hi everyone,
Is there any connection between science & religion???
this question bewildered me for a long time, because i believe that the true religion should have some strong scientific evidence to prove it, after a lot of research i found the answer for this question. if you are interested check these websites:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sci...scientists.html
http://www.islam-for-everyone.com/come_to_...ibliography.htm
http://www.nooran.org/en/index.htm
Hello, Everybody, Mind, and Spirit! 
Goodboy: The short answer to your profound question is YES; for the long and more specific answers, you might want to follow the Creation/Evolution thread of Let's begin the Dialogue and Reconciliation of Science and Religion Now! that I started, since May, so as to see if you could derive your own answers therein.
Briefly, both the Religion and Science are all the survival products of our humankind worldwide; they are in fact the 2 sides of a same coin—or of our own Mind—intuitively and perceptually; and now evermore emotionally and mindfully since the 9/11/2001, into the 21st century!
That’s why this Zeitgeist has had inspired you to ask such a profound question that neither Religion nor Science alone, could arrive at that YES albeit short answer above! So, please feel free to comment on any questions therein and/or herein, as they may arise in your own Mind, critically and/or curiously.
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening!
Best wishes, Mong 10/1/6usct1:05p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
Goodboy: The short answer to your profound question is YES; for the long and more specific answers, you might want to follow the Creation/Evolution thread of Let's begin the Dialogue and Reconciliation of Science and Religion Now! that I started, since May, so as to see if you could derive your own answers therein.
Briefly, both the Religion and Science are all the survival products of our humankind worldwide; they are in fact the 2 sides of a same coin—or of our own Mind—intuitively and perceptually; and now evermore emotionally and mindfully since the 9/11/2001, into the 21st century!
That’s why this Zeitgeist has had inspired you to ask such a profound question that neither Religion nor Science alone, could arrive at that YES albeit short answer above! So, please feel free to comment on any questions therein and/or herein, as they may arise in your own Mind, critically and/or curiously.
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening!
Best wishes, Mong 10/1/6usct1:05p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
The ancient Biblical texts (of all sorts and manner) were written at a time when there was great political strife. It was also a time that followed on great scientific achievement. So it was that the most learned scribes of the day (in order to preserve the knowledge) converted it to a little known poetic prose - and intertwined it with the Biblical stories.
An example is here - part of which was taken from the Book of Enoch, a book that for reasons unknown some faiths (not all) reject: Johannes Kepler - Tracing the source of his wisdom to 3000 B.C.
jb
.
An example is here - part of which was taken from the Book of Enoch, a book that for reasons unknown some faiths (not all) reject: Johannes Kepler - Tracing the source of his wisdom to 3000 B.C.
jb
.
QUOTE (jimbow1+Oct 2 2006, 08:34 AM)
The ancient Biblical texts (of all sorts and manner) were written at a time when there was great political strife. It was also a time that followed on great scientific achievement.
And that's where elements such as these perhaps came from -- "In the beginning was the Word" in Judeo-Christian branches of religions, and the idea that all began with frequencies/vibrations and the particular frequency/vibration can be thought of as sounding something like "Om" in Hinduism and related branches.
In that respect, "Om" is The Particular "Word".
When thought of in terms of frequencies/vibrations, it almost makes me think of little vibratings loops of energy...
In the beginning... Science and Religion are a singularity...
Heh. Well, I figure anybody can say pretty much anything they want in a topic such as this one.
And that's where elements such as these perhaps came from -- "In the beginning was the Word" in Judeo-Christian branches of religions, and the idea that all began with frequencies/vibrations and the particular frequency/vibration can be thought of as sounding something like "Om" in Hinduism and related branches.
In that respect, "Om" is The Particular "Word".
When thought of in terms of frequencies/vibrations, it almost makes me think of little vibratings loops of energy...
In the beginning... Science and Religion are a singularity...
Heh. Well, I figure anybody can say pretty much anything they want in a topic such as this one.
History conforms much of the Bible, as well as fulfilled prophecy. It even describes in detail the events of the "Last Days", which are now, beginning with WWI and the disastrous events which shortly followed it. More and more scientists and others are professing belief in "intelligent design" these days, rather than evolution, the more they discover the laws and stucture governing all the wondrous things studied, including the life around us. Check out this article for one.
http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/2004/6/22/article_01.htm
http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/2004/6/22/article_01.htm
Thank you PhilP - that was a sensible, well written article. I liked particularly how it stated the dilemma: {... there is a reluctance to reveal yourself as a believer (because) the disapproval and censure from colleagues is so severe.}
All of which brings to mind an interesting parallel, that being: - the separation between the "scientific world" (with journals, peer review, and scientific methods) - and that of the lay person who is denied access!
So rather than a two tiered system (science vs. religion) - perhaps we're in a three tiered system: (science vs. religion vs. the lay world)
jb
.
All of which brings to mind an interesting parallel, that being: - the separation between the "scientific world" (with journals, peer review, and scientific methods) - and that of the lay person who is denied access!
So rather than a two tiered system (science vs. religion) - perhaps we're in a three tiered system: (science vs. religion vs. the lay world)
jb
.
Almost all scientific literature is available to the lay person. In fact, with organisations like www.pubmed.com, one can get free access to many abstracts. In addition, the researchers often publish their papers on their websites.
The problems occur when lay people try to obfuscate the facts from other lay people. On everything from global warming to nuclear programs, the loudest people are people who aren't informed very well on the topic. The 'ethic-stressing' topics are the most notorious; the scientists can't correct misconceptions because lay people are spewing rhetoric with their falsehoods at a much greater pace.
The problems occur when lay people try to obfuscate the facts from other lay people. On everything from global warming to nuclear programs, the loudest people are people who aren't informed very well on the topic. The 'ethic-stressing' topics are the most notorious; the scientists can't correct misconceptions because lay people are spewing rhetoric with their falsehoods at a much greater pace.
I don't think that a religion should be science based. The opinions of scientists are too whimsical to be trusted.
Anyway, if God wanted us to be able to prove religion a fact through science, he would do something about it. He could show us things or tell the whole earth whatever he desires.
He doesn't do this. He wants us to learn for ourselves what it means to do what is right.
He has given us a conscience that will lead us in the right direction. Our conscience improves the more we use it. The more we ignore it, the more it fades away.
I think that five questions religion should answer are:
Who are we?
Why are we here?
Where did we come from?
Where are we going?
and How do we get there?
Most religions can only answer a few of these questions and it is hard to find a precise answer.
Science doesn't really have any way to measure or prove what the answers to those questions are. Since these questions are out of the reach of Science, Religion should not be science based.
Anyway, if God wanted us to be able to prove religion a fact through science, he would do something about it. He could show us things or tell the whole earth whatever he desires.
He doesn't do this. He wants us to learn for ourselves what it means to do what is right.
He has given us a conscience that will lead us in the right direction. Our conscience improves the more we use it. The more we ignore it, the more it fades away.
I think that five questions religion should answer are:
Who are we?
Why are we here?
Where did we come from?
Where are we going?
and How do we get there?
Most religions can only answer a few of these questions and it is hard to find a precise answer.
Science doesn't really have any way to measure or prove what the answers to those questions are. Since these questions are out of the reach of Science, Religion should not be science based.
hi,
Islam does answer all your questions in details. you can find the answers in these websites.
http://www.islamworld.net
http://www.islamworld.net/it-is-truth/CreationOfMan.html
This is a translation of the noble Quran in English.
http://quran.nu/en/
cheers
Islam does answer all your questions in details. you can find the answers in these websites.
http://www.islamworld.net
http://www.islamworld.net/it-is-truth/CreationOfMan.html
This is a translation of the noble Quran in English.
http://quran.nu/en/
cheers
Was Islam correct about evolution? Does the Quran get the creation story right, or wrong?
QUOTE (enderbean719+Oct 18 2006, 12:07 AM)
I don't think that a religion should be science based. The opinions of scientists are too whimsical to be trusted.
Nice! Brilliant sarcasm with a hint of irony.
- Dave
Nice! Brilliant sarcasm with a hint of irony.
- Dave
"All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree." – Einstein
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Einstein
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Einstein
Hello all,
You might find it interesting that you can find specific references to the fact that the earth is round in most of the ancient religious based documents. By example, you'll find it in:
The Egyptian Pyramid Texts
The Egyptian Book of the Dead
The Book of Enoch
and on the Western Continent:
The Popol Vuh, (the book of scripture of the Maya-Quiché)
And the Maya Troano Codex
Each of these, interestingly enough, are shunned by science as being pagan or some other such thing.
jb
.
.
You might find it interesting that you can find specific references to the fact that the earth is round in most of the ancient religious based documents. By example, you'll find it in:
The Egyptian Pyramid Texts
The Egyptian Book of the Dead
The Book of Enoch
and on the Western Continent:
The Popol Vuh, (the book of scripture of the Maya-Quiché)
And the Maya Troano Codex
Each of these, interestingly enough, are shunned by science as being pagan or some other such thing.
jb
.
.
QUOTE (jimbow1+Oct 21 2006, 10:46 PM)
You might find it interesting that you can find specific references to the fact that the earth is round in most of the ancient religious based documents. By example, you'll find it in:
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
- Dave
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
- Dave
QUOTE (Dave Grossman+)
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
- Dave
Exactly! The religious type always like to look at the one prediction which was right and ignore the 99 which were wrong.
- Dave
Exactly! The religious type always like to look at the one prediction which was right and ignore the 99 which were wrong.QUOTE (vkamath+Oct 23 2006, 03:19 AM)
QUOTE (Dave Grossman+)
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
- Dave
Exactly! The religious type always like to look at the one prediction which was right and ignore the 99 which were wrong.
- Dave
Exactly! The religious type always like to look at the one prediction which was right and ignore the 99 which were wrong.QUOTE (newguy "Not an apology"+)
You would really need to give me some basis(scriptural references) for the "beliefs" that you describe. I cannot possibly tell you if something is Biblically accurate or not without a Biblical reference point.
QUOTE (vkamath "Not an apology'+)
I wish I could give you some scriptural refernces, but my knowledge in this area is completely lacking.
vkamath: It seems to me that someone who is, ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN TESTIMONY, "completely lacking in scriptural knowledge" ought not be criticizing any "predictions", as you call them. But, when admittedly ignorant people speak, it shouldn't be surprising that they make ignorant statements. I guess you're just another "blind adherent" to what others have said/written. Pity. Quite frankly, I doubt that most of the "scientists" that I've encountered on this forum could even rub two sticks together, lacking any "hands on experience" OF THEIR OWN. Have a nice day.
vkamath: It seems to me that someone who is, ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN TESTIMONY, "completely lacking in scriptural knowledge" ought not be criticizing any "predictions", as you call them. But, when admittedly ignorant people speak, it shouldn't be surprising that they make ignorant statements. I guess you're just another "blind adherent" to what others have said/written. Pity. Quite frankly, I doubt that most of the "scientists" that I've encountered on this forum could even rub two sticks together, lacking any "hands on experience" OF THEIR OWN. Have a nice day.
QUOTE (newguy+)
It seems to me that someone who is, ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN TESTIMONY, "completely lacking in scriptural knowledge" ought not be criticizing any "predictions", as you call them. But, when admittedly ignorant people speak, it shouldn't be surprising that they make ignorant statements. I guess you're just another "blind adherent" to what others have said/written. Pity.
Let me ask you this question. How do you know Christianity is the only true religion and your God the only God? Have you read all the scriptures from Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Voodoo?
Knowledge of scripture is not required to identify bunkum. I know that it is not possible for any book to predict the future. No book from any religion has been able to stand the test of time.
If you think your book can make a prediction, lets hear a prediction from you on what would happen in the near future.
Let me ask you this question. How do you know Christianity is the only true religion and your God the only God? Have you read all the scriptures from Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Voodoo?
Knowledge of scripture is not required to identify bunkum. I know that it is not possible for any book to predict the future. No book from any religion has been able to stand the test of time.
If you think your book can make a prediction, lets hear a prediction from you on what would happen in the near future.
QUOTE (newguy+)
Quite frankly, I doubt that most of the "scientists" that I've encountered on this forum could even rub two sticks together, lacking any "hands on experience" OF THEIR OWN. Have a nice day.
Do you mean me? If yes, then feel free to say so. By the way, I don't call myself a scientist. I am just a rational person. I know you hate that word "rational".
There is no point in saying such things and then going back and apologizing. What a waste of time.
Do you mean me? If yes, then feel free to say so. By the way, I don't call myself a scientist. I am just a rational person. I know you hate that word "rational".
There is no point in saying such things and then going back and apologizing. What a waste of time.
QUOTE (vkamath+)
Let me ask you this question. How do you know Christianity is the only true religion and your God the only God? Have you read all the scriptures from Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Voodoo?
vkamath: First of all, as I've stated many times in the past on several different threads, much of professing "Christianity" ISN'T as, upon investigation, it doesn't line up with the very scriptures that are supposed to be the foundation/basis for it. That being said, I KNOW that Christ is True because I KNOW Him. Why don't you(collectively) want to talk about Christ? Why is it always about some other side issue? Even the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate could find no fault in Christ as He is "the Lamb without spot or blemish". No, I haven't read all the scriptures from Hinduism, Islam(I'm familiar with some), Buddhism and Voodoo. I have, unlike you, read the Bible from cover to cover many times which is what I most often discuss. I have also PERSONALLY encountered some of the "gods"(demons) behind other religions and they were ALL subject unto me through Jesus Christ. Once again, unlike you, I've got PLENTY of "hands on experience".
vkamath: First of all, as I've stated many times in the past on several different threads, much of professing "Christianity" ISN'T as, upon investigation, it doesn't line up with the very scriptures that are supposed to be the foundation/basis for it. That being said, I KNOW that Christ is True because I KNOW Him. Why don't you(collectively) want to talk about Christ? Why is it always about some other side issue? Even the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate could find no fault in Christ as He is "the Lamb without spot or blemish". No, I haven't read all the scriptures from Hinduism, Islam(I'm familiar with some), Buddhism and Voodoo. I have, unlike you, read the Bible from cover to cover many times which is what I most often discuss. I have also PERSONALLY encountered some of the "gods"(demons) behind other religions and they were ALL subject unto me through Jesus Christ. Once again, unlike you, I've got PLENTY of "hands on experience".
QUOTE (vkamath+)
Knowledge of scripture is not required to identify bunkum. I know that it is not possible for any book to predict the future. No book from any religion has been able to stand the test of time.
You KNOW no such thing. Are you omniscient? I've already documented in the past that you claim to be both an agnostic and an atheist. Remember that? Have you now graduated to "godhood"? Have you even studied the prophecies of the Bible? Let me help you out on these questions...the answer to all of them is "NO!". Isn't that correct? You apparently don't understand the difference between KNOWING something and THINKING/BELIEVING something. Will you now instruct me on what it means to be "rational"? Plenty of prophetic passages from the Bible have already proven to be true. Would you like to discuss some of them? If so, it shall be my pleasure to go over some of them with you.
You KNOW no such thing. Are you omniscient? I've already documented in the past that you claim to be both an agnostic and an atheist. Remember that? Have you now graduated to "godhood"? Have you even studied the prophecies of the Bible? Let me help you out on these questions...the answer to all of them is "NO!". Isn't that correct? You apparently don't understand the difference between KNOWING something and THINKING/BELIEVING something. Will you now instruct me on what it means to be "rational"? Plenty of prophetic passages from the Bible have already proven to be true. Would you like to discuss some of them? If so, it shall be my pleasure to go over some of them with you.
QUOTE (vkamath+)
If you think your book can make a prediction, lets hear a prediction from you on what would happen in the near future.
Where've you been? I've been "dropping hints" for quite some time now. I'll tell you plainly that the Middle East crises(plural) will ultimately be "resolved" when the Vatican/Papacy makes a covenant with the nation of Israel to rebuild their temple that was destroyed in 70 A.D. When the temple is rebuilt, the ancient sacrifices will resume within the Jewish temple for 3 1/2 years and then the Pope will sit in the temple and declare himself to be "God". At this point, tribulation like has never been from the foundation of the world will befall the Jewish people in Israel that will last another 3 1/2 years and will culminate in the return of Jesus Christ. If you'd like to see some documentation that everything is already in place for a rebuilt Jewish temple, then I'll be happy to provide you with it. If you'd like to see some documentation that people already treat the Pope as "God", then I'll be happy to provide that as well. Additionally, if you'd like to see the scriptural references that foretell of these things, then I'll be happy to provide you with them as well.
Where've you been? I've been "dropping hints" for quite some time now. I'll tell you plainly that the Middle East crises(plural) will ultimately be "resolved" when the Vatican/Papacy makes a covenant with the nation of Israel to rebuild their temple that was destroyed in 70 A.D. When the temple is rebuilt, the ancient sacrifices will resume within the Jewish temple for 3 1/2 years and then the Pope will sit in the temple and declare himself to be "God". At this point, tribulation like has never been from the foundation of the world will befall the Jewish people in Israel that will last another 3 1/2 years and will culminate in the return of Jesus Christ. If you'd like to see some documentation that everything is already in place for a rebuilt Jewish temple, then I'll be happy to provide you with it. If you'd like to see some documentation that people already treat the Pope as "God", then I'll be happy to provide that as well. Additionally, if you'd like to see the scriptural references that foretell of these things, then I'll be happy to provide you with them as well.
QUOTE (newguy+)
Quite frankly, I doubt that most of the "scientists" that I've encountered on this forum could even rub two sticks together, lacking any "hands on experience" OF THEIR OWN. Have a nice day.
QUOTE (vkamath+)
Do you mean me? If yes, then feel free to say so. By the way, I don't call myself a scientist. I am just a rational person. I know you hate that word "rational".
I said "scientists"...plural. It wouldn't surprise me if you're as ignorant(as far as "hands on experience" goes) in scientific matters as you are in scriptural matters. To be even more frank than I've already been, I THINK if the internet shut down and certain websites were no longer accessible to some of the posters on this forum, then many posters would have nothing to talk about as they're just "parrots" of what others have written/said. You KNOW that I hate the word "rational"? You KNOW no such thing. Just another errant OPINION of yours. I'm quite rational, thank you. When Medical science consistently fails to help people and I successfully provide them lasting help through Jesus Christ, I do so quite "rationally", thank you. I just received a call from someone last night who fears his wife may have a brain tumor. They get back the results from her tests sometime later today. I've already planned my "rational" approach, should a tumor be found. Pssssttt...it won't include surgery or thousands of dollars in cash to line the doctor's/insurance companies' pockets.
I said "scientists"...plural. It wouldn't surprise me if you're as ignorant(as far as "hands on experience" goes) in scientific matters as you are in scriptural matters. To be even more frank than I've already been, I THINK if the internet shut down and certain websites were no longer accessible to some of the posters on this forum, then many posters would have nothing to talk about as they're just "parrots" of what others have written/said. You KNOW that I hate the word "rational"? You KNOW no such thing. Just another errant OPINION of yours. I'm quite rational, thank you. When Medical science consistently fails to help people and I successfully provide them lasting help through Jesus Christ, I do so quite "rationally", thank you. I just received a call from someone last night who fears his wife may have a brain tumor. They get back the results from her tests sometime later today. I've already planned my "rational" approach, should a tumor be found. Pssssttt...it won't include surgery or thousands of dollars in cash to line the doctor's/insurance companies' pockets.
QUOTE (vkamath+)
There is no point in saying such things and then going back and apologizing. What a waste of time.
