geo

because it is true, it is provable again and again. the proof is there for everyone to see. and no one disputes this proof. no one disputes the fact that the earth orbits the sun. the "facts" of religions are disputed by the majority of people. the facts of christianity are disputed by all other religions and people of non beliefs including many "christian" non believers who were born into christian families the facts of islam are disputed by everyone else the facts of sikhism are disputed by a huge number of people because sikhs number so few compared to the world population.

i dont know what statements you made that were not answered. i would be happy to answer them. please ask again. i had a lot of replies to make to many people so i just started, it is possible some questions put to me were not answered.

from memory i think the answer is yes.

the conclusion i get is that if religions were not taught to children, most of them would not choose religion when older. the other conclusions i make are that most people believe their religion is the correct one and others are wrong - therefore the majority of religious believers are wrong according to athiests and members of every other religion. i find that part very delusional, especially of the smaller religions like sikhism and judaism, such tiny numbers of people who believe that only they are correct. no one worships zeus or thor or Ra or apollo anymore so that must mean those gods were false even though people believed they were real but now we are supposed to believe that one or more of these current gods are real, a thousand years from now who will believe in these current gods? probably none fair enough - thanks for your reply.

well everyone is entitled to their opinion. some may agree with him. what is your view ? thanks

Jang, you state that all religions are correct. that throws up some interesting questions: 1. does that apply to scientology? it is a religion 2. does it apply to mormonism? if all religions are correct would it be ok to pick 7 of them (judaism, hinduism, christianity, islam, sikhism, buddhism, scientology) and then adhere to them one day of the week? the bit i would find most difficult would be removing and reinstating my 4skin twice weekly.

of course i know that. but atleast he has expressed his view on this. now we have something to think about and talk about.

what did people do prior to the invention of sikhism? humans have lived for tens of thousands of years prior to the invention of sikhism or indeed any current religion. if sikhism is the true path now what was the true path back then? ok thats interesting. good. that is a clear view point. thank you for your honest view. i will have to have a think about what it means.

no im not paid for this. how to apply for that job? the opinions are not yet clear. i have heard a few different opinions but no clear opinions. i want someone to clarify on what i have asked in previous posts. basically are the abrahamic religions wrong given that a previous poster stated that abrahamic religions have a different definition of god to the dharmic religions, given that there is only one god - someone must be wrong? yes or no? can you pick one so we can look at it in more detail? thats just mumbo jumbo - you can say that about anything, it just sounds vague. a get out of jail free card to use when you dont know what you are talking about or dont have an answer or dont want to answer.

im not looking for answers, i am looking for opinions of real people. read through my posts and it will be made clear to you. which of my conclusions do not make sense? just list one so i can offer my explanation.

another definition of prophet is a person regarded as an inspired teacher

i cannot take that challenge. i cant read punjabi and i dont have the time. i am happy with life, i have no problems that cannot be solved. i dont need answers to the meaning of life and since i dont believe in the after life or heaven or hell, i have no need to read the manual which gets me there. you know very little of my brain, i dont know how you can reach your conclusions. i am by far the most logically thinking person that i know of personally.

your answers are inherently biased and flawed. otherwise you would have written: Guru Nanak meditated on the bank of a river, in the wilderness, for some time before proclaiming there is one God and there is no Muslim or Hindu. His inspiration came from meditation and deep reflective thought. (supposedly) what is the meaning of there is no hindu and no muslim? the reason i ask is because i know a guy who told me he is a hindu and i know several guys that told me they are muslims. are these guys wrong?

i dont see your point. i had a look on sikh wiki and it doies not mention that he studied in cambridge or oxford although wether he did or not, i dont see the relevance. what is your point? i would like to state again that i did not start this thread and my questions were not about the existence of god or not. my questions are to do with people and their beliefs. i dont expect to change your minds and i assume you dont expect to change mines, that is why i dont want to discuss the existence of god because both sides will not change their views. it is much better to find out what the beliefs are to understand why they believe what they do.

i dont know who he is, i would like to know more. if he can do something special then i would love to see it.

so you have actual evidence that people at nasa are studying guru granth sahib for answers? nasa have stated this themselves in the USA, nasa who are funded by the government in a majority christian country where anti muslim anger is strong and sikhs have been persecuted because they have turbans and look a bit like osama bin laden in the way he used to dress. you really think nasa would come out and state "thanks mr president, congress and the american people for the billions of tax dollars you have given us, here is an update on what we are doing with that: studying the sggs for answers!" please please you know how ridiculous this is, just think it through.

