🏏ICC Men's T20 W C 2026: Group A, M 27: India vs Pak at Colombo🏏
MAIRAS TRAUMA 15.2
Yrkkh is DEAD
🏏ICC Men's T20 World Cup 2026: M24: SA vs NZ at Ahmedabad🏏
The Great Gen3 Rant
Abhira ki Brain Surgery
DKP Tone it Down!
🏏ICC Men's T20 World Cup 2026: M23: ENG vs Scotland at Kolkata🏏
Do Makers Hate Abhira?
🏏ICC Men's T20 World Cup 2026: M25: WI vs NEP at Mumbai🏏
🏏ICC Men's T20 World Cup 2026: M 26: USA vs NAM at Chennai🏏
🏏India Women tour of Australia 2026: 1st T20I in Sydney🏏
Kareena is so natural and real
Ekta Kapoor s - Heer Ranjha - presented by Imtiaz Ali
Ranbir Kapoor new interview arks live instagram
CULPRIT VIDYA 16.2
🏏ICC Men's T20 W C 2026: Group D, M 28: AFG vs UAE at Delhi🏏
🏏ICC Men's T20 WC 2026: Group C, M 29: ENG vs ITA at Kolkata 🏏
Well sadly religion and politics always separate people.
Originally posted by: angelic_devil
actually politicians use religion to separate people who r already separated. religion is not a bad thing nor is politics its just that human beings have interpreted it in a wrong way and used it in a wrong way.
The question of God and religion also raises the important question of reward and punishment.
I doubt God generally gets involved in all such detailed work, so the theory of karma comes in which works on its own. But guess God is able to intervene.. I doubt God generally gets involved in all such detailed work, so the theory of karma comes in which works on its own.
Ahh ! God himself uses shortcuts !
And then they blame it on human nature !😆😆
Originally posted by: PhoeniXof_Hades
The one making up the claim is under the burden to prove it, not the one denying it. Since you cannot prove a negative, the burden of proof is on his shoulder who is making the claim, and not the other way around. Also, disbelief isn't a belief of its own - it's a state of mind. Atheism, too, isn't a state of belief, it's a state of being (that's highly debatable, though; if atheism isn't a state of belief, but the default position, then what state would agnosticism be? Would it be anymore logical to label the 'I-don't-know' position as the default one? Maybe I should go and start a new thread on that one).
I do not believe in the existence of Harry Potter, hence I am not under the burden to prove that he does not exist / disprove his existence (which, logically speaking, is impossible and makes no sense; the concept of disproving something, either a physical object or a hypothetical concept arises when there are sufficient evidences for it - evidence to the contrary are only provided when evidence for it are available). Rather it is those, who believes Harry to not only be a fictional character, but a real one, are the one's who needs to prove me otherwise before I disprove it. Also, disbelieving in Harry Potter to be real isn't a belief of its own, believing it to be real is what is. I do not need 'faith' to disbelieve in Harry's existence; though, the one making up the claim of Harry existing needs to.
*Excuse the bad analogy; just trying to make up a point.*
Along the same line, one is free to say God does not exist, and yet be considered as a person without any form of [religious/theological] belief[s] - so long as he does not close his mind regarding evidences to the contrary (close-minded, militant atheists could be classed into the same position as the believers).
That is the only place where I disagree with WA.
Heck, I'm not an atheist, even if my lecture sounded highly atheistic.