I'm not quite sure what you meant by that, so I won't comment on it. Take care.
I'm not quite sure what you meant by that, so I won't comment on it. Take care.
newguy,
We have done this many times before with no outcome.
We have done this many times before with no outcome.
QUOTE (newguy+)
Why don't you(collectively) want to talk about Christ? Why is it always about some other side issue?
Sure we can talk about Christ. What do you want to talk about? virgin birth? walking on water? resurrection? All bunkum (Yes, I KNOW that it is bunkum).
Sure we can talk about Christ. What do you want to talk about? virgin birth? walking on water? resurrection? All bunkum (Yes, I KNOW that it is bunkum).
QUOTE (newguy+)
You apparently don't understand the difference between KNOWING something and THINKING/BELIEVING something
.
KNOWing is what comes with acquiring KNOWledge with a good education. KNOWing is what happens when you are honest to yourself and reject superstitions. Faith healers such as yourself will probably not understand (or pretend not to understand).
KNOWing is what comes with acquiring KNOWledge with a good education. KNOWing is what happens when you are honest to yourself and reject superstitions. Faith healers such as yourself will probably not understand (or pretend not to understand).
QUOTE (newguy+)
Where've you been? I've been "dropping hints" for quite some time now
Where have I been? I was away acquiring some real knowledge rather than the scriptural variety.
Where have I been? I was away acquiring some real knowledge rather than the scriptural variety.
QUOTE (newguy+)
I'll tell you plainly that the Middle East crises(plural) will ultimately be "resolved" when the Vatican/Papacy makes a covenant with the nation of Israel to rebuild their temple that was destroyed in 70 A.D. When the temple is rebuilt, the ancient sacrifices will resume within the Jewish temple for 3 1/2 years and then the Pope will sit in the temple and declare himself to be "God". At this point, tribulation like has never been from the foundation of the world will befall the Jewish people in Israel that will last another 3 1/2 years and will culminate in the return of Jesus Christ. If you'd like to see some documentation that everything is already in place for a rebuilt Jewish temple, then I'll be happy to provide you with it. If you'd like to see some documentation that people already treat the Pope as "God", then I'll be happy to provide that as well. Additionally, if you'd like to see the scriptural references that foretell of these things, then I'll be happy to provide you with them as well.
Pope claiming to be God, thats a good one. Currently the pope can't even make a strong statement without going back on it and apologizing (almost). Care to provide a date when this will supposedly happen?
Pope claiming to be God, thats a good one. Currently the pope can't even make a strong statement without going back on it and apologizing (almost). Care to provide a date when this will supposedly happen?
QUOTE (newguy+)
It wouldn't surprise me if you're as ignorant(as far as "hands on experience" goes) in scientific matters as you are in scriptural matters.
I don't claim to have hands on experience in scientific matters. As I said, I am not a scientist. But that doesn't make me ignorant.
However what would make me ignorant is if I were to reject a good education, stop reading good books, start reading bunkum scriptures, be completely superstitious and take up shamanism.
I don't claim to have hands on experience in scientific matters. As I said, I am not a scientist. But that doesn't make me ignorant.
However what would make me ignorant is if I were to reject a good education, stop reading good books, start reading bunkum scriptures, be completely superstitious and take up shamanism.
QUOTE (newguy+)
To be even more frank than I've already been, I THINK if the internet shut down and certain websites were no longer accessible to some of the posters on this forum, then many posters would have nothing to talk about as they're just "parrots" of what others have written/said.
Most people need a source of information unlike people such as yourself who hear the voice of jesus inside their heads.
Most people need a source of information unlike people such as yourself who hear the voice of jesus inside their heads.
QUOTE (newguy+)
When Medical science consistently fails to help people..
Stop making false statements. Medical science consistently helps people. I and my family have got out of trouble on many occasions thanks to medical science.
Stop making false statements. Medical science consistently helps people. I and my family have got out of trouble on many occasions thanks to medical science.
QUOTE (newguy+)
I just received a call from someone last night who fears his wife may have a brain tumor. They get back the results from her tests sometime later today. I've already planned my "rational" approach, should a tumor be found. Pssssttt...it won't include surgery or thousands of dollars in cash to line the doctor's/insurance companies' pockets.
I hope you won't prevent this person from getting medical assistance. When I asked you a few months back if you would take your child to a doctor if (s)he were sick, I didn't get a clear Yes or No from you.
I hope you won't prevent this person from getting medical assistance. When I asked you a few months back if you would take your child to a doctor if (s)he were sick, I didn't get a clear Yes or No from you.
QUOTE (newguy+)
I'm not quite sure what you meant by that, so I won't comment on it.
Really? Never mind.
Really? Never mind.
vkamath: What a surprise. More little "buzzwords"...superstition, bunkum, shamanism, etc. The people that are still healed today would disagree with you. If you were man/woman enough to speak to them, that is. No, you much prefer the role of a coward, as do some of your predecessors, isn't that right? I'll stick with reality. Take care.
QUOTE (newuy+)
I'll stick with reality.
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Oct 21 2006, 04:26 PM)
Was Islam correct about evolution? Does the Quran get the creation story right, or wrong?
Here is an interesting little article that describes one doctor's effort in utilizing thought energy in a beneficial way to help patients. There isn't a lot of research in this nascent science going on right now, but the abilities to do such are improving. It is a short dissertation without much data, but there are some links for interested people.
The pioneer is the person who moves us - all of us collectively - from that which is known, and brings the unknown into our sphere, whether he was the explorer of new lands, new sciences, or new philosophies. We aren't nearly done learning yet, and we will find ourselves being surprised often along the way. New discoveries sometimes wash away old beliefs, but very often clarify and deepen what we already know, and prove what some believed.
The realm of the mind is the most unknown science we yet can see, and while we can speculate further, we can't see any further at this time. As our knowledge grows in this, we may yet understand, for instance, how Jesus was able to do miracles; even in modern times there are 'miracles': sudden regressions of cancer tumors resulting from methods as mutually exclusive as prayer and biofeedback. We have coined the term 'placebo effect' to name some of these events, though it's a name not a definition or process. But it is real, and it has occurred enough times that no self-respecting professional would dispute the accumulated data.
Laws of physics are never broken; it is our current levels of understanding that create the mirage of 'metaphysics'. There is no metaphysics. It's all physics. The 'impossible' is merely physics we don't yet get. Unfortunately we are far too quick to dismiss that which we can't define, and call 'quacks' all those who have been recipients of the undefinable. Yes there are salesman of false panacea, and in every realm not just science and philosophy, but we've thrown out the baby far too many times when we are ourselves but the baby. Who made anybody a God who can decide this?
Let's be aware that there is more to know than all we currently know, and let's not judge beforehand what it will be and especially what it won't.
http://www.thoughtenergy.com/te/Howitworks.htm
The pioneer is the person who moves us - all of us collectively - from that which is known, and brings the unknown into our sphere, whether he was the explorer of new lands, new sciences, or new philosophies. We aren't nearly done learning yet, and we will find ourselves being surprised often along the way. New discoveries sometimes wash away old beliefs, but very often clarify and deepen what we already know, and prove what some believed.
The realm of the mind is the most unknown science we yet can see, and while we can speculate further, we can't see any further at this time. As our knowledge grows in this, we may yet understand, for instance, how Jesus was able to do miracles; even in modern times there are 'miracles': sudden regressions of cancer tumors resulting from methods as mutually exclusive as prayer and biofeedback. We have coined the term 'placebo effect' to name some of these events, though it's a name not a definition or process. But it is real, and it has occurred enough times that no self-respecting professional would dispute the accumulated data.
Laws of physics are never broken; it is our current levels of understanding that create the mirage of 'metaphysics'. There is no metaphysics. It's all physics. The 'impossible' is merely physics we don't yet get. Unfortunately we are far too quick to dismiss that which we can't define, and call 'quacks' all those who have been recipients of the undefinable. Yes there are salesman of false panacea, and in every realm not just science and philosophy, but we've thrown out the baby far too many times when we are ourselves but the baby. Who made anybody a God who can decide this?
Let's be aware that there is more to know than all we currently know, and let's not judge beforehand what it will be and especially what it won't.
http://www.thoughtenergy.com/te/Howitworks.htm
QUOTE (sami9+Oct 23 2006, 11:07 PM)
hi,
yes, for more details check this URL.
http://www.islamworld.net/it-is-truth/CreationOfMan.htmlMy
Enough with your promote Islam agenda. It is no better than other religions.
yes, for more details check this URL.
http://www.islamworld.net/it-is-truth/CreationOfMan.htmlMy
Enough with your promote Islam agenda. It is no better than other religions.
QUOTE (soundhertz+)
Let's be aware that there is more to know than all we currently know, and let's not judge beforehand what it will be and especially what it won't.
I agree that there are many things we don't understand. It would be incredibly arrogant of us to claim to know everything.
We should have an open mind. However that does not mean we should accept things which don't have enough evidence. We should be very careful on what we choose to believe.
I agree that there are many things we don't understand. It would be incredibly arrogant of us to claim to know everything.
We should have an open mind. However that does not mean we should accept things which don't have enough evidence. We should be very careful on what we choose to believe.
hi,
All it means is that "We sure waited long enough to finally speak up against it". Hey, we're both in Pa. You're going to work at 3AM? Sheesh...I'm awake because I don't have to get up tomorrow (today) and I just don't sleep until I really have to.
QUOTE (vkamath+Oct 24 2006, 12:57 AM)
Enough with your promote Islam agenda. It is no better than other religions.
Did any religion describe the creation of man correctly as Islam did?
Stages Of The Creation Of Man (A)
Stages Of Creation Of Man (B )
The Embryonic Phases
Qur'aanic Description Of The Internal & External Appearance Of Fetus'
If any i will be interested to know.
cheers
Did any religion describe the creation of man correctly as Islam did?
Stages Of The Creation Of Man (A)
Stages Of Creation Of Man (B )
The Embryonic Phases
Qur'aanic Description Of The Internal & External Appearance Of Fetus'
If any i will be interested to know.
cheers
QUOTE (vkamath+Oct 24 2006, 12:57 AM)
Enough with your promote Islam agenda. It is no better than other religions.
All religions are equally valid.
- Dave
All religions are equally valid.
- Dave
sami9,
Being aware of the strife occuring throughout the world today, involving Islamic militants, how do you propose to satisfy the protocol of peace that a religion requires? Unlike Jesus, the founder of Christianity, Muhammad, after moving to Medina, proceeded (he had very few converts during his first few years of preaching) to stage over 25 seperate battles, as well as raiding and pillaging many caravans who were religiously neutral to fund his agenda, until his death. Endless more battles ensued afterward. Look for yourself, http://www.barkati.net/english/chronology.htm
While I am aware of the Crusades, Jesus preached above all else forgiveness and 'Turn the other cheek'. Muhammad gained his followers one way or another: if they didn't of their own volition accept Islam, they were brought to it by the sword, one of which was literally wielded by Muhammad himself. You cannot hide or erase such a long history of violence. What does it matter if the Qu'ran teaches peace when it's adherents ignore peace and favor conquest? This has been it's history, and people today joining Islam are doing it for quite worldly reasons, and self-serving ones at that, never mind the violence for all to see. At least the Christians here are rebuking what the 'Christian" Bush is doing, albeit johnny-come-lately.
How do you get around that? What does it matter what the Qu'ran says scientifically when the main feature of Islam, then and now, is conquest, and NOT the teachings of the Qu'ran? Islam is the ticket to terrorism, and scoundrels and pirates use it to gain their armies. Meanwhile, millions of peaceful Muslims who follow the Qu'ran and not militantism keep eternally mum for fear of retribution from their Muslim 'brothers'. How do you get around it?
I fear greatly the coming retribution these followers of Muhammad are going to receive when the rest of the world has finally had enough. It is inevitable. Instead of spending your time trying to convert completely uninterested people, you had better begin exhorting your already Muslim fellows to stand up to these barbarians whose actions revile their own Holy Book. Shi'ites are now killing Shi'ites in Iraq. It's gone beyond civil war. I want you to tell me how they can kill and dismember their own during Ramadan? How is that NOT a sin? How is that NOT defiling your faith? How can you ignore it, and not lick the boots of death?
Being aware of the strife occuring throughout the world today, involving Islamic militants, how do you propose to satisfy the protocol of peace that a religion requires? Unlike Jesus, the founder of Christianity, Muhammad, after moving to Medina, proceeded (he had very few converts during his first few years of preaching) to stage over 25 seperate battles, as well as raiding and pillaging many caravans who were religiously neutral to fund his agenda, until his death. Endless more battles ensued afterward. Look for yourself, http://www.barkati.net/english/chronology.htm
While I am aware of the Crusades, Jesus preached above all else forgiveness and 'Turn the other cheek'. Muhammad gained his followers one way or another: if they didn't of their own volition accept Islam, they were brought to it by the sword, one of which was literally wielded by Muhammad himself. You cannot hide or erase such a long history of violence. What does it matter if the Qu'ran teaches peace when it's adherents ignore peace and favor conquest? This has been it's history, and people today joining Islam are doing it for quite worldly reasons, and self-serving ones at that, never mind the violence for all to see. At least the Christians here are rebuking what the 'Christian" Bush is doing, albeit johnny-come-lately.
How do you get around that? What does it matter what the Qu'ran says scientifically when the main feature of Islam, then and now, is conquest, and NOT the teachings of the Qu'ran? Islam is the ticket to terrorism, and scoundrels and pirates use it to gain their armies. Meanwhile, millions of peaceful Muslims who follow the Qu'ran and not militantism keep eternally mum for fear of retribution from their Muslim 'brothers'. How do you get around it?
I fear greatly the coming retribution these followers of Muhammad are going to receive when the rest of the world has finally had enough. It is inevitable. Instead of spending your time trying to convert completely uninterested people, you had better begin exhorting your already Muslim fellows to stand up to these barbarians whose actions revile their own Holy Book. Shi'ites are now killing Shi'ites in Iraq. It's gone beyond civil war. I want you to tell me how they can kill and dismember their own during Ramadan? How is that NOT a sin? How is that NOT defiling your faith? How can you ignore it, and not lick the boots of death?
QUOTE (soundhertz+)
At least the Christians here are rebuking what the 'Christian" Bush is doing, albeit johnny-come-lately.
soundhertz: I don't always fully understand what people are saying on this forum and therefore I sometimes ask for clarification. Would you mind explaining to me what you meant when you said "albeit johnny-come-lately"? I'm sorry, but I need a little clarification. Thanks. I'm off to work...
soundhertz: I don't always fully understand what people are saying on this forum and therefore I sometimes ask for clarification. Would you mind explaining to me what you meant when you said "albeit johnny-come-lately"? I'm sorry, but I need a little clarification. Thanks. I'm off to work...
QUOTE
soundhertz: I don't always fully understand what people are saying on this forum and therefore I sometimes ask for clarification. Would you mind explaining to me what you meant when you said "albeit johnny-come-lately"? I'm sorry, but I need a little clarification. Thanks. I'm off to work...
All it means is that "We sure waited long enough to finally speak up against it". Hey, we're both in Pa. You're going to work at 3AM? Sheesh...I'm awake because I don't have to get up tomorrow (today) and I just don't sleep until I really have to.
Hi all, I am a geologist and confronted with a teaching that the earth is 4.5 b.y.o. compared to biblical teachings of 7000 t.y.o. for earths age. Books that were written at the a.d. crossover period lend an aura of fanatacism to them and i wonder if perhaps to control the masses they were a tool. i guess you had to be there?????
In the meantime i,ll stick with evolution. A certain amount of logic must prevail for the continued survival of our species, continued religious confrontation between various faiths will only bring about our demise.
cheers
In the meantime i,ll stick with evolution. A certain amount of logic must prevail for the continued survival of our species, continued religious confrontation between various faiths will only bring about our demise.
cheers
QUOTE (sami9+Oct 24 2006, 03:48 AM)
hi,
Did any religion describe the creation of man correctly as Islam did?
Stages Of The Creation Of Man (A)
Stages Of Creation Of Man (B )
The Embryonic Phases
Qur'aanic Description Of The Internal & External Appearance Of Fetus'
If any i will be interested to know.
cheers
All of those seem to be about pregnancy. The stages of pregnancy as described are obvious to the naked eye, and would be known by any inquisitive culture. There's nothing 'hidden' in the text, any scientist of the day would know what is written.
I asked specifically about evolution. The Quran seems to be 'wrong' about how humans came to be, that we evolved to become humans over billions of years.
How can a book be considered 'right' if it's only 'right' about things that were obvious? There doesn't seem to be any divine inspiration there.
Thanks for trying to answer my question. The last person who tried to expose me to the Quran lied to me first.
Did any religion describe the creation of man correctly as Islam did?
Stages Of The Creation Of Man (A)
Stages Of Creation Of Man (B )
The Embryonic Phases
Qur'aanic Description Of The Internal & External Appearance Of Fetus'
If any i will be interested to know.
cheers
All of those seem to be about pregnancy. The stages of pregnancy as described are obvious to the naked eye, and would be known by any inquisitive culture. There's nothing 'hidden' in the text, any scientist of the day would know what is written.
I asked specifically about evolution. The Quran seems to be 'wrong' about how humans came to be, that we evolved to become humans over billions of years.
How can a book be considered 'right' if it's only 'right' about things that were obvious? There doesn't seem to be any divine inspiration there.
Thanks for trying to answer my question. The last person who tried to expose me to the Quran lied to me first.
QUOTE (soundhertz+)
At least the Christians here are rebuking what the 'Christian" Bush is doing, albeit johnny-come-lately.
QUOTE (newguy+)
soundhertz: I don't always fully understand what people are saying on this forum and therefore I sometimes ask for clarification. Would you mind explaining to me what you meant when you said "albeit johnny-come-lately"?
No! One is based on reason and the other is based on ignorance and superstition.
QED
Physfan
ps
No! One is based on reason and the other is based on ignorance and superstition.
QED
Physfan
ps
Joseph Smith predicted the American Civil War and the Book of Mormon predicted struggles with illegal immigration in America.
QUOTE (soundhertz+)
All it means is that "We sure waited long enough to finally speak up against it".
soundhertz: I wrote a letter to George W. Bush several years ago when he was still governor of Texas. I counselled him, from scripture, not to go through with the execution of Karla Faye Tucker. I received a response back from him(probably just a "mass mailer" that he sent to everyone who opposed her execution) in which he basically said that he was going to execute her and THEN pray for her and her family. Gee, thanks. I warned him back then that if he really wanted to be a Christian, then he was going to have to be moved by the Spirit and Word of God...not what favored him politically. Although I did vote for him the first time around, that was more of a non-vote for Al Gore. In the most recent election, I withheld from voting altogether because there was no "lesser of two evils" as far as I was concerned. Anyhow, I have repeatedly warned people about Bush's professed "Christianity" and I've been told off by plenty of "Christians" as a result. I'm definitely NOT a "johnny-come-lately" where Bush is concerned. Just for the record.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karla_Faye_Tucker
Karla Tucker and George W. Bush
Under Texas law, each death penalty case has one chance to be reprieved by a governor without the recommendation of the Board of Pardons and Paroles. The board must recommend the second reprieve in order for it to be granted. All 18 members of the Board of Pardons and Paroles are appointed by the governor (Clark, 2000). Before Tucker was executed, there were pleas for clemency from Waly Bacre Ndiaye, the United Nations commissioner on summary and arbitrary executions, the World Council of Churches, Pope John Paul II, and Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi, among other world figures. Unusual pleas came from conservative American political figures such as Newt Gingrich and Pat Robertson, interceding on her behalf. Tucker did not ask for a pardon, only commutation of her death sentence to life in prison. Huntsville Prison's warden testified that she was a model prisoner and that, after 14 years on death row, she likely had been reformed. Despite these pleas, Bush signed her death warrant. In 1999, during the 2000 Republican Presidential primary race, conservative commentator Tucker Carlson interviewed Bush for Talk Magazine (September 1999, p. 106). Excerpt from this interview is quoted below:
In the weeks before the execution, Bush says, a number of protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Karla Faye Tucker. "Did you meet with any of them?" I ask. Bush whips around and stares at me. "No, I didn't meet with any of them," he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. "I didn't meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with Tucker, though. He asked her real difficult questions like, 'What would you say to Governor Bush?'" "What was her answer?" I wonder. "'Please,'" Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "'don't kill me.'" I must look shocked — ridiculing the pleas of a condemned prisoner who has since been executed seems odd and cruel — because he immediately stops smirking.
