ChatterBank0 min ago
Food and Religion
69 Answers
Why don't Muslims and Jews eat Pork?
I'm not having a pop at anyone - I just don't know much about different Religions
Thanks
I'm not having a pop at anyone - I just don't know much about different Religions
Thanks
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by thegasgooner. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
cont....
Yes, I have experienced many 'supernatural' occurrences, but please don't assume that I dismiss them. I don't. I simply say these are my experiences and this is my belief, but whilst I know they happened, I wouldn't expect anyone else to agree with me unless they'd experienced something similar. If I can show them no proof, why should they believe it? I believe in the supernatural (although I don't believe it's 'supernatural' at all, but rather that it's a pretty 'super' example of nature). Contrary to your contention, I don't need anyone's backing to encourage me to continue to believe that - and no one could dissuade me from believing it either. Nevertheless, I wouldn't presume to tell you or anyone else it's the 'truth', because I cannot give you proof. Quite simply, belief is debateable, but truth is irrefutable.
People must believe what they want to believe - if they want to have faith in something they have no tangible evidence of, that's their business - but when it comes to telling others what the 'truth' is when they have proof whatsoever to back up their claims, personally it's there I draw the line.
Yes, I have experienced many 'supernatural' occurrences, but please don't assume that I dismiss them. I don't. I simply say these are my experiences and this is my belief, but whilst I know they happened, I wouldn't expect anyone else to agree with me unless they'd experienced something similar. If I can show them no proof, why should they believe it? I believe in the supernatural (although I don't believe it's 'supernatural' at all, but rather that it's a pretty 'super' example of nature). Contrary to your contention, I don't need anyone's backing to encourage me to continue to believe that - and no one could dissuade me from believing it either. Nevertheless, I wouldn't presume to tell you or anyone else it's the 'truth', because I cannot give you proof. Quite simply, belief is debateable, but truth is irrefutable.
People must believe what they want to believe - if they want to have faith in something they have no tangible evidence of, that's their business - but when it comes to telling others what the 'truth' is when they have proof whatsoever to back up their claims, personally it's there I draw the line.
123 I should have added that when I see the word God, I do not automatically think of Christianity. I think of all religions that talk about your 'God'.
And incidentally, I don't disagree with everyone, you know. I may disagree on minor points, but, in the main, I agree with all the people you mention.
And incidentally, I don't disagree with everyone, you know. I may disagree on minor points, but, in the main, I agree with all the people you mention.
Are all scientists atheists, or is that a common perception held towards scientists? A recent survey done by Rice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund who surveyed 1,646 faculty members at elite research universities, asking 36 questions about belief and spiritual practices say otherwise. The study, along with another one released in June, would appear to debunk the oft-held notion that science is incompatible with religion. Those in the social sciences are more likely to believe in God and attend religious services than researchers in the natural sciences, the study found. The opposite had been expected. In separate work at the University of Chicago, released in June, 76 percent of doctors said they believed in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife.
Of course not all scientists are atheists, and I don't imagine anyone has ever claimed such a thing, however, they are massively more likely to be non-believers than ordinary members of the public. This may also reflect the many studies which suggests that belief decreases with intelligence, rather than being a science-related variable per se.
The report shows that in the US there is a 20 times higher incidence of non-belief than in the country as a whole. If that report were carried out in other countries (because amazingly America is not the entire world), it would find even higher examples of non-belief.
I'm not sure what the point the author makes about social scientists vs natural scientists is supposed to mean. Of course you would expect social scientists to have a higher propensity to religious belief than natural scientists. That is *precisely* what you would predict to find.
Additionally, note that this research is sponsored by the highly contentious Templeton Foundation, the organisation that offers an annual prize for pro-God research. It doesn't mean it's wrong per se, but I'd like to see the full methodology.
Also, why not examine the National Academy of Science in the US since these are the elite scientific institutions. In 2002, only about 8% in the NAS were believers. In the UK's Royal Academy, it's even lower.
The report shows that in the US there is a 20 times higher incidence of non-belief than in the country as a whole. If that report were carried out in other countries (because amazingly America is not the entire world), it would find even higher examples of non-belief.
I'm not sure what the point the author makes about social scientists vs natural scientists is supposed to mean. Of course you would expect social scientists to have a higher propensity to religious belief than natural scientists. That is *precisely* what you would predict to find.
Additionally, note that this research is sponsored by the highly contentious Templeton Foundation, the organisation that offers an annual prize for pro-God research. It doesn't mean it's wrong per se, but I'd like to see the full methodology.
Also, why not examine the National Academy of Science in the US since these are the elite scientific institutions. In 2002, only about 8% in the NAS were believers. In the UK's Royal Academy, it's even lower.
Muslims do give up food during the month of Ramadan, Not to give-up, but to strengthen their belief even further. People who try to use their intellect to find God, they would never find him, You only find God with Faith, because certain things are not for human to see, Only time that would happen is on the day of judgment. Even Prophets like Moses (pbuh) could not see God in this worldly life even though he desired. And I believe for any soul it is a big thing not to be able to see your creator on the day of judgment and that would only happen if you believed in it.
