☀️ JOIN SPN MOBILE
Forums
New posts
Guru Granth Sahib
Composition, Arrangement & Layout
ਜਪੁ | Jup
ਸੋ ਦਰੁ | So Dar
ਸੋਹਿਲਾ | Sohilaa
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ | Raag Siree-Raag
Gurbani (14-53)
Ashtpadiyan (53-71)
Gurbani (71-74)
Pahre (74-78)
Chhant (78-81)
Vanjara (81-82)
Vaar Siri Raag (83-91)
Bhagat Bani (91-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਝ | Raag Maajh
Gurbani (94-109)
Ashtpadi (109)
Ashtpadiyan (110-129)
Ashtpadi (129-130)
Ashtpadiyan (130-133)
Bara Maha (133-136)
Din Raen (136-137)
Vaar Maajh Ki (137-150)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ | Raag Gauree
Gurbani (151-185)
Quartets/Couplets (185-220)
Ashtpadiyan (220-234)
Karhalei (234-235)
Ashtpadiyan (235-242)
Chhant (242-249)
Baavan Akhari (250-262)
Sukhmani (262-296)
Thittee (296-300)
Gauree kii Vaar (300-323)
Gurbani (323-330)
Ashtpadiyan (330-340)
Baavan Akhari (340-343)
Thintteen (343-344)
Vaar Kabir (344-345)
Bhagat Bani (345-346)
ਰਾਗੁ ਆਸਾ | Raag Aasaa
Gurbani (347-348)
Chaupaday (348-364)
Panchpadde (364-365)
Kaafee (365-409)
Aasaavaree (409-411)
Ashtpadiyan (411-432)
Patee (432-435)
Chhant (435-462)
Vaar Aasaa (462-475)
Bhagat Bani (475-488)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੂਜਰੀ | Raag Goojaree
Gurbani (489-503)
Ashtpadiyan (503-508)
Vaar Gujari (508-517)
Vaar Gujari (517-526)
ਰਾਗੁ ਦੇਵਗੰਧਾਰੀ | Raag Dayv-Gandhaaree
Gurbani (527-536)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਹਾਗੜਾ | Raag Bihaagraa
Gurbani (537-556)
Chhant (538-548)
Vaar Bihaagraa (548-556)
ਰਾਗੁ ਵਡਹੰਸ | Raag Wadhans
Gurbani (557-564)
Ashtpadiyan (564-565)
Chhant (565-575)
Ghoriaan (575-578)
Alaahaniiaa (578-582)
Vaar Wadhans (582-594)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੋਰਠਿ | Raag Sorath
Gurbani (595-634)
Asatpadhiya (634-642)
Vaar Sorath (642-659)
ਰਾਗੁ ਧਨਾਸਰੀ | Raag Dhanasaree
Gurbani (660-685)
Astpadhiya (685-687)
Chhant (687-691)
Bhagat Bani (691-695)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਤਸਰੀ | Raag Jaitsree
Gurbani (696-703)
Chhant (703-705)
Vaar Jaitsaree (705-710)
Bhagat Bani (710)
ਰਾਗੁ ਟੋਡੀ | Raag Todee
ਰਾਗੁ ਬੈਰਾੜੀ | Raag Bairaaree
ਰਾਗੁ ਤਿਲੰਗ | Raag Tilang
Gurbani (721-727)
Bhagat Bani (727)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੂਹੀ | Raag Suhi
Gurbani (728-750)
Ashtpadiyan (750-761)
Kaafee (761-762)
Suchajee (762)
Gunvantee (763)
Chhant (763-785)
Vaar Soohee (785-792)
Bhagat Bani (792-794)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ | Raag Bilaaval
Gurbani (795-831)
Ashtpadiyan (831-838)
Thitteen (838-840)
Vaar Sat (841-843)
Chhant (843-848)
Vaar Bilaaval (849-855)
Bhagat Bani (855-858)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੋਂਡ | Raag Gond
Gurbani (859-869)
Ashtpadiyan (869)
Bhagat Bani (870-875)
ਰਾਗੁ ਰਾਮਕਲੀ | Raag Ramkalee
Ashtpadiyan (902-916)
Gurbani (876-902)
Anand (917-922)
Sadd (923-924)
Chhant (924-929)
Dakhnee (929-938)
Sidh Gosat (938-946)
Vaar Ramkalee (947-968)
ਰਾਗੁ ਨਟ ਨਾਰਾਇਨ | Raag Nat Narayan
Gurbani (975-980)
Ashtpadiyan (980-983)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਲੀ ਗਉੜਾ | Raag Maalee Gauraa
Gurbani (984-988)
Bhagat Bani (988)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਰੂ | Raag Maaroo
Gurbani (889-1008)
Ashtpadiyan (1008-1014)
Kaafee (1014-1016)
Ashtpadiyan (1016-1019)
Anjulian (1019-1020)
Solhe (1020-1033)
Dakhni (1033-1043)
ਰਾਗੁ ਤੁਖਾਰੀ | Raag Tukhaari
Bara Maha (1107-1110)
Chhant (1110-1117)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕੇਦਾਰਾ | Raag Kedara
Gurbani (1118-1123)
Bhagat Bani (1123-1124)
ਰਾਗੁ ਭੈਰਉ | Raag Bhairo
Gurbani (1125-1152)
Partaal (1153)
Ashtpadiyan (1153-1167)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਸੰਤੁ | Raag Basant
Gurbani (1168-1187)
Ashtpadiyan (1187-1193)
Vaar Basant (1193-1196)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਾਰਗ | Raag Saarag
Gurbani (1197-1200)
Partaal (1200-1231)
Ashtpadiyan (1232-1236)
Chhant (1236-1237)
Vaar Saarang (1237-1253)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਲਾਰ | Raag Malaar
Gurbani (1254-1293)
Partaal (1265-1273)
Ashtpadiyan (1273-1278)
Chhant (1278)
Vaar Malaar (1278-91)
Bhagat Bani (1292-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਾਨੜਾ | Raag Kaanraa
Gurbani (1294-96)
Partaal (1296-1318)
Ashtpadiyan (1308-1312)
Chhant (1312)
Vaar Kaanraa
Bhagat Bani (1318)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਲਿਆਨ | Raag Kalyaan
Gurbani (1319-23)
Ashtpadiyan (1323-26)
ਰਾਗੁ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤੀ | Raag Prabhaatee
Gurbani (1327-1341)
Ashtpadiyan (1342-51)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਜਾਵੰਤੀ | Raag Jaijaiwanti