Bush denied that he had intended to make light of the issue.
soundhertz: I wrote a letter to George W. Bush several years ago when he was still governor of Texas. I counselled him, from scripture, not to go through with the execution of Karla Faye Tucker. I received a response back from him(probably just a "mass mailer" that he sent to everyone who opposed her execution) in which he basically said that he was going to execute her and THEN pray for her and her family. Gee, thanks. I warned him back then that if he really wanted to be a Christian, then he was going to have to be moved by the Spirit and Word of God...not what favored him politically. Although I did vote for him the first time around, that was more of a non-vote for Al Gore. In the most recent election, I withheld from voting altogether because there was no "lesser of two evils" as far as I was concerned. Anyhow, I have repeatedly warned people about Bush's professed "Christianity" and I've been told off by plenty of "Christians" as a result. I'm definitely NOT a "johnny-come-lately" where Bush is concerned. Just for the record.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karla_Faye_Tucker
Karla Tucker and George W. Bush
Under Texas law, each death penalty case has one chance to be reprieved by a governor without the recommendation of the Board of Pardons and Paroles. The board must recommend the second reprieve in order for it to be granted. All 18 members of the Board of Pardons and Paroles are appointed by the governor (Clark, 2000). Before Tucker was executed, there were pleas for clemency from Waly Bacre Ndiaye, the United Nations commissioner on summary and arbitrary executions, the World Council of Churches, Pope John Paul II, and Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi, among other world figures. Unusual pleas came from conservative American political figures such as Newt Gingrich and Pat Robertson, interceding on her behalf. Tucker did not ask for a pardon, only commutation of her death sentence to life in prison. Huntsville Prison's warden testified that she was a model prisoner and that, after 14 years on death row, she likely had been reformed. Despite these pleas, Bush signed her death warrant. In 1999, during the 2000 Republican Presidential primary race, conservative commentator Tucker Carlson interviewed Bush for Talk Magazine (September 1999, p. 106). Excerpt from this interview is quoted below:
In the weeks before the execution, Bush says, a number of protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Karla Faye Tucker. "Did you meet with any of them?" I ask. Bush whips around and stares at me. "No, I didn't meet with any of them," he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. "I didn't meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with Tucker, though. He asked her real difficult questions like, 'What would you say to Governor Bush?'" "What was her answer?" I wonder. "'Please,'" Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "'don't kill me.'" I must look shocked — ridiculing the pleas of a condemned prisoner who has since been executed seems odd and cruel — because he immediately stops smirking.
Bush denied that he had intended to make light of the issue.
QUOTE (sami9+Oct 24 2006, 03:48 AM)
hi,
Did any religion describe the creation of man correctly as Islam did?
Stages Of The Creation Of Man (A)
Stages Of Creation Of Man (B )
The Embryonic Phases
Qur'aanic Description Of The Internal & External Appearance Of Fetus'
If any i will be interested to know.
cheers
I read these pages. This is yet another case of finding a interpretation of scripture that is favorable to you.
We cannot consider the Koran a miraculous book simply because it contains words such as following.
Nutfah, which means “a drop” or “small amount of water”;
‘alaqah,which means a “leech-like structure”;
mudghah, which means a “chewed-like structure”;
‘idhaam, which means “bones” or “skeleton”;
kisaa ul idham bil-laham, which means the clothing of bones with flesh or muscle,
al-nash'a which means “the formation of distinct fetus”.
A combination of such words is given a favorable interpretation by people such as yourself whose ulterior motive is to promote Islam using any means possible (including lies).
Did any religion describe the creation of man correctly as Islam did?
Stages Of The Creation Of Man (A)
Stages Of Creation Of Man (B )
The Embryonic Phases
Qur'aanic Description Of The Internal & External Appearance Of Fetus'
If any i will be interested to know.
cheers
I read these pages. This is yet another case of finding a interpretation of scripture that is favorable to you.
We cannot consider the Koran a miraculous book simply because it contains words such as following.
Nutfah, which means “a drop” or “small amount of water”;
‘alaqah,which means a “leech-like structure”;
mudghah, which means a “chewed-like structure”;
‘idhaam, which means “bones” or “skeleton”;
kisaa ul idham bil-laham, which means the clothing of bones with flesh or muscle,
al-nash'a which means “the formation of distinct fetus”.
A combination of such words is given a favorable interpretation by people such as yourself whose ulterior motive is to promote Islam using any means possible (including lies).
Joseph Smith predicted the American Civil War and the Book of Mormon predicted struggles with illegal immigration in America.
One thing that bothers me is how undivine the Genesis creation account is.
Even the Dead Sea scrolls that Joseph Smith translated are in aggreeance with Genesis.
Basically, i don't get why the Sun is created after the plants and the earth.
Pretty much, the only way it makes sense is if I try to imagine myself as an ignorant cave man back in time.
Looking at the world from that perspective, I would have no reason to believe that Light of day is not based on the existence of the sun.
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html
This site tries to quell my fears, but fails. I am more of a literalist. If it says in the scripture, ___ , then there should be an explanation for ___.
One thing that bothers me is how undivine the Genesis creation account is.
Even the Dead Sea scrolls that Joseph Smith translated are in aggreeance with Genesis.
Basically, i don't get why the Sun is created after the plants and the earth.
Pretty much, the only way it makes sense is if I try to imagine myself as an ignorant cave man back in time.
Looking at the world from that perspective, I would have no reason to believe that Light of day is not based on the existence of the sun.
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html
This site tries to quell my fears, but fails. I am more of a literalist. If it says in the scripture, ___ , then there should be an explanation for ___.
QUOTE
Is there any connection between science & religion
No! One is based on reason and the other is based on ignorance and superstition.
QED
Physfan
ps
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Is there any connection between science & religion |
No! One is based on reason and the other is based on ignorance and superstition.
QED
Physfan
ps
Joseph Smith predicted the American Civil War and the Book of Mormon predicted struggles with illegal immigration in America.
Yeah, right.
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Oct 24 2006, 01:22 PM)
All of those seem to be about pregnancy. The stages of pregnancy as described are obvious to the naked eye, and would be known by any inquisitive culture. There's nothing 'hidden' in the text, any scientist of the day would know what is written.
Thanks for trying to answer my question. The last person who tried to expose me to the Quran lied to me first.
hi,
i'm sure you are not familiar with the time of the prophet (pbuh). it was 1400 years ago and people at that time had no idea about the stages of pregnancy.
By saying that the stages of pregnancy as described are obvious to the naked eye, I think you should read what did the scientists said about this.
Science in the Quran
By saying that the stages of pregnancy as described are obvious to the naked eye, I think you should read what did the scientists said about this.
Science in the Quran
All of those seem to be about pregnancy.
No! One is based on reason and the other is based on ignorance and superstition.
QED
Physfan
Physfan: First of all, my following comments have nothing to do with any "connection between science & religion". I'm merely addressing your comment in regards to "religion" being "based upon ignorance and superstition". Although I would agree with you that some "religions" include "superstitions" and although I would agree with you that many "religious" people are as equally "willfully ignorant" as some "non-religious" people, Jesus Christ is still alive and well. Of this fact, you are apparently one of the many "willfully ignorant" on this forum. QED. Take care.
P.S. There is absolutely no malice intended or implied in what I stated above.
OK, so some religions contain superstitions but, let me guess, not yours.
I will take "willfully ignorant" to mean non-superstitious, in which case you are correct. I take your superstitious ramblings in the same vein as I take the ramblings of the illiterate pedophile who started one of the other superstitious movements, or any other loony ramblings about some supposed deity that no one can show exists.
You can believe all you want, you can have faith until your head explodes but you still cannot demonstrate that what you exert exists actually does. The burden of proof falls on the person making the assertion. An absence of proof over thousands of years is enough to prove the total fallability of your argument and, if you were pre-disposed to reason, you would see this too. What you will do next will prove my assertion, ie, that you are not a person of reason.
OK, so some religions contain superstitions but, let me guess, not yours.
I will take "willfully ignorant" to mean non-superstitious, in which case you are correct. I take your superstitious ramblings in the same vein as I take the ramblings of the illiterate pedophile who started one of the other superstitious movements, or any other loony ramblings about some supposed deity that no one can show exists.
You can believe all you want, you can have faith until your head explodes but you still cannot demonstrate that what you exert exists actually does. The burden of proof falls on the person making the assertion. An absence of proof over thousands of years is enough to prove the total fallability of your argument and, if you were pre-disposed to reason, you would see this too. What you will do next will prove my assertion, ie, that you are not a person of reason.
Jesus Christ is still alive
The bible says JC is dead; isn't that good enough for you?
Physfan
Thanks for trying to answer my question. The last person who tried to expose me to the Quran lied to me first.
hi,
i'm sure you are not familiar with the time of the prophet (pbuh). it was 1400 years ago and people at that time had no idea about the stages of pregnancy.
QUOTE
The stages of pregnancy as described are obvious to the naked eye
By saying that the stages of pregnancy as described are obvious to the naked eye, I think you should read what did the scientists said about this.
Science in the Quran
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The stages of pregnancy as described are obvious to the naked eye |
By saying that the stages of pregnancy as described are obvious to the naked eye, I think you should read what did the scientists said about this.
Science in the Quran
All of those seem to be about pregnancy.
QUOTE (vkamath+Oct 25 2006, 12:25 AM)
I read these pages. This is yet another case of finding a interpretation of scripture that is favorable to you.
We cannot consider the Koran a miraculous book simply because it contains words such as following.
Nutfah, which means “a drop” or “small amount of water”;
‘alaqah,which means a “leech-like structure”;
mudghah, which means a “chewed-like structure”;
‘idhaam, which means “bones” or “skeleton”;
kisaa ul idham bil-laham, which means the clothing of bones with flesh or muscle,
al-nash'a which means “the formation of distinct fetus”.
A combination of such words is given a favorable interpretation by people such as yourself whose ulterior motive is to promote Islam using any means possible (including lies).
hi,
First of all you should know that we are in the 21st century and nowadays we have something called Dictionaries
, and people learning other languages from other cultures , If you said that there is something wronge in the translation 500 years ago that might work 
but not in today's life
We cannot consider the Koran a miraculous book simply because it contains words such as following.
Nutfah, which means “a drop” or “small amount of water”;
‘alaqah,which means a “leech-like structure”;
mudghah, which means a “chewed-like structure”;
‘idhaam, which means “bones” or “skeleton”;
kisaa ul idham bil-laham, which means the clothing of bones with flesh or muscle,
al-nash'a which means “the formation of distinct fetus”.
A combination of such words is given a favorable interpretation by people such as yourself whose ulterior motive is to promote Islam using any means possible (including lies).
hi,
First of all you should know that we are in the 21st century and nowadays we have something called Dictionaries
, and people learning other languages from other cultures , If you said that there is something wronge in the translation 500 years ago that might work but not in today's life
QUOTE
Is there any connection between science & religion
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Is there any connection between science & religion |
No! One is based on reason and the other is based on ignorance and superstition.
QED
Physfan
Physfan: First of all, my following comments have nothing to do with any "connection between science & religion". I'm merely addressing your comment in regards to "religion" being "based upon ignorance and superstition". Although I would agree with you that some "religions" include "superstitions" and although I would agree with you that many "religious" people are as equally "willfully ignorant" as some "non-religious" people, Jesus Christ is still alive and well. Of this fact, you are apparently one of the many "willfully ignorant" on this forum. QED. Take care.
P.S. There is absolutely no malice intended or implied in what I stated above.
Hi all,
here,s my thought, all religeous books ie bible..koran etc should be renamed
to GULLIBLES TRAVELS.
get the picture now!!!!!
here,s my thought, all religeous books ie bible..koran etc should be renamed
to GULLIBLES TRAVELS.
get the picture now!!!!!
QUOTE (rokdoktorau+Oct 25 2006, 12:20 PM)
Hi all,
here,s my thought, all religeous books ie bible..koran etc should be renamed
to GULLIBLES TRAVELS.
get the picture now!!!!!
rokdoktorau: Yeah, I think I "get the picture now". You're just another willfully ignorant person who has nothing more to offer than silly little "quips". Thanks for clearing that up. Take care.
here,s my thought, all religeous books ie bible..koran etc should be renamed
to GULLIBLES TRAVELS.
get the picture now!!!!!
rokdoktorau: Yeah, I think I "get the picture now". You're just another willfully ignorant person who has nothing more to offer than silly little "quips". Thanks for clearing that up. Take care.
QUOTE (sami9+Oct 25 2006, 09:50 AM)
The lowest area on Earth
Mountains Are Pegs in Form and Function
Properties of Deep Seas
Constriction of Breasts in the Sky
Again, it really looks like you're reading into the text. You can't pick and choose which metaphors you want to believe as the 'truth'. There's a statement in English "a stopped clock is right twice a day".
And, again, in the Creation story - does it state that God created man along with animals at nearly the same time, or does it correctly state that humans evolved after billions of years of life?
Is the Quran true or false in this regards? Isn't the creation story right at the beginning (I don't know)? Does it tell of the Creation of Man?
The product of various stages of miscarriage also meet the descriptions given. Anybody who knows what flows forth from a miscarriage could use the same descriptive language. This is what I mean about what the people of the day would know.
Mountains Are Pegs in Form and Function
Properties of Deep Seas
Constriction of Breasts in the Sky
Again, it really looks like you're reading into the text. You can't pick and choose which metaphors you want to believe as the 'truth'. There's a statement in English "a stopped clock is right twice a day".
And, again, in the Creation story - does it state that God created man along with animals at nearly the same time, or does it correctly state that humans evolved after billions of years of life?
Is the Quran true or false in this regards? Isn't the creation story right at the beginning (I don't know)? Does it tell of the Creation of Man?
QUOTE
By saying that the stages of pregnancy as described are obvious to the naked eye, I think you should read what did the scientists said about this.
Science in the Quran
Science in the Quran
The product of various stages of miscarriage also meet the descriptions given. Anybody who knows what flows forth from a miscarriage could use the same descriptive language. This is what I mean about what the people of the day would know.
QUOTE (sami9+Oct 25 2006, 10:04 AM)
hi,
First of all you should know that we are in the 21st century and nowadays we have something called Dictionaries , and people learning other languages from other cultures , If you said that there is something wronge in the translation 500 years ago that might work but not in today's life
I am not talking of mistakes in translation. I am talking of people deliberately finding a favorable interpretation to give new meaning to the words present in the Koran. Words like following can be used to mean anything.
‘alaqah,which means a “leech-like structure”;
mudghah, which means a “chewed-like structure”;
First of all you should know that we are in the 21st century and nowadays we have something called Dictionaries
, and people learning other languages from other cultures , If you said that there is something wronge in the translation 500 years ago that might work but not in today's life I am not talking of mistakes in translation. I am talking of people deliberately finding a favorable interpretation to give new meaning to the words present in the Koran. Words like following can be used to mean anything.
‘alaqah,which means a “leech-like structure”;
mudghah, which means a “chewed-like structure”;
Can someone please explain (who understand Islam) what Surah 51:49 means? I found it after being referenced to Surah 51:47 (which allegedly talks about the expanding universe).
QUOTE (vkamath+Oct 26 2006, 01:10 AM)
Check this out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3JC9ssiBU8&NR
vkamath: And? Three comedians, accompanied by a laugh track, spouting off some stereotypical ignorance and you find this amusing? No surprise. In just their 3 1/2 minute routine, they misrepresented Biblical Christianity at least 3 times. At least we know where you're getting your "material" from. Care to learn about their errors? Nah, didn't think so. You love ignorance, isn't that so? Continue on with your "rational" research. Take care.
All: If any of you would like to know of their gross misrepresentations of Biblical Christianity, then it should be my pleasure to show them to you. On the other hand, if you much prefer ignorance as the foundation of your argument, as does vkamath, then don't let me rain on your parade. Good night.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3JC9ssiBU8&NR
vkamath: And? Three comedians, accompanied by a laugh track, spouting off some stereotypical ignorance and you find this amusing? No surprise. In just their 3 1/2 minute routine, they misrepresented Biblical Christianity at least 3 times. At least we know where you're getting your "material" from. Care to learn about their errors? Nah, didn't think so. You love ignorance, isn't that so? Continue on with your "rational" research. Take care.
All: If any of you would like to know of their gross misrepresentations of Biblical Christianity, then it should be my pleasure to show them to you. On the other hand, if you much prefer ignorance as the foundation of your argument, as does vkamath, then don't let me rain on your parade. Good night.
QUOTE
Physfan: First of all, my following comments have nothing to do with any "connection between science & religion". I'm merely addressing your comment in regards to "religion" being "based upon ignorance and superstition". Although I would agree with you that some "religions" include "superstitions" and although I would agree with you that many "religious" people are as equally "willfully ignorant" as some "non-religious" people, Jesus Christ is still alive and well. Of this fact, you are apparently one of the many "willfully ignorant" on this forum. QED. Take care.
OK, so some religions contain superstitions but, let me guess, not yours.
I will take "willfully ignorant" to mean non-superstitious, in which case you are correct. I take your superstitious ramblings in the same vein as I take the ramblings of the illiterate pedophile who started one of the other superstitious movements, or any other loony ramblings about some supposed deity that no one can show exists.
You can believe all you want, you can have faith until your head explodes but you still cannot demonstrate that what you exert exists actually does. The burden of proof falls on the person making the assertion. An absence of proof over thousands of years is enough to prove the total fallability of your argument and, if you were pre-disposed to reason, you would see this too. What you will do next will prove my assertion, ie, that you are not a person of reason.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Physfan: First of all, my following comments have nothing to do with any "connection between science & religion". I'm merely addressing your comment in regards to "religion" being "based upon ignorance and superstition". Although I would agree with you that some "religions" include "superstitions" and although I would agree with you that many "religious" people are as equally "willfully ignorant" as some "non-religious" people, Jesus Christ is still alive and well. Of this fact, you are apparently one of the many "willfully ignorant" on this forum. QED. Take care. |
OK, so some religions contain superstitions but, let me guess, not yours.
I will take "willfully ignorant" to mean non-superstitious, in which case you are correct. I take your superstitious ramblings in the same vein as I take the ramblings of the illiterate pedophile who started one of the other superstitious movements, or any other loony ramblings about some supposed deity that no one can show exists.