Waldo actually cracked a couple of funnys, made me laugh "take your mate Everton" that's more like it! ;-)
Naomi I'd hate for you to think I was resorting to personal abuse if you look through it you can see quite clearly I'm encouraging you to express your beliefs. What more can a spirit do than visit you in order to express it's existence? Does it have to visit everybody over a certain age in order to convince the world? If you're an atheist there is nothing but the physical realm of existence, there is no soul, no after life, no preminitions nothing just flesh and blood. You're here do you 3 score years and 10 and that's your lot. Any experience beyond physicality defies all the known laws of nature, so it's beyond science. You don't have to experience love to know it exists, but you can spot the difference once you have been.
Naomi I'd hate for you to think I was resorting to personal abuse if you look through it you can see quite clearly I'm encouraging you to express your beliefs. What more can a spirit do than visit you in order to express it's existence? Does it have to visit everybody over a certain age in order to convince the world? If you're an atheist there is nothing but the physical realm of existence, there is no soul, no after life, no preminitions nothing just flesh and blood. You're here do you 3 score years and 10 and that's your lot. Any experience beyond physicality defies all the known laws of nature, so it's beyond science. You don't have to experience love to know it exists, but you can spot the difference once you have been.
So to expeience a haunting (for want of a better word) provides the only evidence available, it does'nt matter who believes you. You know the truth.
I like Wizard, I don't always agree with his views but he's always got something to say and he cracks the odd funny.
Ghetto poet still does'nt write in rhyme though!
And GP don't tell me I don't understand rap, my generation invented it, discovered it, nurtured it Grand Master Flash, Run DMC etal. We were rapping before you were born, when rap was rap not corporate bad assing for the middle classes, but a real social message about poverty and injustice. Just try a few rhyming couplets in your answers, you've either got or you have'nt got style...
I like Wizard, I don't always agree with his views but he's always got something to say and he cracks the odd funny.
Ghetto poet still does'nt write in rhyme though!
And GP don't tell me I don't understand rap, my generation invented it, discovered it, nurtured it Grand Master Flash, Run DMC etal. We were rapping before you were born, when rap was rap not corporate bad assing for the middle classes, but a real social message about poverty and injustice. Just try a few rhyming couplets in your answers, you've either got or you have'nt got style...
If you believe your husband loves you, is it the truth? How can you prove it? To me or anyone else? Why would you want to?
Love you can't see it, you can't eat it, you can't drink it, you can't buy it, you can't sell it, how do you know it exists?
If you believe in ghosts, and something happens to you to confirm that belief, then why disbelieve yourself?
What is the burden of proof you require? What test would you want to employ to prove to the World that ghosts exist?
The last 3 questions are the ones I'd most like to hear your answer to please.
Love you can't see it, you can't eat it, you can't drink it, you can't buy it, you can't sell it, how do you know it exists?
If you believe in ghosts, and something happens to you to confirm that belief, then why disbelieve yourself?
What is the burden of proof you require? What test would you want to employ to prove to the World that ghosts exist?
The last 3 questions are the ones I'd most like to hear your answer to please.
Hello 123, I take it you've been at work? Hope you've had a good day.
Right, answers to your questions.
I wouldn't want to prove to you that my husband loves me. As you said, why would I?
I know love exists within me, because I feel it. However, I cannot say whether it exists within you because I have no evidence of it.
I don't disbelieve myself where ghosts are concerned, and I personally don't require proof. Others, however, do, and therefore I cannot tell them that ghosts exist - and that's the absolute 'truth' - because I can't prove it. If I knew what tests to employ to prove the existence of ghosts, that would be wonderful, but unfortunately I don't.
Right, answers to your questions.
I wouldn't want to prove to you that my husband loves me. As you said, why would I?
I know love exists within me, because I feel it. However, I cannot say whether it exists within you because I have no evidence of it.
I don't disbelieve myself where ghosts are concerned, and I personally don't require proof. Others, however, do, and therefore I cannot tell them that ghosts exist - and that's the absolute 'truth' - because I can't prove it. If I knew what tests to employ to prove the existence of ghosts, that would be wonderful, but unfortunately I don't.
I have, no serious fights this February, can't be bad.
To me the crux of the matter is the proof, if you were on a jury on the preponderance of the evidence and how it was presented would determine what you think is the truth. This burden (regardless of what's deemed admissable or inadmissable evidence) is a personal one. Other jurors may disagree with your conclusion but you can only decide to your own satisfaction.
Once something has or can be determined as true to oneself then until someone else can create doubt, or produce a reasonable doubt, then the truth and the proof is there before you.
To me the crux of the matter is the proof, if you were on a jury on the preponderance of the evidence and how it was presented would determine what you think is the truth. This burden (regardless of what's deemed admissable or inadmissable evidence) is a personal one. Other jurors may disagree with your conclusion but you can only decide to your own satisfaction.
Once something has or can be determined as true to oneself then until someone else can create doubt, or produce a reasonable doubt, then the truth and the proof is there before you.