Gurbani (1352-53)
Salok | Gatha | Phunahe | Chaubole | Swayiye
Sehskritee Mahala 1
Sehskritee Mahala 5
Gaathaa Mahala 5
Phunhay Mahala 5
Chaubolae Mahala 5
Shaloks Bhagat Kabir
Shaloks Sheikh Farid
Swaiyyae Mahala 5
Swaiyyae in Praise of Gurus
Shaloks in Addition To Vaars
Shalok Ninth Mehl
Mundavanee Mehl 5
ਰਾਗ ਮਾਲਾ, Raag Maalaa
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Videos
New media
New comments
Library
Latest reviews
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up
Log in
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
Why Atheism Will Replace Religion!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Caspian" data-source="post: 138164" data-attributes="member: 5962"><p>I'm not going to argue this point any further. You can twist almost any quote of his to make him seem like a religious man. He has been on record as believing in "Spinoza's God." (Spinoza suggested god exists only philosophically, and that god was abstract and impersonal). He did not literally believe in a higher power as you or that site seem to suggest. But you can believe he was a religious man; Just because einstein did it doesnt mean that it is the end of discussion. Einstein is but one man, and like any other man he made many mistakes. He discounted quantum mechanics—even going so far as to suggest "God does not roll dice" (again he was using the term god figuratively). But since you think he literally believed in god, it turns out he was rong, quantum mechanics was right, and that his non-dice-throwing-god doesn't exist. Every forum I go to, be it christian, muslim, or sikh—someone mistakenly associates einstein with religion and expects that to be the end of the discussion on the association between intellect and religion. Even if einstein was religious, most intellectuals are overwhelmingly atheist. End of discussion. Dont care for einstein. Cool guy and all tho <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /> </p><p></p><p>Yes it is *** for tat. And it works. Read Carl Sagan's paper "Rules of the Game" they give a good explanation using Game Theory for how "*** for tat" is the definitive moral ground. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> Its funny how *** got censored though lol. Btw, christians were not responsible for the "eye for an eye" bit—christians were responsible for the golden rule: treat others how you would like to be treated. and the whole bit about "turning the other cheek" just sayin. </p><p></p><p>Prayer doesnt cure anything period. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html</a> theres the link to the study I was referencing. Does prayer have a positive effect on the person praying? Yes it can, but all of which could be explained by the placebo effect. Prayer has no effect when the person in question does not know someone is praying for them.</p><p></p><p>Can you cite some examples from the medical literature of unexplainable miracle cures attributed to god? Their certainly are miraculous recoveries but you make it sound like its a regular old thing. It happens so infrequently and regardless of faith that it is purely random. And often time, just because you cant explain it right away, doesnt mean God did it. The tv show House has on numerous occasions used real life examples of "miraculous" recoveries only to show the viewers that there is nothing miraculous about the cures. </p><p></p><p>Yet MOST sikhs do believe in these silly stories. I consider that dangerous and I consider it my obligation to spread the "truth" in those situations. Of course u seemed appalled by that as I will later cover. </p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=rwandan" target="_blank">http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=rwandan</a></p><p></p><p>Actually, the roman catholic church played a pivotal role in the rwandan genocide. The actively supported the Hutus I believe. Heres one example <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]<span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="color: #000000">Seromba was the Roman Catholic priest at Nyange parish in Kivumu Commune, Rwanda, and is ethnically Hutu. He pleaded not guilty to all charges. These centred on the destruction of his church where about 2,000 Tutsis had sought shelter in April 1994. He was accused of ordering the destruction of the church by buldozers, which led to the deaths of all inside, and of sending in Hutu militia members to kill Tutsis who tried to flee. He also personally shot refugees who tried to escape the killings and handed survivors over to the killers, many of whom were then murdered in his presence. In addition he personally manned a roadblock to check identity cards so that Tutsis could be singled out and killed. </span></span>[/FONT]</p><p></p><p>I think you will find religion rear its ugly head in most cases like this. The roman catholic church, especially, has played host or contributed to many genocide: the crusades, holocaust, and rwandan genocides to name a few.