You can believe all you want, you can have faith until your head explodes but you still cannot demonstrate that what you exert exists actually does. The burden of proof falls on the person making the assertion. An absence of proof over thousands of years is enough to prove the total fallability of your argument and, if you were pre-disposed to reason, you would see this too. What you will do next will prove my assertion, ie, that you are not a person of reason.
Jesus Christ is still alive
The bible says JC is dead; isn't that good enough for you?
Physfan
QUOTE (Physfan+)
OK, so some religions contain superstitions but, let me guess, not yours.
Physfan: There are probably very many "superstitions" within professing Christendom, but that doesn't mean that they are a true representation of Christianity or that I personally adhere to them.
Physfan: There are probably very many "superstitions" within professing Christendom, but that doesn't mean that they are a true representation of Christianity or that I personally adhere to them.
QUOTE (Physfan+)
I will take "willfully ignorant" to mean non-superstitious, in which case you are correct.
You can "take" it however you'd like, but that is not the meaning that I intended. No, I am referring to how people arbitrarily dismiss and mock things that they truly know nothing about and have no desire to know about either.
You can "take" it however you'd like, but that is not the meaning that I intended. No, I am referring to how people arbitrarily dismiss and mock things that they truly know nothing about and have no desire to know about either.
QUOTE (Physfan+)
I take your superstitious ramblings in the same vein as I take the ramblings of the illiterate pedophile who started one of the other superstitious movements, or any other loony ramblings about some supposed deity that no one can show exists.
You can believe all you want, you can have faith until your head explodes but you still cannot demonstrate that what you exert exists actually does. The burden of proof falls on the person making the assertion. An absence of proof over thousands of years is enough to prove the total fallability of your argument and, if you were pre-disposed to reason, you would see this too. What you will do next will prove my assertion, ie, that you are not a person of reason.
I have no "superstitious ramblings", just factual reports of events that have transpired in my life and in the lives of others. Should I forsake reality because of your skepticism or ignorance? I don't know who the "illiterate pedophile" is that you speak of, so I cannot rightly comment on that at this time. As far as proof of God's existence is concerned, I've personally seen truckloads. Apparently you prefer to use the "strawman" definitions of "believe" and "faith" as others on this forum have done before you. I won't bother defining the words again in a Biblical context...I've already done so enough times only to be met with cognitive dissonance on each and every occasion. Absence of proof? Where have you been looking? On anti-Christian websites? I've borne witness of healings and casting out of demons in Jesus Christ's name many times on this forum. Has even one of you attempted to prove or refute my claims by checking medical records or contacting any of the people involved? The answer to that question is a resounding "NO!" Why not? What are you afraid of? Truth? What I will do next is what I have already done for many years...continue to help people through Jesus Christ. If that bothers you...
Demons? You're kidding me? "Real" demons or metaphorical ones though, I suppose, it makes no difference to you because you believe they exist so therefore they must, and they are exactly the same in that neither can be shown to exist.
You should have your brain chemistry checked because there is a severe problem with it. It is making you 'see' things that, quite simple, do not and cannot exist.
Demons? You're kidding me? "Real" demons or metaphorical ones though, I suppose, it makes no difference to you because you believe they exist so therefore they must, and they are exactly the same in that neither can be shown to exist.
You should have your brain chemistry checked because there is a severe problem with it. It is making you 'see' things that, quite simple, do not and cannot exist.
I know Him to be alive and well
Either he is alive or he is dead. You can't have it both ways. No wonder I can't understand you fairytale types.
And while I'm at it, I have every right to mock you and your silly superstitions; they have held the human race up for far too long.
Physfan
PS
Demons? You're kidding me? "Real" demons or metaphorical ones though, I suppose, it makes no difference to you because you believe they exist so therefore they must, and they are exactly the same in that neither can be shown to exist.
You should have your brain chemistry checked because there is a severe problem with it. It is making you 'see' things that, quite simple, do not and cannot exist.
Either he is alive or he is dead. You can't have it both ways. No wonder I can't understand you fairytale types.
And while I'm at it, I have every right to mock you and your silly superstitions; they have held the human race up for far too long.
Physfan
PS
It is the fellow You kristians know him as the person whose followers blow up buildings with planes. It doesn't surprise me that you don't know this. This is willful ignorance on your part.
Physfan: No, there is nothing wrong with my brain chemistry. That's just another diversionary tactic by you to cover up for your willful ignorance and cowardice as far as any real research is concerned. Sorry, but that puts you in the same category as many of your predecessors on this forum. You can mock all you'd like...it's a childish substitute for some manly research, as far as I'm concerned. I've "held up" no one. False religions may have, but not me. In reality, I've helped plenty. Would you like to contact some of them? Of course not. Enjoy your willful ignorance. You can have the last word. Take care.
P.S. Are you speaking about Osama bin Laden? If so, I've never heard about him being illiterate or a pedophile. If you are speaking about someone else, why can't you just tell me his name? Apparently you don't understand the difference between "willful ignorance"(those who deliberately don't want to know) and just plain old "ignorance"(those who simply don't yet know).
You can believe all you want, you can have faith until your head explodes but you still cannot demonstrate that what you exert exists actually does. The burden of proof falls on the person making the assertion. An absence of proof over thousands of years is enough to prove the total fallability of your argument and, if you were pre-disposed to reason, you would see this too. What you will do next will prove my assertion, ie, that you are not a person of reason.
I have no "superstitious ramblings", just factual reports of events that have transpired in my life and in the lives of others. Should I forsake reality because of your skepticism or ignorance? I don't know who the "illiterate pedophile" is that you speak of, so I cannot rightly comment on that at this time. As far as proof of God's existence is concerned, I've personally seen truckloads. Apparently you prefer to use the "strawman" definitions of "believe" and "faith" as others on this forum have done before you. I won't bother defining the words again in a Biblical context...I've already done so enough times only to be met with cognitive dissonance on each and every occasion. Absence of proof? Where have you been looking? On anti-Christian websites? I've borne witness of healings and casting out of demons in Jesus Christ's name many times on this forum. Has even one of you attempted to prove or refute my claims by checking medical records or contacting any of the people involved? The answer to that question is a resounding "NO!" Why not? What are you afraid of? Truth? What I will do next is what I have already done for many years...continue to help people through Jesus Christ. If that bothers you...
QUOTE (Physfan+)
The bible says JC is dead; isn't that good enough for you?
The Bible says that Jesus Christ WAS dead...even you know that. I know Him to be alive and well and if I should say otherwise, then I would be a liar...like many others on this forum. Those who lie, ultimately lie to themselves. Take care.
The Bible says that Jesus Christ WAS dead...even you know that. I know Him to be alive and well and if I should say otherwise, then I would be a liar...like many others on this forum. Those who lie, ultimately lie to themselves. Take care.
QUOTE
I've borne witness of healings and casting out of demons in Jesus Christ's name many times on this forum.
Demons? You're kidding me? "Real" demons or metaphorical ones though, I suppose, it makes no difference to you because you believe they exist so therefore they must, and they are exactly the same in that neither can be shown to exist.
You should have your brain chemistry checked because there is a severe problem with it. It is making you 'see' things that, quite simple, do not and cannot exist.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I've borne witness of healings and casting out of demons in Jesus Christ's name many times on this forum. |
Demons? You're kidding me? "Real" demons or metaphorical ones though, I suppose, it makes no difference to you because you believe they exist so therefore they must, and they are exactly the same in that neither can be shown to exist.
You should have your brain chemistry checked because there is a severe problem with it. It is making you 'see' things that, quite simple, do not and cannot exist.
I know Him to be alive and well
Either he is alive or he is dead. You can't have it both ways. No wonder I can't understand you fairytale types.
And while I'm at it, I have every right to mock you and your silly superstitions; they have held the human race up for far too long.
Physfan
PS
QUOTE
I don't know who the "illiterate pedophile"
It is the fellow You kristians know him as the person whose followers blow up buildings with planes. It doesn't surprise me that you don't know this. This is willful ignorance on your part.
yeah newguy, wrong again just like your retoric about religion, another one blinded by the light, you should try a little common sense and not believe everything you hear or read.
you front God/Allah before me then i,ll believe, till then its just fairy tales, oh and by the way if it does exsist and i do get to see it i,ll take to it with a baseball bat, payback for all the misery and suffering it, (God/Allah) has bestowed upon the human race.
take care man
have a nice day:D
you front God/Allah before me then i,ll believe, till then its just fairy tales, oh and by the way if it does exsist and i do get to see it i,ll take to it with a baseball bat, payback for all the misery and suffering it, (God/Allah) has bestowed upon the human race.
take care man
have a nice day:D
Hello all
A very lively discussion. Almost starting a mini-war here.
My personal experience is that I have never felt / seen / heard / 6th sensed a God from any religious order. Why is this? Have any one of the many creators seen fit to turn his / her / their back(s) on me? Why should have I missed out? I was born, my mother went to church, she even took me along when I was young. I stopped going on my own violition - it was dreadfully boring - I was only 8. God hasn't tried real hard to get me back. Not even a little whisper in my dreams at night.
Maybe it's because, as rokdoktorau implies, there just ain't nothing there...
Oh, this is just pointless. Some will force themselves to believe, others will force themselves not to believe, and others (like myself) just haven't got the energy to constantly beg a creator to acknowledge me as a creation. If you could create life, would you make that life scrape and bow in supplication for eternity. How petty that would be. Me, I would be popping up everywhere, everywhen, to everybody and being proactively involved, not secreting myself away leaving everyone to make guesses about what is or is not. "Hi, I'm God. Tell me - nope, I already know - okay let's fix this problem with your cancer..."
A very lively discussion. Almost starting a mini-war here.
My personal experience is that I have never felt / seen / heard / 6th sensed a God from any religious order. Why is this? Have any one of the many creators seen fit to turn his / her / their back(s) on me? Why should have I missed out? I was born, my mother went to church, she even took me along when I was young. I stopped going on my own violition - it was dreadfully boring - I was only 8. God hasn't tried real hard to get me back. Not even a little whisper in my dreams at night.
Maybe it's because, as rokdoktorau implies, there just ain't nothing there...
Oh, this is just pointless. Some will force themselves to believe, others will force themselves not to believe, and others (like myself) just haven't got the energy to constantly beg a creator to acknowledge me as a creation. If you could create life, would you make that life scrape and bow in supplication for eternity. How petty that would be. Me, I would be popping up everywhere, everywhen, to everybody and being proactively involved, not secreting myself away leaving everyone to make guesses about what is or is not. "Hi, I'm God. Tell me - nope, I already know - okay let's fix this problem with your cancer..."
QUOTE (Physfan+Oct 26 2006, 03:33 AM)
Demons? You're kidding me? "Real" demons or metaphorical ones though, I suppose, it makes no difference to you because you believe they exist so therefore they must, and they are exactly the same in that neither can be shown to exist.
You should have your brain chemistry checked because there is a severe problem with it. It is making you 'see' things that, quite simple, do not and cannot exist.
Either he is alive or he is dead. You can't have it both ways. No wonder I can't understand you fairytale types.
And while I'm at it, I have every right to mock you and your silly superstitions; they have held the human race up for far too long.
Physfan
PS
It is the fellow You kristians know him as the person whose followers blow up buildings with planes. It doesn't surprise me that you don't know this. This is willful ignorance on your part.
Physfan: No, there is nothing wrong with my brain chemistry. That's just another diversionary tactic by you to cover up for your willful ignorance and cowardice as far as any real research is concerned. Sorry, but that puts you in the same category as many of your predecessors on this forum. You can mock all you'd like...it's a childish substitute for some manly research, as far as I'm concerned. I've "held up" no one. False religions may have, but not me. In reality, I've helped plenty. Would you like to contact some of them? Of course not. Enjoy your willful ignorance. You can have the last word. Take care.
P.S. Are you speaking about Osama bin Laden? If so, I've never heard about him being illiterate or a pedophile. If you are speaking about someone else, why can't you just tell me his name? Apparently you don't understand the difference between "willful ignorance"(those who deliberately don't want to know) and just plain old "ignorance"(those who simply don't yet know).
QUOTE (rokdoktorau+)
you front God/Allah before me then i,ll believe, till then its just fairy tales, oh and by the way if it does exsist and i do get to see it i,ll take to it with a baseball bat, payback for all the misery and suffering it, (God/Allah) has bestowed upon the human race.
rokdoktorau: You'll have to wait in line with your baseball bat. My ex-boss at the pizzeria once said, "If I ever see that Jew upstairs(referring to Jesus), I'll knife him!" Yeah, the two of you "talk big game". We'll see. Take care.
P.S. As far as the "misery and suffering" are concerned, haven't you heard? We're all just "animals" and it's a "dog eat dog world". You know, "survival of the fittest" and all that. That's YOUR line of evolutionary thinking, isn't it? God commanded us to love one another. The "misery and suffering" is caused by those who rebel against His command. Nice try, though.
rokdoktorau: You'll have to wait in line with your baseball bat. My ex-boss at the pizzeria once said, "If I ever see that Jew upstairs(referring to Jesus), I'll knife him!" Yeah, the two of you "talk big game". We'll see. Take care.
P.S. As far as the "misery and suffering" are concerned, haven't you heard? We're all just "animals" and it's a "dog eat dog world". You know, "survival of the fittest" and all that. That's YOUR line of evolutionary thinking, isn't it? God commanded us to love one another. The "misery and suffering" is caused by those who rebel against His command. Nice try, though.
sorry newguy but that one wont wash, but i guess you have to have a punt on something. Oh and i never wait in line when i,m commited to something.
All things considered though and getting back to your beliefs in science fiction, have you ever bothered to study Egyptology??? An amazing race that has been around for 7000 years, 5000 years before JC, A race that recorded every event that ever took place in their time line. So heres a quest for you if you really want to know the truth??? Try and find any reference to god the so called creator or JC for that matter even though JC was at the end of thier dynasty when JC was cruising the middle east. Just to save you some time though the answer is you won't, What you will find is reference to thier god osiris who after being dismembered and spread to the 4 corners of egypt was cllected by his wife isis (whom JC was a visiter of her temple on many occasions) was put back together, including his penis as is stated, went on to impregnate her after being put back together was buried in a cave and was reserrected 3 days later where he resided in the underworld and transfered from there to what we know as orions belt (heaven). sound familiar to you. Its interesting to note though that nowhere in any records that has come out of the investigations was there any reference to the supposed FLOOD and Noah nor the river of blood (NILE) nor the parting of the sea. Now one would presume that such great events like those would have been written about by the scribes as they recorded every event in great detail and the only time the nile turned red was apparently in Arkenartens time when the winery had to discard the whole supply of wine produced that year due to a failure during the fermentation process and the wine was spioled and was discarded into the nile river. No mention is made anywhere of God, Moses,Noah, or JC. There is a reference to the isrealites though and that was that they were paid labourers (not slaves) and returned to isreal after there services were no longer required. Not one mention of Moses freeing them from slavery. Truth is greater than fiction!!!!!
you have a nice day.
All things considered though and getting back to your beliefs in science fiction, have you ever bothered to study Egyptology??? An amazing race that has been around for 7000 years, 5000 years before JC, A race that recorded every event that ever took place in their time line. So heres a quest for you if you really want to know the truth??? Try and find any reference to god the so called creator or JC for that matter even though JC was at the end of thier dynasty when JC was cruising the middle east. Just to save you some time though the answer is you won't, What you will find is reference to thier god osiris who after being dismembered and spread to the 4 corners of egypt was cllected by his wife isis (whom JC was a visiter of her temple on many occasions) was put back together, including his penis as is stated, went on to impregnate her after being put back together was buried in a cave and was reserrected 3 days later where he resided in the underworld and transfered from there to what we know as orions belt (heaven). sound familiar to you. Its interesting to note though that nowhere in any records that has come out of the investigations was there any reference to the supposed FLOOD and Noah nor the river of blood (NILE) nor the parting of the sea. Now one would presume that such great events like those would have been written about by the scribes as they recorded every event in great detail and the only time the nile turned red was apparently in Arkenartens time when the winery had to discard the whole supply of wine produced that year due to a failure during the fermentation process and the wine was spioled and was discarded into the nile river. No mention is made anywhere of God, Moses,Noah, or JC. There is a reference to the isrealites though and that was that they were paid labourers (not slaves) and returned to isreal after there services were no longer required. Not one mention of Moses freeing them from slavery. Truth is greater than fiction!!!!!
you have a nice day.
QUOTE (newguy+)
And? Three comedians, accompanied by a laugh track, spouting off some stereotypical ignorance and you find this amusing? No surprise.
Yes, I find it amusing. You don't find it amusing (no surprise either).
Yes, I find it amusing. You don't find it amusing (no surprise either).
QUOTE (newguy+)
In just their 3 1/2 minute routine, they misrepresented Biblical Christianity at least 3 times. At least we know where you're getting your "material" from.
This is satire, so don't expect everything to be represented to the book. But I agree with the gist of what they are saying, which is that both religions are baseless.
I did not post that link as some kind of research material. So understand the context.
This is satire, so don't expect everything to be represented to the book. But I agree with the gist of what they are saying, which is that both religions are baseless.
I did not post that link as some kind of research material. So understand the context.
QUOTE (newguy+)
Has even one of you attempted to prove or refute my claims by checking medical records or contacting any of the people involved? The answer to that question is a resounding "NO!" Why not? What are you afraid of? Truth?
You have asked me this question previously, so allow me to answer -
You are right, the answer is a resounding NO.
Also, I have not wasted my time in researching the claims of the cult of David Koresh, Sathya Sai Baba or the Raëlian Movement. Thank you.
You have asked me this question previously, so allow me to answer -
You are right, the answer is a resounding NO.
Also, I have not wasted my time in researching the claims of the cult of David Koresh, Sathya Sai Baba or the Raëlian Movement. Thank you.
QUOTE (vkamath+)
This is satire, so don't expect everything to be represented to the book. But I agree with the gist of what they are saying, which is that both religions are baseless.
I did not post that link as some kind of research material. So understand the context.
vkamath: I not only "understand the context", but I also understand what "satire" is, unlike you:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/satire
satire
One entry found for satire.
Main Entry: sat·ire
Pronunciation: 'sa-"tI(-&)r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin satura, satira, perhaps from (lanx) satura dish of mixed ingredients, from feminine of satur well-fed; akin to Latin satis enough -- more at SAD
1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly
synonym see WIT
The only "human vices and follies" in their skit(in regards to Biblical Christianity) was THEIR OWN. They misrepresented Biblical Christianity several times. THEIR MISREPRESENTATIONS are "baseless"...and you "agree with the gist" of them. How "rational" of you.
I did not post that link as some kind of research material. So understand the context.
vkamath: I not only "understand the context", but I also understand what "satire" is, unlike you:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/satire
satire
One entry found for satire.
Main Entry: sat·ire
Pronunciation: 'sa-"tI(-&)r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin satura, satira, perhaps from (lanx) satura dish of mixed ingredients, from feminine of satur well-fed; akin to Latin satis enough -- more at SAD
1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly
synonym see WIT
The only "human vices and follies" in their skit(in regards to Biblical Christianity) was THEIR OWN. They misrepresented Biblical Christianity several times. THEIR MISREPRESENTATIONS are "baseless"...and you "agree with the gist" of them. How "rational" of you.
QUOTE (vkamath+)
Also, I have not wasted my time in researching the claims of the cult of David Koresh, Sathya Sai Baba or the Raëlian Movement. Thank you.