A young man came and asked Sant ji: Sant ji you say there is God. Sant ji: yes. The man :show me where he is. Sant ji :He is everywhere. Man: No, I want to see him and if you claim he is, show me. Sant ji kept quite for some time. After a while sant ji opened his eyes and said I am going to do Jaap Sahib. you just look at me. As sant ji started Jaap Sahib, his face turned red and shiny. There was so much light that the man started hide his face from it. After the paath was over Sant ji said, you are fortunate that Guru ji allowed me to show you the 'God's light'. You cannot expect to test the existence of 'God' each time an atheist questions. thats an interesting story is there any evidence for it? has it been recorded so we can all see it? here is one story of my own: i said to pardeep: can you show me god? pardeep kept quiet for a while and then said no i cant. unfortunately i dont have any evidence this happened but im hopefully you will take my word for it. anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

nasa study the guru granth sahib? that is a well know myth and has been disproved. please stop perpetuating myths, you know in your heart of hearts it sounds implausible but you choose to believe it and repeat it to others. http://www.bayanimills.com/2011/10/01/divine-insight-does-nasa-consult-the-guru-granth-sahib/

is it true because michael newton phd says it is or do you believe it anyway? if you believe it anyway then there no point in mentioning him. what is his phd in? i ask because i cannot be hynotized, it has been tried but i dont fall for it.

so what does that mean? they believe in energy because it exists, it can be measured. equations can be written about it. it doesnt mean they support any religion or think that something written 500 or 2000 years ago has been proved to be true. logical thinking and scientific method are not compatible with religious beliefs. i dont believe in horoscopes or astrology but have you ever read one? it is so wide ranging and covers all the bases that some of it usually applies to you. they write stuff like: it is an important time for your finances, you will have a difficult choice to make. elsewhere a relationship will be tested but you will be brought closer together. that kind of stuff could be made to apply to almost everyone and i feel it is the same with the quotes from the gurbani that someone has used to justify religion and science are on the same page. it is called selective use of the facts to support your own argument.

of course everyone is free to practice what they want, my question is how can it be that those practices are often contradictory? someone somewhere must have been wrong or mistaken. moses was a prophet jesus was a prophet/son of god mohammed was a prophet the gurus were prophets (is this correct?) yet they teach contradictory values. so you can choose either: 1. agree that one of them was right and the others are all wrong. 2. they are all correct and following either of them will get you where you want go. one of many sources: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.pdf

then are other methods wrong? if that is the right way, then are other ways wrong ways? so what is the point of leading a good life? what is the point of following all the rules and being pure of thought? what do you get? extra heaven? there is nothing to ask a christian or muslim. they are quite clear: theirs is the only way. I dont agree with their view point BUT at least this can be said for them: they say their way is the only way and the have some numbers behind them that would make it proportionately more believeable and they are spread all over the world. what this means is that if the christians are right then there are about 1.5 billion people with a chance to make it to heaven. obviously some of them will be bad people and sinners but some of them will be good. so lets say that only 500 million of them are good. that gives the world population as a whole about 7% of people getting to heaven. and they are globally located and accept/recruit converts easily. compare that to sikhism (which is, i believe, much more sensible and logical in comparison to christianity) located in a small part of india with only 20 - 23 million followers, hardly anywhere else in the world with hardly any converts. doesnt give many people a chance to follow the right path. doesnt it seem amazing to you sikhs that you are a part of this amazing and very, very exclusive religion and only the very best of you have a chance of getting to heaven? it must be pretty quiet up there given the restrictive entrance requirements. does that mean nothing that is said anywhere else can be true? you have avoided answering the point because you know that both answers are ridiculous. it is common knowledge that religious beliefs amongst scientists are far lower than the population as a whole. define scientist for me and i will tell you if i am or not.

on the whole scientists do not believe in a supreme being and generally they are not religious. on the whole they also object to science being used as reasoning to support religious texts. im not saying this is true of everyone but it is the majority.

you can look directly at a solar eclipse. think about what you are writing. the sun is blocked during a solar eclipse. the period before and after - its best to wear shades. science and religion are mutually exclusive science requires evidence religions requires faith (even though some of you argue sikhism is not based on faith) you will find that most scientists are not religious.