</p><p></p><p>I dont reject anybodies capacity to put fourth their point of view, thats what I do. And i dont know whether or not I am right for sure—but in all liklihood, I am. I know that most religious points of view will ultimately wither away in a puff of logic. Either which way, I try to focus on the simple things that even you would agree are not true. The ganga sagar story, guru nanak's hand print, and baba deep singhs headless fight. And i debate the neccesity of the 5 k's which seem utterly pointless to me. IMO the sikh religion would be far more accepted and universally appealing without such ridiculous requirements. My main quarrel with sikhism has less to do with the sikh concept of god and more to do with the silliness sikhism has adopted since guru nanak's time (such as the 5 k's). I reject alot of the later guru's teachings as inherently contradictory to guru nanak's message. (I find the 5 k's contradictory). </p><p></p><p>The larger question of whether or not god exists—thats a debate I have more thoroughly with people who believe in a personal god (and believe me, even alot of sikhs believe in a personal god). I find that what most members on this site consider to be the "true" representation of the sikh god just not worth arguing over—he, she, it is largely pointless in my opinion. Even if he, she it exists, the world is no different then if he, she, it didnt exist. I'm going to go so far as to say that sikhi is "almost" an atheistic religion not unlike buddhism and that the sikh public cant decide whether or not their god is a personal god or an abstract largely philosophical god (like einsteins god). Some other members on this site have gone farther and said to me that "Sikhi has no god"—I'd like to agree with that notion. But what exactly does the sikh god do? It seems like he exists for the sole reason of existing—pointless much</p><p></p><p>Yes, i have admitted that i dont know for sure. If only the religious could admit that they dont know for sure either—would u be kind enough to volunteer? Or are you "for sure" that your god exists. If so, based on what logic, reasoning or evidence? Ah.... were getting back to this now <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /> lol anyways... </p><p></p><p>Yes many religious people are good. But if a religious person does something good because their religion beckons them too—for example the sikh concept of sewa. I wont consider that "as good" as an atheist who does the same thing (sewa) for no reason other then out of their own kindness. At its best, Religion is simply a tool to motivate people to do good things or else face some kind of consequence, in the case of sikhism, this consequence is the inability to escape the cycles of birth and death. But I believe we can motivate people to do good things for the sake of doing them—and not because some imaginary being is going to send u to hell, turn u into a frog in ur next life, or cut ur allowance. </p><p></p><p>I would not "force" my religious child to become an atheist. But thats not hypocritical unless I was forcing you guys to become atheists as well. Which I am not doing? As far as I'm concerned were having a discussion on the merits of religion and atheism. Would i have this same discussion with my religious child? Most definately. Would i occasionaly poke fun at his religion—probably, i would expect him to do the same to me too <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />. I have thick skin, I can live with it, and religious preference is a personal issue. Would it pain me to see him be religious? No more then it pains me to see anyone else as religious. </p><p></p><p>No that is not what science does. the experiments at CERN, particularily the mission to find the Higgs Boson particle are based on quantum and mathamatical calculations. Simply put, their is a gap in the "standard model" (which has correctly predicted the existance of prior particles) where scientists predict the higgs boson (aka the god particle) should be—but they have never found such a particle because all other haddron colliders are too weak to discover