Just another "strawman" erected BY YOU. What do I have in common with any of these people or movements? Nothing. Just another vain attempt at "guilt by association", although no true association exists. You're not quite as "rational" as you think, are you? No, rather you're quite unreasonable(with all of your "strawmen") and you seem to lack any understanding whatsoever in regards to the topic at hand(according to your own testimony). It is you who are a waste of my time, being steeped in willfull ignorance as you are. Like Physfan, you can now have the last word. Take care.
All: Starting next week, I'm scheduled to work very long hours every day up until December 31st. As a result, I probably won't be posting very much during that timeframe, if at all. Just thought I'd let you know in advance, in case I'm not around to respond to any posts.
Just another "strawman" erected BY YOU. What do I have in common with any of these people or movements? Nothing. Just another vain attempt at "guilt by association", although no true association exists. You're not quite as "rational" as you think, are you? No, rather you're quite unreasonable(with all of your "strawmen") and you seem to lack any understanding whatsoever in regards to the topic at hand(according to your own testimony). It is you who are a waste of my time, being steeped in willfull ignorance as you are. Like Physfan, you can now have the last word. Take care.
All: Starting next week, I'm scheduled to work very long hours every day up until December 31st. As a result, I probably won't be posting very much during that timeframe, if at all. Just thought I'd let you know in advance, in case I'm not around to respond to any posts.
QUOTE (newguy+)
I not only "understand the context", but I also understand what "satire" is, unlike you
You are the one who looked up the dictionary for this word.
You are the one who looked up the dictionary for this word.
QUOTE (newguy+)
The only "human vices and follies" in their skit(in regards to Biblical Christianity) was THEIR OWN.
They misrepresented Biblical Christianity several times.
Again, the purpose of their "skit" was NOT to provide some kind of research material and show Biblical Christianity to be wrong.
The purpose was to amuse those who already know how baseless religion really is and to ridicule its supporters. The purpose was to display in an amusing and exaggerated manner the kind of arguments used by religion supporters. The purpose was to display the hypocrisy of how the fundamentalist christians and muslims have similar views regarding jews.
They misrepresented Biblical Christianity several times.
Again, the purpose of their "skit" was NOT to provide some kind of research material and show Biblical Christianity to be wrong.
The purpose was to amuse those who already know how baseless religion really is and to ridicule its supporters. The purpose was to display in an amusing and exaggerated manner the kind of arguments used by religion supporters. The purpose was to display the hypocrisy of how the fundamentalist christians and muslims have similar views regarding jews.
QUOTE (newguy+)
Just another "strawman" erected BY YOU. What do I have in common with any of these people or movements? Nothing.
You have a lot in common. You are a sham who makes baseless claims, very much like these people. Whats next? Claiming to be able to raise the dead?
Que? Research has balls? That a new one.
Que? Research has balls? That a new one.
P.S. Are you speaking about Osama bin Laden?
No, I'm referring to Mohammed (sbuh). He was illiterate and one of his wives was 9 when he consumated the marriage that occurred at her age 6. That makes him an illiterate pedophile! It is in the Koran and Muslims acknowledge but like to sweep that bit under a bit of Bedoiun carpet.
Newguy, there are none so blind as those who will not see. You can argue blind dogma for as long as you like but it remains blind dogma.
Physfan
You have a lot in common. You are a sham who makes baseless claims, very much like these people. Whats next? Claiming to be able to raise the dead?
QUOTE (newguy+)
rather you're quite cowardly, pathetic and a waste of my time.
Wow. If I am getting this kind of reaction from the likes of you, then I must be doing something right.
Wow. If I am getting this kind of reaction from the likes of you, then I must be doing something right.
What nothing to say newguy, doe,snt surprise me,
another born again with myopic rantings... your silence speaks for it,s self.
have a nice day
p.s. you only have one life you know... isuggest you go and get one!!!!!!!!!!
another born again with myopic rantings... your silence speaks for it,s self.
have a nice day
p.s. you only have one life you know... isuggest you go and get one!!!!!!!!!!
QUOTE
manly research
Que? Research has balls? That a new one.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| manly research |
Que? Research has balls? That a new one.
P.S. Are you speaking about Osama bin Laden?
No, I'm referring to Mohammed (sbuh). He was illiterate and one of his wives was 9 when he consumated the marriage that occurred at her age 6. That makes him an illiterate pedophile! It is in the Koran and Muslims acknowledge but like to sweep that bit under a bit of Bedoiun carpet.
Newguy, there are none so blind as those who will not see. You can argue blind dogma for as long as you like but it remains blind dogma.
Physfan
QUOTE (rokdoktorau+)
Its interesting to note though that nowhere in any records that has come out of the investigations was there any reference to the supposed FLOOD and Noah nor the river of blood (NILE) nor the parting of the sea. Now one would presume that such great events like those would have been written about by the scribes as they recorded every event in great detail and the only time the nile turned red was apparently in Arkenartens time when the winery had to discard the whole supply of wine produced that year due to a failure during the fermentation process and the wine was spioled and was discarded into the nile river.
http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/838
The Ten Plagues - Live From Egypt
by Rabbi Mordechai Becher
In the early 19th Century a papyrus, dating from the end of the Middle Kingdom, was found in Egypt. It was taken to the Leiden Museum in Holland and interpreted by A.H. Gardiner in 1909. The complete papyrus can be found in the book Admonitions of an Egyptian from a heiratic papyrus in Leiden. The papyrus describes violent upheavals in Egypt, starvation, drought, escape of slaves (with the wealth of the Egyptians), and death throughout the land. The papyrus was written by an Egyptian named Ipuwer and appears to be an eyewitness account of the effects of the Exodus plagues from the perspective of an average Egyptian. Below are excerpts from the papyrus together with their parallels in the Book of Exodus.
(For a lengthier discussion of the papyrus and the historical background of the Exodus, see Jewish Action, Spring 1995, article by Brad Aaronson, entitled When Was the Exodus? )
IPUWER PAPYRUS - LEIDEN 344
2:5-6 Plague is throughout the land. Blood is everywhere.
2:10 The river is blood.
2:10 Men shrink from tasting - human beings, and thirst after water
3:10-13 That is our water! That is our happiness! What shall we do in respect thereof? All is ruin.
TORAH - EXODUS
7:20 …all the waters of the river were turned to blood.
7:21 ...there was blood thoughout all the land of Egypt …and the river stank.
7:24 And all the Egyptians dug around the river for water to drink; for they could not drink of the water of the river.
IPUWER PAPYRUS - LEIDEN 344
2:10 Forsooth, gates, columns and walls are consumed by fire.
10:3-6 Lower Egypt weeps... The entire palace is without its revenues. To it belong [by right] wheat and barley, geese and fish
6:3 Forsooth, grain has perished on every side.
5:12 Forsooth, that has perished which was yesterday seen. The land is left over to its weariness like the cutting of flax.
TORAH - EXODUS
9:23-24 ...and the fire ran along the ground... there was hail, and fire mingled with the hail, very grievous.
9:25 ...and the hail smote every herb of the field, and broke every tree of the field.
9:31-32 ...and the flax and the barley was smitten; for the barley was in season, and flax was ripe. But the wheat and the rye were not smitten; for they were not grown up.
10:15 ...there remained no green things in the trees, or in the herbs of the fields, through all the land of Egypt.
IPUWER PAPYRUS - LEIDEN 344
5:5 All animals, their hearts weep. Cattle moan...
9:2-3 Behold, cattle are left to stray, and there is none to gather them together.
TORAH - EXODUS
9:3 ...the hand of the Lord is upon thy cattle which is in the field... and there shall be a very grievous sickness.
9:19 ...gather thy cattle, and all that thou hast in the field...
9:21 And he that did not fear the word of the Lord left his servants and cattle in the field.
IPUWER PAPYRUS - LEIDEN 344
9:11 The land is without light
TORAH - EXODUS
10:22 And there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt.
IPUWER PAPYRUS - LEIDEN 344
4:3 (5:6) Forsooth, the children of princes are dashed against the walls.
6:12 Forsooth, the children of princes are cast out in the streets.
6:3 The prison is ruined.
2:13 He who places his brother in the ground is everywhere.
3:14 It is groaning throughout the land, mingled with lamentations
TORAH - EXODUS
12:29 And it came to pass, that at midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive that was in the prison.
12:30 ...there was not a house where there was not one dead.
12:30 ...there was a great cry in Egypt.
IPUWER PAPYRUS - LEIDEN 344
7:1 Behold, the fire has mounted up on high. Its burning goes forth against the enemies of the land.
TORAH - EXODUS
13:21 ... by day in a pillar of cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night.
IPUWER PAPYRUS - LEIDEN 344
3:2 Gold and lapis lazuli, silver and malachite, carnelian and bronze... are fastened on the neck of female slaves.
TORAH - EXODUS
12:35-36 ...and they requested from the Egyptians, silver and gold articles and clothing. And God made the Egyptians favour them and they granted their request. [The Israelites] thus drained Egypt of its wealth.
rokdoktorau: You're either a liar or you're ignorant...which one?
http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/838
The Ten Plagues - Live From Egypt
by Rabbi Mordechai Becher
In the early 19th Century a papyrus, dating from the end of the Middle Kingdom, was found in Egypt. It was taken to the Leiden Museum in Holland and interpreted by A.H. Gardiner in 1909. The complete papyrus can be found in the book Admonitions of an Egyptian from a heiratic papyrus in Leiden. The papyrus describes violent upheavals in Egypt, starvation, drought, escape of slaves (with the wealth of the Egyptians), and death throughout the land. The papyrus was written by an Egyptian named Ipuwer and appears to be an eyewitness account of the effects of the Exodus plagues from the perspective of an average Egyptian. Below are excerpts from the papyrus together with their parallels in the Book of Exodus.
(For a lengthier discussion of the papyrus and the historical background of the Exodus, see Jewish Action, Spring 1995, article by Brad Aaronson, entitled When Was the Exodus? )
IPUWER PAPYRUS - LEIDEN 344
2:5-6 Plague is throughout the land. Blood is everywhere.
2:10 The river is blood.
2:10 Men shrink from tasting - human beings, and thirst after water
3:10-13 That is our water! That is our happiness! What shall we do in respect thereof? All is ruin.
TORAH - EXODUS
7:20 …all the waters of the river were turned to blood.
7:21 ...there was blood thoughout all the land of Egypt …and the river stank.
7:24 And all the Egyptians dug around the river for water to drink; for they could not drink of the water of the river.
IPUWER PAPYRUS - LEIDEN 344
2:10 Forsooth, gates, columns and walls are consumed by fire.
10:3-6 Lower Egypt weeps... The entire palace is without its revenues. To it belong [by right] wheat and barley, geese and fish
6:3 Forsooth, grain has perished on every side.
5:12 Forsooth, that has perished which was yesterday seen. The land is left over to its weariness like the cutting of flax.
TORAH - EXODUS
9:23-24 ...and the fire ran along the ground... there was hail, and fire mingled with the hail, very grievous.
9:25 ...and the hail smote every herb of the field, and broke every tree of the field.
9:31-32 ...and the flax and the barley was smitten; for the barley was in season, and flax was ripe. But the wheat and the rye were not smitten; for they were not grown up.
10:15 ...there remained no green things in the trees, or in the herbs of the fields, through all the land of Egypt.
IPUWER PAPYRUS - LEIDEN 344
5:5 All animals, their hearts weep. Cattle moan...
9:2-3 Behold, cattle are left to stray, and there is none to gather them together.
TORAH - EXODUS
9:3 ...the hand of the Lord is upon thy cattle which is in the field... and there shall be a very grievous sickness.
9:19 ...gather thy cattle, and all that thou hast in the field...
9:21 And he that did not fear the word of the Lord left his servants and cattle in the field.
IPUWER PAPYRUS - LEIDEN 344
9:11 The land is without light
TORAH - EXODUS
10:22 And there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt.
IPUWER PAPYRUS - LEIDEN 344
4:3 (5:6) Forsooth, the children of princes are dashed against the walls.
6:12 Forsooth, the children of princes are cast out in the streets.
6:3 The prison is ruined.
2:13 He who places his brother in the ground is everywhere.
3:14 It is groaning throughout the land, mingled with lamentations
TORAH - EXODUS
12:29 And it came to pass, that at midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive that was in the prison.
12:30 ...there was not a house where there was not one dead.
12:30 ...there was a great cry in Egypt.
IPUWER PAPYRUS - LEIDEN 344
7:1 Behold, the fire has mounted up on high. Its burning goes forth against the enemies of the land.
TORAH - EXODUS
13:21 ... by day in a pillar of cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night.
IPUWER PAPYRUS - LEIDEN 344
3:2 Gold and lapis lazuli, silver and malachite, carnelian and bronze... are fastened on the neck of female slaves.
TORAH - EXODUS
12:35-36 ...and they requested from the Egyptians, silver and gold articles and clothing. And God made the Egyptians favour them and they granted their request. [The Israelites] thus drained Egypt of its wealth.
rokdoktorau: You're either a liar or you're ignorant...which one?
QUOTE (rokdoktorau+)
What nothing to say newguy, doe,snt surprise me,
another born again with myopic rantings... your silence speaks for it,s self.
Your ignorance speaks for itself.
another born again with myopic rantings... your silence speaks for it,s self.
Your ignorance speaks for itself.
QUOTE (rokdoktorau+)
have a nice day
I did.
Are you suggesting that the 'average' Egyptian was literate and had the financial wherewithall to keep records? If anything, the article shows too great a parallel between them and, besides, the 'scholar' who penned it is a Rabbi. An objective, independent piece of scientific work? Are you familiar with the expression "clutching at straws"?
Are you suggesting that the 'average' Egyptian was literate and had the financial wherewithall to keep records? If anything, the article shows too great a parallel between them and, besides, the 'scholar' who penned it is a Rabbi. An objective, independent piece of scientific work? Are you familiar with the expression "clutching at straws"?
I not only have a life, but I have the promise of eternal life through Jesus Christ.
If Heaven is spending eternity with a nutbag like you, the finality of death has an attractive ring to it. Newguy, which cult do you belong to? Come on, be open, honest and forthright, tell us your complete affiliations of cultism.
Physfan
ps
Um, actually this is true!
On Dec. 25, 1832, Joseph received the following revelation about the American Civil War, now printed as Section 87 of the Doctrine and Covenants:
1 Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls;
2 And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place.
3 For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.
4 And it shall come to pass, after many days, slaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshaled and disciplined for war.
5 And it shall come to pass also that the remnants who are left of the land will marshal themselves, and shall become exceedingly angry, and shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation.
6 And thus, with the sword and by bloodshed the inhabitants of the earth shall mourn; and with famine, and plague, and earthquake, and the thunder of heaven, and the fierce and vivid lightning also, shall the inhabitants of the earth be made to feel the wrath, and indignation, and chastening hand of an Almighty God, until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all nations;
7 That the cry of the Saints, and of the blood of the Saints, shall cease to come up into the ears of the Lord of Saboath, from the earth, to be avenged of their enemies.
8 Wherefore, stand ye in holy places, and be not moved, until the day of the Lord come; for behold it cometh quickly, saith the Lord. Amen.
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_prophecies.shtml
The prediction of Illegal Immigration in the Book of Mormon:
3 Nephi 20
14 And the Father hath commanded me that I should give unto you this land, for your inheritance.
15 And I say unto you, that if the Gentiles do not repent after the blessing which they shall receive, after they have scattered my people—
16 Then shall ye, who are a remnant of the house of Jacob, go forth among them; and ye shall be in the midst of them who shall be many;
If you want more evidence-
http://www.greaterthings.com/Ridenhour/Pro...icks/index.html
This site has 10 biblical proofs of the book of mormon.
"…It is estimated that at the time of Christ the civilization of ancient America was in full bloom with a culture as great in some respects superior to the civilizations of Rome, Greece, Babylon, and Egypt. Estimates of the population in Mexico, Central America, and the Andean region at the time of Christ run as high as three hundred million people." --Other Sheep, p.18
I did.
QUOTE (rokdoktorau+)
p.s. you only have one life you know... isuggest you go and get one!!!!!!!!!!
I not only have a life, but I have the promise of eternal life through Jesus Christ. I suggest that you wait a little while in the future before claiming victory. That way you won't look so stupid when you're proven wrong. Take care.
I not only have a life, but I have the promise of eternal life through Jesus Christ. I suggest that you wait a little while in the future before claiming victory. That way you won't look so stupid when you're proven wrong. Take care.
QUOTE
The papyrus was written by an Egyptian named Ipuwer and appears to be an eyewitness account of the effects of the Exodus plagues from the perspective of an average Egyptian.
Are you suggesting that the 'average' Egyptian was literate and had the financial wherewithall to keep records? If anything, the article shows too great a parallel between them and, besides, the 'scholar' who penned it is a Rabbi. An objective, independent piece of scientific work? Are you familiar with the expression "clutching at straws"?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The papyrus was written by an Egyptian named Ipuwer and appears to be an eyewitness account of the effects of the Exodus plagues from the perspective of an average Egyptian. |
Are you suggesting that the 'average' Egyptian was literate and had the financial wherewithall to keep records? If anything, the article shows too great a parallel between them and, besides, the 'scholar' who penned it is a Rabbi. An objective, independent piece of scientific work? Are you familiar with the expression "clutching at straws"?
I not only have a life, but I have the promise of eternal life through Jesus Christ.
If Heaven is spending eternity with a nutbag like you, the finality of death has an attractive ring to it. Newguy, which cult do you belong to? Come on, be open, honest and forthright, tell us your complete affiliations of cultism.
Physfan
There are a few references to Jesus outside the Bible. Not many, but if we simply say that anything that mentions Jesus is downright false and that's that, it is not a researched refutation but unresearched denial, and adulterates a logical argument. There are accounts by Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Lucien of Samasata, and others (I didn't mention Josephus because that account has been refuted by secular and even some sectarian scholars; the others are generally accepted) as well as the Babylonian Talmud. And there are a couple of others. You can google these as well as something along the lines of 'non-Biblical reference Jesus' and get unending sites to explore.
It's important to realize that at the time of Jesus' death, Christianity wasn't a religion yet. Also, there were many 'preachers' of God contemporary with Jesus in the Middle-Eastern countryside, since religion was a very strong institution in general. Also, information took a while to send receive and generally get around. By 300AD however adherents to Christianity had swelled to millions in Egypt alone. No matter what or why, that is compelling. Remember, Islam grew primarily by forced and violent conversions, implying people weren't enamored to convert on their own, unlike the more peaceful Christianity, which people flocked to quite early on.
Another point to ponder is that there were no refutations or disbeliefs of Jesus presented in the early days, when they would have been expected if Jesus was a fraud or nonexistant since so many were flocking to the faith. So while we have some admittedly sketchy secular accounts of Jesus, we have none denying Jesus from that same era. Atheists/agnostics can deny the miracles and say perhaps that a mountain was made out of a molehill, but it becomes a stretch to say Jesus didn't exist.
It's important to realize that at the time of Jesus' death, Christianity wasn't a religion yet. Also, there were many 'preachers' of God contemporary with Jesus in the Middle-Eastern countryside, since religion was a very strong institution in general. Also, information took a while to send receive and generally get around. By 300AD however adherents to Christianity had swelled to millions in Egypt alone. No matter what or why, that is compelling. Remember, Islam grew primarily by forced and violent conversions, implying people weren't enamored to convert on their own, unlike the more peaceful Christianity, which people flocked to quite early on.
