be some on this forum that would appreciate spirituality - and the importence of the topic. For the most part, I was wrong. Not the first time - nor the last.

 

[shilala]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: dartworth
god doesn't like black people...

We need to beam up Dr. Phil....this self-decrepation phase our master is going through can only get worse...


*bonus points for the hidden meaning*

No hidden meaning, He really doesn't.
He's been waiting for a chance to get them ever since the sickle cell didn't work out.
Godding is an imperfect science.
/divine conspiracy theory

 

[Neos]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
katrina is definetly by gods hand. assuming you believe in the god of the main religions out there where god has a personal interest in everything. you know.. intelligent design and all. them black people suffering? they were meant to. its a test. yes a test, gods testing us. for those that lived god has a plan, and for those who died, that was the plan. god works in mysterious ways.

9/11 was not an act of nature.

In my understnding God is not like that at all. He may be in some 'churches' - but not here.

 

[SVT Cobra]

Originally posted by: DanTMWTMP
:lawnchair;
*gets beer*

op corn;

 

[Neos]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
There is no god.

That is one good looking kid. I for one do not see how you could look at him - love him as you do - and not see that there is a God that loves you (and him) even more.

 

[Neos]

Originally posted by: walla

Originally posted by: Vaerilis

Whether I exist or not can be proven via empirical methods.

To a point, existence can be explained through observation and scientific relationships. But undeniable proof through this manner is impossible. You could define a human as matter, consisting of molecules, consiting of atoms, consisting of subatomic particles, consisting of subsubatomic particles...but this proof is infinitely long. That is, unless you believe there is a point at which matter is indivisible, consisting of a particle that is self-defined. We'll call this the God particle

In conclusion, I think science and religion are completely relative. Religion says "God" is, and everything is build on the root of "God". Thus every idea can be "absolutely" proven within this logical landscape, but exists based on a single unprovable premise (the antithesis of scientific logic). Science says "God" isn't, is build on the idea of using human observation as "truth". However, every observation in science is followed by subsequent speculative observation, and, if not recursive, it must continue infinitely. Thus, I believe scientific truth is never completely defined or absolute.

I promote neither science nor religion as being truth. I would say either is equally likely.

Some of what you said I do not follow - but I like it.

Religion and relationship are two different things. Religion kills everything around it - slowly or quickly. When one meets a person that has a spiritual relationship with the creator - he knows that he has come in contact with something real.

 

[shilala]

Originally posted by: Neos

Originally posted by: walla

Originally posted by: Vaerilis

Whether I exist or not can be proven via empirical methods.

To a point, existence can be explained through observation and scientific relationships. But undeniable proof through this manner is impossible. You could define a human as matter, consisting of molecules, consiting of atoms, consisting of subatomic particles, consisting of subsubatomic particles...but this proof is infinitely long. That is, unless you believe there is a point at which matter is indivisible, consisting of a particle that is self-defined. We'll call this the God particle

In conclusion, I think science and religion are completely relative. Religion says "God" is, and everything is build on the root of "God". Thus every idea can be "absolutely" proven within this logical landscape, but exists based on a single unprovable premise (the antithesis of scientific logic). Science says "God" isn't, is build on the idea of using human observation as "truth". However, every observation in science is followed by subsequent speculative observation, and, if not recursive, it must continue infinitely. Thus, I believe scientific truth is never completely defined or absolute.

I promote neither science nor religion as being truth. I would say either is equally likely.

Some of what you said I do not follow - but I like it.

Religion and relationship are two different things. Religion kills everything around it - slowly or quickly. When one meets a person that has a spiritual relationship with the creator - he knows that he has come in contact with something real.

I pride myself in having an open mind.
I have a very deep spiritual connection with my God. I am absolutely convinced of His hand in my life.
On the other hand, I have to concede that it may be all in my head.
I also believe in craetionism and evolutionism.
I don't think they're contradictory at all, because I'm not so conceited to think that I know everything about everything, nor do I think that I'll ever understand everything there is to know.
I'm careful to never overestimate my intelligence. If I don't know all there is to know about the composition of a rock, I sure as hell won't ever comprehend the infinite.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: walla
To a point, existence can be explained through observation and scientific relationships. But undeniable proof through this manner is impossible. You could define a human as matter, consisting of molecules, consiting of atoms, consisting of subatomic particles, consisting of subsubatomic particles...but this proof is infinitely long. That is, unless you believe there is a point at which matter is indivisible, consisting of a particle that is self-defined. We'll call this the God particle

In conclusion, I think science and religion are completely relative. Religion says "God" is, and everything is build on the root of "God". Thus every idea can be "absolutely" proven within this logical landscape, but exists based on a single unprovable premise (the antithesis of scientific logic). Science says "God" isn't, is build on the idea of using human observation as "truth". However, every observation in science is followed by subsequent speculative observation, and, if not recursive, it must continue infinitely. Thus, I believe scientific truth is never completely defined or absolute.

I promote neither science nor religion as being truth. I would say either is equally likely.

What the hell were you friggen smoking when you wrote that post.

 

[Night Blade]

I blame grand theft auto.