it. The hypothesis that it does exist is based on strong evidence tho, mainly the gap, the math, and its effects. If they dont happen to find the higgs boson—then they have to re-write their theory. Something religion oughta consider doing considering it has never found god <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /></p><p></p><p>There is strong evidence for aliens as well. Not to mention the probability, that with billions or trillions of stars out their, and hundreds of "earth-like" planets already found, that chances that life exists on atleast 1 other planet (other then earth) are essentially ~100 percent. The question is whether or not that life is intelligent. As for aliens, we already know they have existed—im sure your aware of the "mars rock" found in ant arctica that contains the fossilized remains of bacteria. We know for a fact that mars once has life on it. </p><p></p><p>So their, both your examples, Cern and Aliens have strong evidence behind the ideas. Far more stronger then the evidence behind god atleast. There is a sound precedent for both the higgs boson experiments at CERN (as the standard model has correctly predicted prior particles that were found) and the belief that aliens may exist in our universe (as we know from the mars rock that bacterial life forms once existed on mars)</p><p></p><p>That is not the position on bigfoot. Big foot never existed. If he did we would have found some kind of fossil remains by now. Indeed the fossil record is a good predictive model as well. We have found so many fossils now that we are essentially trying to find the intermediate gaps in the fossil record. Not unlike finding the higgs boson—when it comes to finding fossils, we know what were looking for, its only a matter of time. Having said that, big foot fits NOWHERE in the fossil record IF it indeed existed before and was some kind of primate. It would throw into dissaray the entire concept of evolution—especially mamallian evolution. I dont know where you get your facts from. But i would love for u to cite me your source for why you think big foot may have existed. </p><p></p><p>From now on, I'm of the opinion that sikhi has no god. This is not my own opinion, this is the opinion of Tejwant Singh (i think thats his name) on this board. But I agree with him. Either the sikh god is essentially pointless or he just doesnt exist in the way you want him to. </p><p></p><p>Modern science doesnt seek to prove with 100 percent certainty. Even such well accepted ideas such as gravity carry an uncertainty of .0000 (infinit 0's) 0001 %. What modern science seeks to do is determine what notion, theory, or idea holds more merit (or is closer to the 100 percent value). God is one of those ideas that fall far closer to the 0% percent of the scale then the 100%.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Caspian, post: 138164, member: 5962"] I'm not going to argue this point any further. You can twist almost any quote of his to make him seem like a religious man. He has been on record as believing in "Spinoza's God." (Spinoza suggested god exists only philosophically, and that god was abstract and impersonal). He did not literally believe in a higher power as you or that site seem to suggest. But you can believe he was a religious man; Just because einstein did it doesnt mean that it is the end of discussion. Einstein is but one man, and like any other man he made many mistakes. He discounted quantum mechanics—even going so far as to suggest "God does not roll dice" (again he was using the term god figuratively). But since you think he literally believed in god, it turns out he was rong, quantum mechanics was right, and that his non-dice-throwing-god doesn't exist. Every forum I go to, be it christian, muslim, or sikh—someone mistakenly associates einstein with religion and expects that to be the end of the discussion on the association between intellect and religion. Even if einstein was religious, most intellectuals are overwhelmingly atheist. End of discussion. Dont care for einstein. Cool guy and all tho :P Yes it is *** for tat. And it works. Read Carl Sagan's paper "Rules of the Game" they give a good explanation using Game Theory for how "*** for tat" is the definitive moral ground. :) Its funny how *** got censored though lol. Btw, christians were not responsible for the "eye for an eye" bit—christians were responsible for the golden rule: treat others how you would like to be treated. and the whole bit about "turning the other cheek" just sayin. Prayer doesnt cure anything