Another point to ponder is that there were no refutations or disbeliefs of Jesus presented in the early days, when they would have been expected if Jesus was a fraud or nonexistant since so many were flocking to the faith. So while we have some admittedly sketchy secular accounts of Jesus, we have none denying Jesus from that same era. Atheists/agnostics can deny the miracles and say perhaps that a mountain was made out of a molehill, but it becomes a stretch to say Jesus didn't exist.
Some have considered Jesus was homosexual - possibly because of his "beloved" disciple that gets mentioned a heck of lot, but is never named. And all of his disciples were male - women were still considered second class, even by the followers of Jesus. But that's only spreading rumors and inciting argument. Forgive me.
It's just a pity that the "New Testament" has to be bundled with that shameful piece of crap called the "Old Testament". Still, the only police were the people themselves and the Jews did write a comprehensive law book, so I suppose the "Old Testament" was a necessary evil.
Christianity appears to be a non-violent approach to living a life, but man did some characters from history abuse the religion badly: King Richard and his Crusades (almost Islamic in character), Hitler, and the now the USA uses it as a pretext to annex the entire Middle East. There's no "War on Terrorism" - it's a war for oil. Full stop. Bin Laden is a resistance fighter (like the French in WW2) who doesn't want his country to become a satellite state of America. Still, if he hadn't got pro-active (9/11) then America would have had zero excuse to invade Iraq (now the 51st State), so that was a *big* mistake on his part.
Religion played an important "pacifying" role in early society, but is largely irrelevant today because we have alternative social mores and laws.
So, is there any connection between Science and Religion? None. Science is the study of the physical, and religion is social glue. Why even consider trying to merge the two? If God should exist then God is a first class mathematician and scientist that would be proud that we are following in his/her/its footsteps.
It's just a pity that the "New Testament" has to be bundled with that shameful piece of crap called the "Old Testament". Still, the only police were the people themselves and the Jews did write a comprehensive law book, so I suppose the "Old Testament" was a necessary evil.
Christianity appears to be a non-violent approach to living a life, but man did some characters from history abuse the religion badly: King Richard and his Crusades (almost Islamic in character), Hitler, and the now the USA uses it as a pretext to annex the entire Middle East. There's no "War on Terrorism" - it's a war for oil. Full stop. Bin Laden is a resistance fighter (like the French in WW2) who doesn't want his country to become a satellite state of America. Still, if he hadn't got pro-active (9/11) then America would have had zero excuse to invade Iraq (now the 51st State), so that was a *big* mistake on his part.
Religion played an important "pacifying" role in early society, but is largely irrelevant today because we have alternative social mores and laws.
So, is there any connection between Science and Religion? None. Science is the study of the physical, and religion is social glue. Why even consider trying to merge the two? If God should exist then God is a first class mathematician and scientist that would be proud that we are following in his/her/its footsteps.
QUOTE (soundhertz+Oct 27 2006, 06:21 AM)
There are a few references to Jesus outside the Bible. Not many, but if we simply say that anything that mentions Jesus is downright false and that's that, it is not a researched refutation but unresearched denial, and adulterates a logical argument. There are accounts by Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Lucien of Samasata, and others (I didn't mention Josephus because that account has been refuted by secular and even some sectarian scholars; the others are generally accepted) as well as the Babylonian Talmud. And there are a couple of others. You can google these as well as something along the lines of 'non-Biblical reference Jesus' and get unending sites to explore.
It's important to realize that at the time of Jesus' death, Christianity wasn't a religion yet. Also, there were many 'preachers' of God contemporary with Jesus in the Middle-Eastern countryside, since religion was a very strong institution in general. Also, information took a while to send receive and generally get around. By 300AD however adherents to Christianity had swelled to millions in Egypt alone. No matter what or why, that is compelling. Remember, Islam grew primarily by forced and violent conversions, implying people weren't enamored to convert on their own, unlike the more peaceful Christianity, which people flocked to quite early on.
Another point to ponder is that there were no refutations or disbeliefs of Jesus presented in the early days, when they would have been expected if Jesus was a fraud or nonexistant since so many were flocking to the faith. So while we have some admittedly sketchy secular accounts of Jesus, we have none denying Jesus from that same era. Atheists/agnostics can deny the miracles and say perhaps that a mountain was made out of a molehill, but it becomes a stretch to say Jesus didn't exist.
soundhertz: I'm afraid that your input will fall on deaf ears. You strike me as an intelligent man. In light of this, I trust that you can see that the cowards who refuse to research(unlike any true scientist) my claims have nothing to fall back on but name-calling. I'm a "nutjob", "cultist", "sham", etc. Their proof? None. In reality, I'm a very sane man who operates his own business, runs his own family and helps many people through Jesus Christ. My "distinguishing mark", which to them is a "blemish", is that I've truly been reconciled unto God through Jesus Christ and have the corresponding works to prove it. Their blatant hatred for God won't allow them to engage in any rational dialogue or research. No, rather, they have to feverishly attempt to "link" me with some person/group in a futile attempt to make me "guilty by association". It really seems to trouble them that I can stand on my own(as far as other humans are concerned), finding my strength, NOT "in numbers", but rather in the indwelling Spirit of Almighty God. And I'm the one who is supposedly "clutching at straws". My children, whom their medical doctors said could never be born, are NOT "straws". My wife, out of whom came a cancerous tumor, is NOT a "straw". The "cloud of witnesses"(if the members on this forum would come out of their own "fog") who could testify that they have been healed/delivered by Jesus Christ when I prayed for them in His name are NOT "straws". They are "proof"..."proof" not only of God's existence, but also "proof" of the irrational bias and cowardice of many of the posters on this forum who refuse to contact them. As I mentioned recently, my schedule is about to become very hectic and, starting in a few days, I might not be able to post again until the beginning of next year. Just thought I'd mention that people like you who are actually able to think are one of the main reasons that I've bothered to hang around here as long as I have. Take care.
It's important to realize that at the time of Jesus' death, Christianity wasn't a religion yet. Also, there were many 'preachers' of God contemporary with Jesus in the Middle-Eastern countryside, since religion was a very strong institution in general. Also, information took a while to send receive and generally get around. By 300AD however adherents to Christianity had swelled to millions in Egypt alone. No matter what or why, that is compelling. Remember, Islam grew primarily by forced and violent conversions, implying people weren't enamored to convert on their own, unlike the more peaceful Christianity, which people flocked to quite early on.
Another point to ponder is that there were no refutations or disbeliefs of Jesus presented in the early days, when they would have been expected if Jesus was a fraud or nonexistant since so many were flocking to the faith. So while we have some admittedly sketchy secular accounts of Jesus, we have none denying Jesus from that same era. Atheists/agnostics can deny the miracles and say perhaps that a mountain was made out of a molehill, but it becomes a stretch to say Jesus didn't exist.
soundhertz: I'm afraid that your input will fall on deaf ears. You strike me as an intelligent man. In light of this, I trust that you can see that the cowards who refuse to research(unlike any true scientist) my claims have nothing to fall back on but name-calling. I'm a "nutjob", "cultist", "sham", etc. Their proof? None. In reality, I'm a very sane man who operates his own business, runs his own family and helps many people through Jesus Christ. My "distinguishing mark", which to them is a "blemish", is that I've truly been reconciled unto God through Jesus Christ and have the corresponding works to prove it. Their blatant hatred for God won't allow them to engage in any rational dialogue or research. No, rather, they have to feverishly attempt to "link" me with some person/group in a futile attempt to make me "guilty by association". It really seems to trouble them that I can stand on my own(as far as other humans are concerned), finding my strength, NOT "in numbers", but rather in the indwelling Spirit of Almighty God. And I'm the one who is supposedly "clutching at straws". My children, whom their medical doctors said could never be born, are NOT "straws". My wife, out of whom came a cancerous tumor, is NOT a "straw". The "cloud of witnesses"(if the members on this forum would come out of their own "fog") who could testify that they have been healed/delivered by Jesus Christ when I prayed for them in His name are NOT "straws". They are "proof"..."proof" not only of God's existence, but also "proof" of the irrational bias and cowardice of many of the posters on this forum who refuse to contact them. As I mentioned recently, my schedule is about to become very hectic and, starting in a few days, I might not be able to post again until the beginning of next year. Just thought I'd mention that people like you who are actually able to think are one of the main reasons that I've bothered to hang around here as long as I have. Take care.
QUOTE
ps
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
ps Joseph Smith predicted the American Civil War and the Book of Mormon predicted struggles with illegal immigration in America. Yeah, right. |
Um, actually this is true!
On Dec. 25, 1832, Joseph received the following revelation about the American Civil War, now printed as Section 87 of the Doctrine and Covenants:
1 Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls;
2 And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place.
3 For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.
4 And it shall come to pass, after many days, slaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshaled and disciplined for war.
5 And it shall come to pass also that the remnants who are left of the land will marshal themselves, and shall become exceedingly angry, and shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation.
6 And thus, with the sword and by bloodshed the inhabitants of the earth shall mourn; and with famine, and plague, and earthquake, and the thunder of heaven, and the fierce and vivid lightning also, shall the inhabitants of the earth be made to feel the wrath, and indignation, and chastening hand of an Almighty God, until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all nations;
7 That the cry of the Saints, and of the blood of the Saints, shall cease to come up into the ears of the Lord of Saboath, from the earth, to be avenged of their enemies.
8 Wherefore, stand ye in holy places, and be not moved, until the day of the Lord come; for behold it cometh quickly, saith the Lord. Amen.
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_prophecies.shtml
The prediction of Illegal Immigration in the Book of Mormon:
3 Nephi 20
14 And the Father hath commanded me that I should give unto you this land, for your inheritance.
15 And I say unto you, that if the Gentiles do not repent after the blessing which they shall receive, after they have scattered my people—
16 Then shall ye, who are a remnant of the house of Jacob, go forth among them; and ye shall be in the midst of them who shall be many;
If you want more evidence-
http://www.greaterthings.com/Ridenhour/Pro...icks/index.html
This site has 10 biblical proofs of the book of mormon.
"…It is estimated that at the time of Christ the civilization of ancient America was in full bloom with a culture as great in some respects superior to the civilizations of Rome, Greece, Babylon, and Egypt. Estimates of the population in Mexico, Central America, and the Andean region at the time of Christ run as high as three hundred million people." --Other Sheep, p.18
QUOTE (newguy+)
I trust that you can see that the cowards who refuse to research(unlike any true scientist) my claims have nothing to fall back on but name-calling. I'm a "nutjob", "cultist", "sham", etc. Their proof? None.
We (at least I) don't experience any joy in calling you these names. But when a man speaks of providing miracles cures and performing exorcisms, you don't leave us much choice.
We (at least I) don't experience any joy in calling you these names. But when a man speaks of providing miracles cures and performing exorcisms, you don't leave us much choice.
QUOTE (newguy+)
In reality, I'm a very sane man who operates his own business, runs his own family and helps many people through Jesus Christ. My "distinguishing mark", which to them is a "blemish", is that I've truly been reconciled unto God through Jesus Christ and have the corresponding works to prove it.
I don't have any problem with you being "reconciled unto God" and see this as neither a "distinguishing mark" nor a "blemish". In my view it is simply irrational. Being irrational is neither good nor bad, it is simply what it is.
If you makes claims of existence of Spirits, Demons and being able to provide miracle cures by chasing them away, then don't expect to see too many people who will "digest" that. If you claim that medical science consistently fails to help people, then don't expect to see too many people who will "digest" that either.
I don't have any problem with you being "reconciled unto God" and see this as neither a "distinguishing mark" nor a "blemish". In my view it is simply irrational. Being irrational is neither good nor bad, it is simply what it is.
If you makes claims of existence of Spirits, Demons and being able to provide miracle cures by chasing them away, then don't expect to see too many people who will "digest" that. If you claim that medical science consistently fails to help people, then don't expect to see too many people who will "digest" that either.
QUOTE (newguy+)
Their blatant hatred for God won't allow them to engage in any rational dialog or research. No, rather, they have to feverishly attempt to "link" me with some person/group in a futile attempt to make me "guilty by association". It really seems to trouble them that I can stand on my own(as far as other humans are concerned), finding my strength, NOT "in numbers", but rather in the indwelling Spirit of Almighty God.
God doesn't exist, so there is no question of a "blatant hatred for God". If you can "stand on your own" and "find strength in the indwelling Spirit of Almighty God", then good for you. Obviously, you are free to have your own beliefs.
God doesn't exist, so there is no question of a "blatant hatred for God". If you can "stand on your own" and "find strength in the indwelling Spirit of Almighty God", then good for you. Obviously, you are free to have your own beliefs.
QUOTE (newguy+)
And I'm the one who is supposedly "clutching at straws". My children, whom their medical doctors said could never be born, are NOT "straws". My wife, out of whom came a cancerous tumor, is NOT a "straw". The "cloud of witnesses"(if the members on this forum would come out of their own "fog") who could testify that they have been healed/delivered by Jesus Christ when I prayed for them in His name are NOT "straws".
It seems you have had much more than your share of problems in life. Also, it seems you have witnessed some improbable events. It is understandable that such events could push a person towards belief in God.
But I would suggest that you re-analyze every event, but this time with the "religion glasses" removed. Stop thinking for a moment that questioning the existence of God is blasphemy. Stop thinking for a moment that you need to be thankful to some "higher power" for the improbable events that happened. Now in this purely analytical state of mind, verify if what you experienced was just coincidence? Were all these beliefs just a creation of your mind?
Are you emotionally strong enough to accept a world which has no God?
It seems you have had much more than your share of problems in life. Also, it seems you have witnessed some improbable events. It is understandable that such events could push a person towards belief in God.
But I would suggest that you re-analyze every event, but this time with the "religion glasses" removed. Stop thinking for a moment that questioning the existence of God is blasphemy. Stop thinking for a moment that you need to be thankful to some "higher power" for the improbable events that happened. Now in this purely analytical state of mind, verify if what you experienced was just coincidence? Were all these beliefs just a creation of your mind?
Are you emotionally strong enough to accept a world which has no God?
soundhertz,
I read this in the latest issue of Wired magazine in a article titled "the Church of Non-Believers".
I read this in the latest issue of Wired magazine in a article titled "the Church of Non-Believers".
QUOTE (Wired - Nov 2006+)
Most people call themselves agnostic, but they don't harbor much suspicion that God is real. They reject atheism not out of piety but out of politeness. As one said, "Atheism is like telling somebody, 'The very thing you hinge your life on, I totally dismiss.'" This is the type of statement they never want to make.
QUOTE (Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris+)
Nonbelievers like myself stand beside you, dumbstruck by the Muslim hordes who chant death to whole nations of the living. But we stand dumbstruck by you as well – by your denial of tangible reality, by the suffering you create in service to your religious myths, and by your attachment to an imaginary God.
"God doesn't exist, so there is no question of a "blatant hatred for God"."
A teacher is using the "scientific method" to teach the class about evolution...
TEACHER: Tommy do you see the tree outside?
TOMMY: Yes.
TEACHER: Tommy, do you see the grass outside?
TOMMY: Yes.
TEACHER: Go outside and look up and see if you can see the sky.
TOMMY: Okay. (He returned a few minutes later) Yes, I saw the sky.
TEACHER: Did you see God?
TOMMY: No.
TEACHER: That's my point. We can't see God because he isn't there. He doesn't exist.
A little girl spoke up and wanted to ask the boy some questions. The teacher agreed and the little girl questioned the boy.
LITTLE GIRL: Tommy, do you see the tree outside?
TOMMY: Yes.
LITTLE GIRL: Tommy do you see the grass outside?
TOMMY: Yessssss (getting tired of the questions this time).
LITTLE GIRL: Did you see the sky?
TOMMY: Yessssss.
LITTLE GIRL: Tommy, do you see the teacher?
TOMMY: Yes
LITTLE GIRL: Do you see the teacher's mind?
TOMMY: No.
LITTLE GIRL: Then according to what we were taught today in school, she must not have one!
A teacher is using the "scientific method" to teach the class about evolution...
TEACHER: Tommy do you see the tree outside?
TOMMY: Yes.
TEACHER: Tommy, do you see the grass outside?
TOMMY: Yes.
TEACHER: Go outside and look up and see if you can see the sky.
TOMMY: Okay. (He returned a few minutes later) Yes, I saw the sky.
TEACHER: Did you see God?
TOMMY: No.
TEACHER: That's my point. We can't see God because he isn't there. He doesn't exist.
A little girl spoke up and wanted to ask the boy some questions. The teacher agreed and the little girl questioned the boy.
LITTLE GIRL: Tommy, do you see the tree outside?
TOMMY: Yes.
LITTLE GIRL: Tommy do you see the grass outside?
TOMMY: Yessssss (getting tired of the questions this time).
LITTLE GIRL: Did you see the sky?
TOMMY: Yessssss.
LITTLE GIRL: Tommy, do you see the teacher?
TOMMY: Yes
LITTLE GIRL: Do you see the teacher's mind?
TOMMY: No.
LITTLE GIRL: Then according to what we were taught today in school, she must not have one!
Hi vkamath,
When I was a kid I believed in God because my parents were loyal Catholics, like every other kid in my Catholic school. Some stayed that way. I didn't. The contradictions and discrepencies were too profound. I became too uncomfortable with myself because I believed in a thought system that didn't require anything save blind obedience, which negated personal integrity.
For a long while I was atheist. Figuratively speaking, I 'prayed' at the altar of science - it was my main interest, moreso than sports entertainment or anything else that kids like. Not that I didn't play sports or go to the movies: there was room enough for football, the Three Stooges, the Outer Limits, playing every day with lots of friends. But being out in Mother Nature doing absolutely nothing else than observing it was the pinnacle of experience for me. I could watch an ant colony for literally hours. I loved sitting out in the woods at twilight into night, a little food in front of me for whatever furry forest creature may come along, watch motionless for hours as all sorts cavorted a foot or two away from me - I had creatures crawl on me as I sat motionless and full of wonder and love for these.
In time, I became uncomfortable with being atheist. As I would gaze at the stars and the Milky Way unable to go into the house and bed, trying to see into the depth of the Universe from the flat dome of it's appearance, and lay there motionless unthinking, I would feel a consciousness that I wasn't looking for, a response I couldn't put my finger on, a presence that did not remind me of religions and their Gods but rather of order, harmony, beauty. It wasn't lifeless, it wasn't dead, it was awareness that was not mine. I wasn't on drugs, I had no belief structure to underscore, it was a thing of immediacy and vibrance. My state of mind, my countenance with myself and others, my love for my planet and my fellows, all these things enhanced themselves, and in this existential gestalt I realized that I was not alone.
Can I put this into your mind to feel what I do? Surely not. Am I a madman when I walk into this womb of experience? You may say I am but I will not share your belief as you are also free not to know mine. I walked in the shoes of the atheist, in your shoes, for a long time, and found they didn't fit when I thought they should have. The answer isn't in a book, it is in a point of love that shines to, and in, a mind.
It is exceedingly difficult for many practical people to see themselves as more than a collection of chemo-electrical impulses. It was for me. I did not believe in a God, but I wasn't able to say that it was impossible for one to exist. As long as you can know that truly, the mind is not closed to what can happen if one decides that they really do not know anything for sure. We cannot comprehend what Perfect Mind means, but we can comprehend it's manifestations. I have to go unfortunately and can't finish this, but if you want we can talk more.
When I was a kid I believed in God because my parents were loyal Catholics, like every other kid in my Catholic school. Some stayed that way. I didn't. The contradictions and discrepencies were too profound. I became too uncomfortable with myself because I believed in a thought system that didn't require anything save blind obedience, which negated personal integrity.
For a long while I was atheist. Figuratively speaking, I 'prayed' at the altar of science - it was my main interest, moreso than sports entertainment or anything else that kids like. Not that I didn't play sports or go to the movies: there was room enough for football, the Three Stooges, the Outer Limits, playing every day with lots of friends. But being out in Mother Nature doing absolutely nothing else than observing it was the pinnacle of experience for me. I could watch an ant colony for literally hours. I loved sitting out in the woods at twilight into night, a little food in front of me for whatever furry forest creature may come along, watch motionless for hours as all sorts cavorted a foot or two away from me - I had creatures crawl on me as I sat motionless and full of wonder and love for these.
In time, I became uncomfortable with being atheist. As I would gaze at the stars and the Milky Way unable to go into the house and bed, trying to see into the depth of the Universe from the flat dome of it's appearance, and lay there motionless unthinking, I would feel a consciousness that I wasn't looking for, a response I couldn't put my finger on, a presence that did not remind me of religions and their Gods but rather of order, harmony, beauty. It wasn't lifeless, it wasn't dead, it was awareness that was not mine. I wasn't on drugs, I had no belief structure to underscore, it was a thing of immediacy and vibrance. My state of mind, my countenance with myself and others, my love for my planet and my fellows, all these things enhanced themselves, and in this existential gestalt I realized that I was not alone.
Can I put this into your mind to feel what I do? Surely not. Am I a madman when I walk into this womb of experience? You may say I am but I will not share your belief as you are also free not to know mine. I walked in the shoes of the atheist, in your shoes, for a long time, and found they didn't fit when I thought they should have. The answer isn't in a book, it is in a point of love that shines to, and in, a mind.
It is exceedingly difficult for many practical people to see themselves as more than a collection of chemo-electrical impulses. It was for me. I did not believe in a God, but I wasn't able to say that it was impossible for one to exist. As long as you can know that truly, the mind is not closed to what can happen if one decides that they really do not know anything for sure. We cannot comprehend what Perfect Mind means, but we can comprehend it's manifestations. I have to go unfortunately and can't finish this, but if you want we can talk more.
Hi vkamath,
A little addendum to the above: I got personal with my reply because having no authoritative book or faith to underscore my take on things except personal experience, I tried to provide some examples of events - none specific all general - that influenced me. I found I could not suffer the religion I was under, I found I could not claim that I had certainty that an ordered mind was not the primogenitor of phenomena, but I found that I sensed conscious intelligence throughout.
I sympathize with your doubts, even down to doubting my claim that I am not daft loony deluded or mentally ill. Surely I must be one of those things to you if I am not atheist, and I am not. But it's all ok. I'm not offended by that. I have many atheist friends, and we can have an easy laugh over my 'silly beliefs'. I am offended by things like human viciousness, not things like personal belief systems. Dismissing one's beliefs as daft, even wondering if they're 'off', is not vicious, though proclaiming and celebrating to degrade them is. But venom has it's levels too. I'd rather be advertised as loony than be bludgeoned.
You might be wondering why I would say I believe in the Christ if I've denied my former religion. Looking at an event such as the life of Jesus or Buddha from a non-religious standpoint is complex, tricky, and controversial. For now, suffice it to say that man surrounds events with theatre, and in cases of humans of profound rarety, that theatre may be religion. Scientists are not religious because they're raison d'etre involves the physical universe; Jesus' does not. I said before that I see Christ-mindedness, nirvana, revelation, cosmic consciousness, satori, all these terms as similar in idea and attempted description. To me, none of this is religious - that is theatre to me - but all of it is a potential of mind, which can be discerned scientifically only very limitedly at this point.
Obviously if and when we are able to repeatedly measure and observe 'metaphysical' events, the concepts forming the core of religion will bring religion and science in the same arena, but it will still be all science, since it can be observed, measured, and repeated.
Theatre brings emotion with it, and always that proves to have consequences, as well as inspirations. We are a highly emotional species, and can't help it, in legion, though we can specifically. We are addicted to ritual, and such can birth a life of it's own, even to the clouding over and eventual corruption of the ritual's very reason to be. It takes great scrutiny to 'seperate the wheat from the chaff'; and when the tree that is known by it's fruit is the wrong tree, a weed tree that was allowed to proliferate and dominate instead of being plucked at the outset, confusion, misguidedness, and eventually chaos reigns. A perfect example is self-touted religious men who destroy in the name of Divine Inspiration. Sure, we have to defend our country if it is invaded, but even when violence is necessary to protect and survive, there is no god who has anything to do with this. None. Ever. Fighting in the name of deity is pure theatre.
I must go again, but you have something to digest now. Let me know if you are more clear on my views or more confused. I am curious to know.
A little addendum to the above: I got personal with my reply because having no authoritative book or faith to underscore my take on things except personal experience, I tried to provide some examples of events - none specific all general - that influenced me. I found I could not suffer the religion I was under, I found I could not claim that I had certainty that an ordered mind was not the primogenitor of phenomena, but I found that I sensed conscious intelligence throughout.
I sympathize with your doubts, even down to doubting my claim that I am not daft loony deluded or mentally ill. Surely I must be one of those things to you if I am not atheist, and I am not. But it's all ok. I'm not offended by that. I have many atheist friends, and we can have an easy laugh over my 'silly beliefs'. I am offended by things like human viciousness, not things like personal belief systems. Dismissing one's beliefs as daft, even wondering if they're 'off', is not vicious, though proclaiming and celebrating to degrade them is. But venom has it's levels too. I'd rather be advertised as loony than be bludgeoned.
You might be wondering why I would say I believe in the Christ if I've denied my former religion. Looking at an event such as the life of Jesus or Buddha from a non-religious standpoint is complex, tricky, and controversial. For now, suffice it to say that man surrounds events with theatre, and in cases of humans of profound rarety, that theatre may be religion. Scientists are not religious because they're raison d'etre involves the physical universe; Jesus' does not. I said before that I see Christ-mindedness, nirvana, revelation, cosmic consciousness, satori, all these terms as similar in idea and attempted description. To me, none of this is religious - that is theatre to me - but all of it is a potential of mind, which can be discerned scientifically only very limitedly at this point.
Obviously if and when we are able to repeatedly measure and observe 'metaphysical' events, the concepts forming the core of religion will bring religion and science in the same arena, but it will still be all science, since it can be observed, measured, and repeated.
Theatre brings emotion with it, and always that proves to have consequences, as well as inspirations. We are a highly emotional species, and can't help it, in legion, though we can specifically. We are addicted to ritual, and such can birth a life of it's own, even to the clouding over and eventual corruption of the ritual's very reason to be. It takes great scrutiny to 'seperate the wheat from the chaff'; and when the tree that is known by it's fruit is the wrong tree, a weed tree that was allowed to proliferate and dominate instead of being plucked at the outset, confusion, misguidedness, and eventually chaos reigns. A perfect example is self-touted religious men who destroy in the name of Divine Inspiration. Sure, we have to defend our country if it is invaded, but even when violence is necessary to protect and survive, there is no god who has anything to do with this. None. Ever. Fighting in the name of deity is pure theatre.
I must go again, but you have something to digest now. Let me know if you are more clear on my views or more confused. I am curious to know.
QUOTE (soundhertz+)
When I was a kid I believed in God because my parents were loyal Catholics, like every other kid in my Catholic school. Some stayed that way. I didn't. The contradictions and discrepencies were too profound. I became too uncomfortable with myself because I believed in a thought system that didn't require anything save blind obedience, which negated personal integrity.
For a long while I was atheist. Figuratively speaking, I 'prayed' at the altar of science - it was my main interest, moreso than sports entertainment or anything else that kids like. Not that I didn't play sports or go to the movies: there was room enough for football, the Three Stooges, the Outer Limits, playing every day with lots of friends. But being out in Mother Nature doing absolutely nothing else than observing it was the pinnacle of experience for me. I could watch an ant colony for literally hours. I loved sitting out in the woods at twilight into night, a little food in front of me for whatever furry forest creature may come along, watch motionless for hours as all sorts cavorted a foot or two away from me - I had creatures crawl on me as I sat motionless and full of wonder and love for these.
I too had very religious parents and family. I was a strong believer in God until I was in my teens, regularly visiting places of worship (even today when my mother asks me to come with her I never refuse).
There is no single event which I can point which transformed me into an atheist. It was a very slow but sure transformation and many times I wished I could continue believing but I simply couldn't. Probably it was brought about by the cold reality of the world which I saw daily in the newspapers and on t.v in the form of brutality of man, the injustice and the senselessness. It dawned on me slowly that the good guys don't always win, that the instinct for self preservation is what drives us all (including the saints among us), that the refined lives that we lead is nothing but a cover to the animals that we really are, that there is no one who is all good or all bad, that the world is completely mechanical without any form of "poetic justice", that there is no supreme being, that religion is nothing but wishful thinking and clinging on to false hope, that the world would be a better place without the madness that fundamentalist religion brings out in the believers.
One fine day I realized that I had no belief in God whatsoever. I realized I had become an atheist. I knew that if I declared this to my family they would be shocked and hurt. So I keep this fact to myself, but I stopped praying and avoided visiting places of worship.
For a long while I was atheist. Figuratively speaking, I 'prayed' at the altar of science - it was my main interest, moreso than sports entertainment or anything else that kids like. Not that I didn't play sports or go to the movies: there was room enough for football, the Three Stooges, the Outer Limits, playing every day with lots of friends. But being out in Mother Nature doing absolutely nothing else than observing it was the pinnacle of experience for me. I could watch an ant colony for literally hours. I loved sitting out in the woods at twilight into night, a little food in front of me for whatever furry forest creature may come along, watch motionless for hours as all sorts cavorted a foot or two away from me - I had creatures crawl on me as I sat motionless and full of wonder and love for these.
I too had very religious parents and family. I was a strong believer in God until I was in my teens, regularly visiting places of worship (even today when my mother asks me to come with her I never refuse).
There is no single event which I can point which transformed me into an atheist. It was a very slow but sure transformation and many times I wished I could continue believing but I simply couldn't. Probably it was brought about by the cold reality of the world which I saw daily in the newspapers and on t.v in the form of brutality of man, the injustice and the senselessness. It dawned on me slowly that the good guys don't always win, that the instinct for self preservation is what drives us all (including the saints among us), that the refined lives that we lead is nothing but a cover to the animals that we really are, that there is no one who is all good or all bad, that the world is completely mechanical without any form of "poetic justice", that there is no supreme being, that religion is nothing but wishful thinking and clinging on to false hope, that the world would be a better place without the madness that fundamentalist religion brings out in the believers.
One fine day I realized that I had no belief in God whatsoever. I realized I had become an atheist. I knew that if I declared this to my family they would be shocked and hurt. So I keep this fact to myself, but I stopped praying and avoided visiting places of worship.
QUOTE (soundhertz+)
It is exceedingly difficult for many practical people to see themselves as more than a collection of chemo-electrical impulses.
I can agree with this view, despite being an atheist. We are "more than the sum of our parts". I am very much interested in the philosophy of consciousness and the mind.
In contrast, Atheism is a purely analytical view point. Nothing more that what is observed is taken into consideration.
I am trying to resolve this contradiction in my mind.
I can agree with this view, despite being an atheist. We are "more than the sum of our parts". I am very much interested in the philosophy of consciousness and the mind.
In contrast, Atheism is a purely analytical view point. Nothing more that what is observed is taken into consideration.
I am trying to resolve this contradiction in my mind.
QUOTE (soundhertz+)
A little addendum to the above: I got personal with my reply because having no authoritative book or faith to underscore my take on things except personal experience, I tried to provide some examples of events - none specific all general - that influenced me. I found I could not suffer the religion I was under, I found I could not claim that I had certainty that an ordered mind was not the primogenitor of phenomena, but I found that I sensed conscious intelligence throughout.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Your thoughts are you own, no book can reflect it.
I realized I had become an atheist. I knew that if I declared this to my family they would be shocked and hurt. So I keep this fact to myself
Thanks for telling me that. My mother is currently on her visit to me (she stays with each kid for a couple of months.) She's 82 now. We should treat them like a fragile gem and decline to upset them with unnecessary information: I totally agree with both your decisions, and the warm kindness and gentle wisdom of them.
My life is spent in the whirlpool of this. An agnostic is merely an uncertain atheist. Atheists say to the religious, " Do you have the courage to step aside of your security blanket and face the certainty of your mortality, to know when your life is over you will be eternally dead?"
I say to the atheist, "Do you have the courage to step aside of your certainty, to live every day in full admittance that you still have resolved nothing?"
My life is spent in the whirlpool of this. An agnostic is merely an uncertain atheist. Atheists say to the religious, " Do you have the courage to step aside of your security blanket and face the certainty of your mortality, to know when your life is over you will be eternally dead?"
I say to the atheist, "Do you have the courage to step aside of your certainty, to live every day in full admittance that you still have resolved nothing?"
Fundamentalist religion is the biggest problem which is facing humans currently.
While I am not completely sure of this, I wouldn't argue against it either. Certainly closed-mindedness is not a prerequisite for any kind of 'revelation', whether scientific or spiritual. And both pioneering scientists and teachers of new spiritual thought have met with the same brutality from the 'fundamentalists', whether religious scientific or political. Fundamentalism is the great fear monger holding the reins against mankind's assimilation of knowledge. But that chariot has still not been brought to a halt; evolution will not ever cease. And I think you can join with me an Amen on that.
I don't understand the question, or more correctly, the point of the question.
I don't understand the question, or more correctly, the point of the question.
you still have resolved nothing
What do I need to resolve? I suspect this question reflects either the lack of courage or lack of understanding deists have about those who don't believe in the existence of a deity, any deity. There is no NEED to have some belief that some mystical being is personally looking out for you. In many respects, it shows a lack of maturity in not being able to accept your only environment and life.
You NEED to understand that a non-deists life is no less full or fullfilled than one whose believes in a particular fairy in preference to some one elses fairy. It is very liberating to know that the 'ride' you are on is the only one you will have.
Enderbean, your cult is even more weird than most of the others. An ancient, advanced civilisation in North America? Only an American could come up with that one. The whole thing has given me a great deal of amusement. Yet not one trace today; now that IS a miracle!
And in answer to the question, I re-iterate; NO!
Physfan
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Your thoughts are you own, no book can reflect it.
QUOTE (soundhertz+)
I sympathize with your doubts, even down to doubting my claim that I am not daft loony deluded or mentally ill. Surely I must be one of those things to you if I am not atheist, and I am not
.
I don't think believers are loony, deluded or mentally ill. However, if you had claimed to be able to perform miracles, or experienced the presence of Demons or God, then I would have some doubts.
Fundamentalist religion is the biggest problem which is facing humans currently. Fighting one fundamentalist religion with another is useless. The best approach is a purely rational approach. More on this when I get some time.
I don't think believers are loony, deluded or mentally ill. However, if you had claimed to be able to perform miracles, or experienced the presence of Demons or God, then I would have some doubts.Fundamentalist religion is the biggest problem which is facing humans currently. Fighting one fundamentalist religion with another is useless. The best approach is a purely rational approach. More on this when I get some time.
QUOTE
(even today when my mother asks me to come with her I never refuse).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| (even today when my mother asks me to come with her I never refuse). |
I realized I had become an atheist. I knew that if I declared this to my family they would be shocked and hurt. So I keep this fact to myself
Thanks for telling me that. My mother is currently on her visit to me (she stays with each kid for a couple of months.) She's 82 now. We should treat them like a fragile gem and decline to upset them with unnecessary information: I totally agree with both your decisions, and the warm kindness and gentle wisdom of them.
QUOTE
We are "more than the sum of our parts". I am very much interested in the philosophy of consciousness and the mind.
In contrast, Atheism is a purely analytical view point. Nothing more that what is observed is taken into consideration.
I am trying to resolve this contradiction in my mind.
In contrast, Atheism is a purely analytical view point. Nothing more that what is observed is taken into consideration.
I am trying to resolve this contradiction in my mind.
My life is spent in the whirlpool of this. An agnostic is merely an uncertain atheist. Atheists say to the religious, " Do you have the courage to step aside of your security blanket and face the certainty of your mortality, to know when your life is over you will be eternally dead?"
I say to the atheist, "Do you have the courage to step aside of your certainty, to live every day in full admittance that you still have resolved nothing?"
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We are "more than the sum of our parts". I am very much interested in the philosophy of consciousness and the mind. In contrast, Atheism is a purely analytical view point. Nothing more that what is observed is taken into consideration. I am trying to resolve this contradiction in my mind. |
My life is spent in the whirlpool of this. An agnostic is merely an uncertain atheist. Atheists say to the religious, " Do you have the courage to step aside of your security blanket and face the certainty of your mortality, to know when your life is over you will be eternally dead?"
I say to the atheist, "Do you have the courage to step aside of your certainty, to live every day in full admittance that you still have resolved nothing?"
Fundamentalist religion is the biggest problem which is facing humans currently.
While I am not completely sure of this, I wouldn't argue against it either. Certainly closed-mindedness is not a prerequisite for any kind of 'revelation', whether scientific or spiritual. And both pioneering scientists and teachers of new spiritual thought have met with the same brutality from the 'fundamentalists', whether religious scientific or political. Fundamentalism is the great fear monger holding the reins against mankind's assimilation of knowledge. But that chariot has still not been brought to a halt; evolution will not ever cease. And I think you can join with me an Amen on that.
QUOTE (soundhertz+)
My life is spent in the whirlpool of this. An agnostic is merely an uncertain atheist. Atheists say to the religious, " Do you have the courage to step aside of your security blanket and face the certainty of your mortality, to know when your life is over you will be eternally dead?"
I say to the atheist, "Do you have the courage to step aside of your certainty, to live every day in full admittance that you still have resolved nothing?"
When neither the religious nor the atheist can answer all questions, I would rather be an atheist who is careful about what he believes.
I say to the atheist, "Do you have the courage to step aside of your certainty, to live every day in full admittance that you still have resolved nothing?"
When neither the religious nor the atheist can answer all questions, I would rather be an atheist who is careful about what he believes.
QUOTE
My life is spent in the whirlpool of this. An agnostic is merely an uncertain atheist. Atheists say to the religious, " Do you have the courage to step aside of your security blanket and face the certainty of your mortality, to know when your life is over you will be eternally dead?"
I say to the atheist, "Do you have the courage to step aside of your certainty, to live every day in full admittance that you still have resolved nothing?"
I say to the atheist, "Do you have the courage to step aside of your certainty, to live every day in full admittance that you still have resolved nothing?"
I don't understand the question, or more correctly, the point of the question.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| My life is spent in the whirlpool of this. An agnostic is merely an uncertain atheist. Atheists say to the religious, " Do you have the courage to step aside of your security blanket and face the certainty of your mortality, to know when your life is over you will be eternally dead?" I say to the atheist, "Do you have the courage to step aside of your certainty, to live every day in full admittance that you still have resolved nothing?" |
I don't understand the question, or more correctly, the point of the question.
you still have resolved nothing
What do I need to resolve? I suspect this question reflects either the lack of courage or lack of understanding deists have about those who don't believe in the existence of a deity, any deity. There is no NEED to have some belief that some mystical being is personally looking out for you. In many respects, it shows a lack of maturity in not being able to accept your only environment and life.