period. [URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html[/URL] theres the link to the study I was referencing. Does prayer have a positive effect on the person praying? Yes it can, but all of which could be explained by the placebo effect. Prayer has no effect when the person in question does not know someone is praying for them. Can you cite some examples from the medical literature of unexplainable miracle cures attributed to god? Their certainly are miraculous recoveries but you make it sound like its a regular old thing. It happens so infrequently and regardless of faith that it is purely random. And often time, just because you cant explain it right away, doesnt mean God did it. The tv show House has on numerous occasions used real life examples of "miraculous" recoveries only to show the viewers that there is nothing miraculous about the cures. Yet MOST sikhs do believe in these silly stories. I consider that dangerous and I consider it my obligation to spread the "truth" in those situations. Of course u seemed appalled by that as I will later cover. [URL]http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=rwandan[/URL] Actually, the roman catholic church played a pivotal role in the rwandan genocide. The actively supported the Hutus I believe. Heres one example :) [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica][SIZE=2][COLOR=#000000]Seromba was the Roman Catholic priest at Nyange parish in Kivumu Commune, Rwanda, and is ethnically Hutu. He pleaded not guilty to all charges. These centred on the destruction of his church where about 2,000 Tutsis had sought shelter in April 1994. He was accused of ordering the destruction of the church by buldozers, which led to the deaths of all inside, and of sending in Hutu militia members to kill Tutsis who tried to flee. He also personally shot refugees who tried to escape the killings and handed survivors over to the killers, many of whom were then murdered in his presence. In addition he personally manned a roadblock to check identity cards so that Tutsis could be singled out and killed. [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT] I think you will find religion rear its ugly head in most cases like this. The roman catholic church, especially, has played host or contributed to many genocide: the crusades, holocaust, and rwandan genocides to name a few. I dont reject anybodies capacity to put fourth their point of view, thats what I do. And i dont know whether or not I am right for sure—but in all liklihood, I am. I know that most religious points of view will ultimately wither away in a puff of logic. Either which way, I try to focus on the simple things that even you would agree are not true. The ganga sagar story, guru nanak's hand print, and baba deep singhs headless fight. And i debate the neccesity of the 5 k's which seem utterly pointless to me. IMO the sikh religion would be far more accepted and universally appealing without such ridiculous requirements. My main quarrel with sikhism has less to do with the sikh concept of god and more to do with the silliness sikhism has adopted since guru nanak's time (such as the 5 k's). I reject alot of the later guru's teachings as inherently contradictory to guru nanak's message. (I find the 5 k's contradictory). The larger question of whether or not god exists—thats a debate I have more thoroughly with people who believe in a personal god (and believe me, even alot of sikhs believe in a personal god). I find that what most members on this site consider to be the "true" representation of the sikh god just not worth arguing over—he, she, it is largely pointless in my opinion. Even if he, she it exists, the world is no different then if he, she, it didnt exist. I'm going to go so far as to say that sikhi is "almost" an atheistic religion not unlike buddhism and that the sikh public cant decide whether or not their god is a personal god or an abstract largely philosophical god (like einsteins god). Some other members on this site have gone farther and said to me that "Sikhi has no god"—I'd like to agree with that notion. But what exactly does the sikh god do? It seems like he exists for the sole reason of existing—pointless much Yes, i have admitted that i dont know for sure. If only the religious could admit that they dont know for sure either—would u be kind enough to volunteer? Or are you "for sure" that your god exists. If so, based on what logic, reasoning or evidence? Ah.... were getting back to this now :P lol anyways... Yes many religious people are good. But if a religious person does something good because their religion beckons them too—for example the sikh concept of sewa. I wont consider that "as good" as an atheist who does the same thing (sewa) for no reason other then out of their own kindness. At its best, Religion is simply a tool to motivate people to do good things or else face some kind of consequence, in the case of sikhism, this consequence is the inability to escape the cycles of birth and death. But I believe we can motivate people to do good things for the sake of doing them—and not because some imaginary being is going to send u to hell, turn u into a frog in ur next life, or cut ur allowance. I would not "force" my religious child to become an atheist. But thats not hypocritical unless I was forcing you guys to become atheists as well. Which I am not doing? As far as I'm concerned were having a discussion on the merits of religion and atheism. Would i have this same discussion with my religious child? Most definately. Would i occasionaly poke fun at his religion—probably, i would expect him to do the same to me too :P. I have thick skin, I can live with it, and religious preference is a personal issue. Would it pain me to see him be religious? No more then it pains me to see anyone else as religious. No that is not what science does. the experiments at CERN, particularily the mission to find the Higgs Boson particle are based on quantum and mathamatical calculations. Simply put, their is a gap in the "standard model" (which has correctly predicted the existance of prior particles) where scientists predict the higgs boson (aka the god particle) should be—but they have never found such a particle because all other haddron colliders are too weak to discover it. The hypothesis that it does exist is based on strong evidence tho, mainly the gap, the math, and its effects. If they dont happen to find the higgs boson—then they have to re-write their theory. Something religion oughta consider doing considering it has never found god :P There is strong evidence for aliens as well. Not to mention the probability, that with billions or trillions of stars out their, and hundreds of "earth-like" planets already found, that chances that life exists on atleast 1 other planet (other then earth) are essentially ~100 percent. The question is whether or not that life is intelligent. As for aliens, we already know they have existed—im sure your aware of the "mars rock" found in ant arctica that contains the fossilized remains of bacteria. We know for a fact that mars once has life on it. So their, both your examples, Cern and Aliens have strong evidence behind the ideas. Far more stronger then the evidence behind god atleast. There is a sound precedent for both the higgs boson experiments at CERN (as the standard model has correctly predicted prior particles that were found) and the belief that aliens may exist in our universe (as we know from the mars rock that bacterial life forms once existed on mars) That is not the position on bigfoot. Big foot never existed. If he did we would have found some kind of fossil remains by now. Indeed the fossil record is a good predictive model as well. We have found so many fossils now that we are essentially trying to find the intermediate gaps in the fossil record. Not unlike finding the higgs boson—when it comes to finding fossils, we know what were looking for, its only a matter of time. Having said that, big foot fits NOWHERE in the fossil record IF it indeed existed before and was some kind of primate. It would throw into dissaray the entire concept of evolution—especially mamallian evolution. I dont know where you get your facts from. But i would love for u to cite me your source for why you think big foot may have existed. From now on, I'm of the opinion that sikhi has no god. This is not my own opinion, this is the opinion of Tejwant Singh (i think thats his name) on this board. But I agree with him. Either the sikh god is essentially pointless or he just doesnt exist in the way you want him to. Modern science doesnt seek to prove with 100 percent certainty. Even such well accepted ideas such as gravity carry an uncertainty of .0000 (infinit 0's) 0001 %. What modern science seeks to do is determine what notion, theory, or idea holds more merit (or is closer to the 100 percent value). God is one of those ideas that fall far closer to the 0% percent of the scale then the 100%. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
Why Atheism Will Replace Religion!
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top