You NEED to understand that a non-deists life is no less full or fullfilled than one whose believes in a particular fairy in preference to some one elses fairy. It is very liberating to know that the 'ride' you are on is the only one you will have.
Enderbean, your cult is even more weird than most of the others. An ancient, advanced civilisation in North America? Only an American could come up with that one. The whole thing has given me a great deal of amusement. Yet not one trace today; now that IS a miracle!
And in answer to the question, I re-iterate; NO!
Physfan
QUOTE
I don't understand the question, or more correctly, the point of the question.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I don't understand the question, or more correctly, the point of the question. |
What do I need to resolve?
What you don't understand, and what you need to resolve, is that while you can be certain that you have some empirical data regarding universal processes, this data is unable to provide you with final conclusions; there is far more to learn than what we know, therefore it is logical and practical to not make a final decision on reality but rather a working decision subject to amendment. And there is the crux. Are you already convinced? It doesn't matter of what. Are you "Convinced"? vkamath understands this:
This is a wise and humble statement. This person knows he doesn't know. He also reasonably knows nobody else knows.
This is a wise and humble statement. This person knows he doesn't know. He also reasonably knows nobody else knows.
It is very liberating to know that the 'ride' you are on is the only one you will have.
By this, you are "convinced". I believe not in the convinced, either religious or scientific. Scientists are sure of only what has been proven, not what will or will not be. Even the tenets that I decide to believe in are not safe from my scrutiny as I continue to live and learn. Here's a past quote of mine:
[QUOTE] Fidelity to integrity demands that if one wishes to be atheist, that they are ready and willing to change their mind if newly discovered FACTS require it. I am ready to accept whatever the truth is, no matter how wrong my current opinions may be. I am not ready to declare what it is NOW. [QUOTE]
Newton's laws were found to be conditional. Einstein's may be also. There is no such thing as mistaken science, rather it's partial understanding. Which must be as long as the whole is sought.
Even just for the sake of conjecture, why is it liberating to 'know' this is it, unless a life is so fearful or stagnant that death is cherished as it's final act? If I had a choice, I would live forever. I am not sure that I will. I am not sure that I won't.
vkamath says (since this antiquated system is unable to box quote more than one poster for some unknown reason): "When neither the religious nor the atheist can answer all questions, I would rather be an atheist who is careful about what he believes."
Now this is a statement I can find reason with. Don't underestimate the power of one's 'being convinced', nor the terror in the error - of one's convictions. To me, what is liberating is not living under any auspices at all. I have 'beliefs'; they are NOT axioms. If you are ready to eject any of your cherished little baubles of beliefs, you are not imprisoned by fundamentalism, which is in no way relegated to theology alone. Things we are 'sure' of change. Discoveries await us. Do you know what they are? Yes? Then they are not discoveries are they. So do you know what they are? No? Then don't be sure. Be observant. This is my lecture to me, I'm sharing it with you. I said this months ago:
"The light of science seperates false from true; no scientist need ever feel threatened. But s/he does need great patience, compassion for the unknown, and an indifferent inspiration to find truth."
(I have to start a new reply since this system now will no longer allow me to box quote you - has this happened to you?). I guess we are only allowed to strain the system just so far)
What you don't understand, and what you need to resolve, is that while you can be certain that you have some empirical data regarding universal processes, this data is unable to provide you with final conclusions; there is far more to learn than what we know, therefore it is logical and practical to not make a final decision on reality but rather a working decision subject to amendment. And there is the crux. Are you already convinced? It doesn't matter of what. Are you "Convinced"? vkamath understands this:
QUOTE
We are "more than the sum of our parts". I am very much interested in the philosophy of consciousness and the mind.
In contrast, Atheism is a purely analytical view point. Nothing more that what is observed is taken into consideration.
I am trying to resolve this contradiction in my mind.
In contrast, Atheism is a purely analytical view point. Nothing more that what is observed is taken into consideration.
I am trying to resolve this contradiction in my mind.
This is a wise and humble statement. This person knows he doesn't know. He also reasonably knows nobody else knows.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We are "more than the sum of our parts". I am very much interested in the philosophy of consciousness and the mind. In contrast, Atheism is a purely analytical view point. Nothing more that what is observed is taken into consideration. I am trying to resolve this contradiction in my mind. |
This is a wise and humble statement. This person knows he doesn't know. He also reasonably knows nobody else knows.
It is very liberating to know that the 'ride' you are on is the only one you will have.
By this, you are "convinced". I believe not in the convinced, either religious or scientific. Scientists are sure of only what has been proven, not what will or will not be. Even the tenets that I decide to believe in are not safe from my scrutiny as I continue to live and learn. Here's a past quote of mine:
[QUOTE] Fidelity to integrity demands that if one wishes to be atheist, that they are ready and willing to change their mind if newly discovered FACTS require it. I am ready to accept whatever the truth is, no matter how wrong my current opinions may be. I am not ready to declare what it is NOW. [QUOTE]
Newton's laws were found to be conditional. Einstein's may be also. There is no such thing as mistaken science, rather it's partial understanding. Which must be as long as the whole is sought.
Even just for the sake of conjecture, why is it liberating to 'know' this is it, unless a life is so fearful or stagnant that death is cherished as it's final act? If I had a choice, I would live forever. I am not sure that I will. I am not sure that I won't.
vkamath says (since this antiquated system is unable to box quote more than one poster for some unknown reason): "When neither the religious nor the atheist can answer all questions, I would rather be an atheist who is careful about what he believes."
Now this is a statement I can find reason with. Don't underestimate the power of one's 'being convinced', nor the terror in the error - of one's convictions. To me, what is liberating is not living under any auspices at all. I have 'beliefs'; they are NOT axioms. If you are ready to eject any of your cherished little baubles of beliefs, you are not imprisoned by fundamentalism, which is in no way relegated to theology alone. Things we are 'sure' of change. Discoveries await us. Do you know what they are? Yes? Then they are not discoveries are they. So do you know what they are? No? Then don't be sure. Be observant. This is my lecture to me, I'm sharing it with you. I said this months ago:
"The light of science seperates false from true; no scientist need ever feel threatened. But s/he does need great patience, compassion for the unknown, and an indifferent inspiration to find truth."
(I have to start a new reply since this system now will no longer allow me to box quote you - has this happened to you?). I guess we are only allowed to strain the system just so far)
Part two from my last post:
No I don't. I have been saying this and similar here and on other threads.
No I don't. I have been saying this and similar here and on other threads.
I believe strongly that professed atheists on this forum can be as full of grace as any good Christian here.
even a complete atheist can still live with love and goodwill in their heart without taking belief of Primary Mind on faith.
How does it not make sense to neither take as an axiom nor utterly reject that which you can not be factually sure of? Sure we have beliefs, and while you can turn a belief into a fact for yourself, that's as far as it should go. Elsewise you are an atheist missionary.
Obviously I know this is just a discussion, and I'm not accusing you of proselytizing atheism, but you and every other atheist must realize this issue is not black and white - there is more than one possibility for a God to exist. Every single atheist I know, bar none, ONLY see theism as belief in the God of Organized Religion. I have tried mightily to introduce other lines of consideration for a possible God, but it falls on deaf ears every time, with the exception of vkamath here, who seems to have no problem assimilating (I'm not saying believing, just merely assimilating) the idea of a non-mainstream God. Of all the atheists I know, this is the most curious enigma to me, that they simply cannot behold in their minds the idea of a non-religious God. It's either Mr. Hellfire/Damnation Worship Me correctly or Else! - or it's no God at all. Jehovah is the automatic default, with no alternative allowed. Very very curious. Every atheist I know. And if I can't get past that, I can't discuss, because I share with atheists their disbelief in a God of populist culture.
It would be interesting to know if any atheist readers here have a softer reaction to the possible idea of a super-intellect that has no corporeal requirements, than they do the traditional God as defined in all His controversial enigmas from the Bible.
Yes, agreed! I fully support the notion of Occam's Deity!
Let's look at the facts in front of our faces. If there was any moralist intervention by deity wouldn't we have noticed it by now? What we see instead is immorality, "evil" if you will, having full reign to exist. Proof of this is plastered all over all media sources every day. You, me, or anyone is fully able to go out and murder or otherwise defile our next door neighbor, or the one two doors away, etc. Deity does not intervene. Therefore there is no moral authority by our definitions, since there is no enforcement of such. For conjecture's sake, let's say "God" exists in the form of what I've called "Perfect Mind". Morality is a human construct. It is the earthly opposite of "immorality". While we can and have argued the specifics of this, we all can generally agree on it's basic construct, it's absoluteness or relativity notwithstanding.
Perfect Mind, on the other hand, may not be moral or immoral, not being human, but rather "amoral". Perfect Mind has no use for morals, as morality is an emotionally harmonious reaction to emotional chaos. There would be no chaos at all within Perfect Mind, so there is no need for morality. Perfect Mind's natural state would be what we see as the most exalted state we can theoretically attain.
It is exceedingly difficult for humans to conjecture 'out of the box'. But to apprehend the possibility of Perfect Mind we must do just that. Evidence of not doing that is rampant, in the guise of anthropormorphising deity, and relegating it to human imperfect standards. Make God human, and you make God nonexistant. Make God impatient, angry, vengeful, and you adulterate the very basis for Perfect Mind. Make God a big strong powerful human, you have greatly complicated everything. If Perfect Mind exists, wouldn't it exist simply? The working physics of the Universe itself is simple and automatic. It's our mathematical method of describing it that appears complex. The math that describes it is heavy, heady, and needs long equations to describe processes that happen effortlessly and precisely. No matter what occurs anywhere, it occurs perfectly. A perfectly functioning Universe deduced from a "Creator" implies a perfectly functioning Creator, or Mind.
Obviously there is no proof, by our accepted standards of proof, that a mind is behind it all. What I am saying is that there might be, and if there is, it must logically follow that this mind is as effortless and perfect as it's means. It also implies that if we are to discover this mind, we need to do it mindfully. We do not find anger vengeance or small-mindedness in the workings of the Universe; energy is never destroyed. In fact, nothing is. Destruction is only our emotional perception of events. For all we know, a star going supernova may be the eagerly awaited pinnacle of achievement for that star!
You can immediately say that animals can die horribly and it doesn't have to have anything to do with us, so God is very mean to allow it. I sympathize with this argument, but we cannot in any way know all there is to know. We may yet find that all our perceptions are not reflections of the truth, that indeed all we experience is itself just a perception of mind, and that it can be refined. Indeed, that we ourselves may be the creators of that which we tactilely sense, and our own mind evolution will change the physical world we experience. No matter what seems to go on outside of us, the decision of reality is made inside, and it's only our decided perceptions that we ever know, in complete ignorance of the fields of energy that is really the only true existance. What is really going on, what we really are, is still a conundrum that we cannot adequately solve until WE manage to remove ourselves from our own box of perception. That's why a God may not be found through a universal theology, but rather through individual experience, with "Heaven" being not a place but a state of mind, a state of combined universal experience. From this pov, the world's "Holy Books" may be naught but introductory primers, a la "See Spot run. Run, Spot, run." Or "2+2" before "e=mc^2".
Then you haven't met me but since I intentionally keep away from people who have some belief in fairies, it is not likely. Logically, there is no distinction between an overt, publicly expressed belief or a hidden (privately expressed) belief, since there is no deity. Many people create and destroy deities every day; how many times has anyone heard of some one 'dabbling' in another religion or belief system? This creates and destroys omnipotent deities by the simple and instantaneous process of thought; arguably the human mind is far more powerful than any fairy.
Then you haven't met me but since I intentionally keep away from people who have some belief in fairies, it is not likely. Logically, there is no distinction between an overt, publicly expressed belief or a hidden (privately expressed) belief, since there is no deity. Many people create and destroy deities every day; how many times has anyone heard of some one 'dabbling' in another religion or belief system? This creates and destroys omnipotent deities by the simple and instantaneous process of thought; arguably the human mind is far more powerful than any fairy.
What you don't understand, and what you need to resolve, is that while you can be certain that you have some empirical data regarding universal processes, this data is unable to provide you with final conclusions;
Au contraire; any deity/fairy/gard has had countless opportunities to demonstrate its existence. No demonstration equals no deity. The cloying notion that the fairy may exist therefore I will believe is absurdly illogical and defies all evidence available. Why postulate about the nature of something that does not, can not and will not exist. I sympathise, to a small degree, about the very human need to have a protector of some kind, eg eternal parents, but a lack of acceptance about what growing up and maturity means should not encourage people to devise a concept of some other worldly being to replace our mortal, earthly protectors.
Belief in fairies is, plainly, a lack of maturity and full acceptance of personal responsibility.
to regulate human interaction for the common good. What is the problem here?
When human beings realised they could think, a different system of regulating behaviour was needed.
Physfan
The arrogance of being so sure for such a new species in a universe whose percentage of known information is so tiny - I guess you're a "fan" of physics but certainly not a legitimate explorer of it; the true scientist knows the folly of being "sure" of anything except that which has been proven. Unlike the all-knowing you, I am not sure. At least I don't tacitly imply I'm a god.
Does not
Can not
Will not
Yup, that's the spirit of science! Sheesh...
Fundamentalism - the reigns that hold back. It's not relegated to religion only.
I made my reply. I'm not arguing it further. Good luck with your beliefs.
Soundhertz,
The absurdity of your response is your belief in the 'one and only gard'. As long as I say Allah and the others are fictional, your beliefs are intact, however, say that about "your" gard and that's different. Your "gard" is different, it is real. Your delusions are sustained.
My arrogance? Yours surpasses any supposed arrogance of mine, but you cannot see the irony.
Physfan
If Heaven is spending eternity with a nutbag like you, the finality of death has an attractive ring to it. Newguy, which cult do you belong to? Come on, be open, honest and forthright, tell us your complete affiliations of cultism.
Physfan
<----------This is Showtopic= 9466
----------->Showtopic= 9643
vkamath: Let me start by asking that you separate my following statements from anything that PhilP has already stated. Although PhilP and I would probably agree on a few things, if he is a standard Jehovah's Witness, then it is safe to assume that we have some MAJOR differences where Jesus Christ and Biblical Christianity are concerned. Anyway, on to the point of my post:
--------------->Showtopic= 26390
I NEED MORE INFO if you please...(on this glorious Sabbath)
QUOTE
You NEED to understand that a non-deists life is no less full or fullfilled
No I don't. I have been saying this and similar here and on other threads.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You NEED to understand that a non-deists life is no less full or fullfilled |
No I don't. I have been saying this and similar here and on other threads.
I believe strongly that professed atheists on this forum can be as full of grace as any good Christian here.
QUOTE
Not believing in a silly god of violence and mayhem is far different than not allowing for the possibility of mind in the universal lexicon still unknown to us.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Not believing in a silly god of violence and mayhem is far different than not allowing for the possibility of mind in the universal lexicon still unknown to us. |
even a complete atheist can still live with love and goodwill in their heart without taking belief of Primary Mind on faith.
How does it not make sense to neither take as an axiom nor utterly reject that which you can not be factually sure of? Sure we have beliefs, and while you can turn a belief into a fact for yourself, that's as far as it should go. Elsewise you are an atheist missionary.
Obviously I know this is just a discussion, and I'm not accusing you of proselytizing atheism, but you and every other atheist must realize this issue is not black and white - there is more than one possibility for a God to exist. Every single atheist I know, bar none, ONLY see theism as belief in the God of Organized Religion. I have tried mightily to introduce other lines of consideration for a possible God, but it falls on deaf ears every time, with the exception of vkamath here, who seems to have no problem assimilating (I'm not saying believing, just merely assimilating) the idea of a non-mainstream God. Of all the atheists I know, this is the most curious enigma to me, that they simply cannot behold in their minds the idea of a non-religious God. It's either Mr. Hellfire/Damnation Worship Me correctly or Else! - or it's no God at all. Jehovah is the automatic default, with no alternative allowed. Very very curious. Every atheist I know. And if I can't get past that, I can't discuss, because I share with atheists their disbelief in a God of populist culture.
It would be interesting to know if any atheist readers here have a softer reaction to the possible idea of a super-intellect that has no corporeal requirements, than they do the traditional God as defined in all His controversial enigmas from the Bible.
The fewer features you assign to God, the more likely It is to exist. I'm fully willing to accept that our universe was Created ... it very well could have been. But to posit anytype of interventionist moral authority seems to be false.
QUOTE
The fewer features you assign to God, the more likely It is to exist. I'm fully willing to accept that our universe was Created ... it very well could have been. But to posit anytype of interventionist moral authority seems to be false.
Yes, agreed! I fully support the notion of Occam's Deity!
Let's look at the facts in front of our faces. If there was any moralist intervention by deity wouldn't we have noticed it by now? What we see instead is immorality, "evil" if you will, having full reign to exist. Proof of this is plastered all over all media sources every day. You, me, or anyone is fully able to go out and murder or otherwise defile our next door neighbor, or the one two doors away, etc. Deity does not intervene. Therefore there is no moral authority by our definitions, since there is no enforcement of such. For conjecture's sake, let's say "God" exists in the form of what I've called "Perfect Mind". Morality is a human construct. It is the earthly opposite of "immorality". While we can and have argued the specifics of this, we all can generally agree on it's basic construct, it's absoluteness or relativity notwithstanding.
Perfect Mind, on the other hand, may not be moral or immoral, not being human, but rather "amoral". Perfect Mind has no use for morals, as morality is an emotionally harmonious reaction to emotional chaos. There would be no chaos at all within Perfect Mind, so there is no need for morality. Perfect Mind's natural state would be what we see as the most exalted state we can theoretically attain.
It is exceedingly difficult for humans to conjecture 'out of the box'. But to apprehend the possibility of Perfect Mind we must do just that. Evidence of not doing that is rampant, in the guise of anthropormorphising deity, and relegating it to human imperfect standards. Make God human, and you make God nonexistant. Make God impatient, angry, vengeful, and you adulterate the very basis for Perfect Mind. Make God a big strong powerful human, you have greatly complicated everything. If Perfect Mind exists, wouldn't it exist simply? The working physics of the Universe itself is simple and automatic. It's our mathematical method of describing it that appears complex. The math that describes it is heavy, heady, and needs long equations to describe processes that happen effortlessly and precisely. No matter what occurs anywhere, it occurs perfectly. A perfectly functioning Universe deduced from a "Creator" implies a perfectly functioning Creator, or Mind.
Obviously there is no proof, by our accepted standards of proof, that a mind is behind it all. What I am saying is that there might be, and if there is, it must logically follow that this mind is as effortless and perfect as it's means. It also implies that if we are to discover this mind, we need to do it mindfully. We do not find anger vengeance or small-mindedness in the workings of the Universe; energy is never destroyed. In fact, nothing is. Destruction is only our emotional perception of events. For all we know, a star going supernova may be the eagerly awaited pinnacle of achievement for that star!
You can immediately say that animals can die horribly and it doesn't have to have anything to do with us, so God is very mean to allow it. I sympathize with this argument, but we cannot in any way know all there is to know. We may yet find that all our perceptions are not reflections of the truth, that indeed all we experience is itself just a perception of mind, and that it can be refined. Indeed, that we ourselves may be the creators of that which we tactilely sense, and our own mind evolution will change the physical world we experience. No matter what seems to go on outside of us, the decision of reality is made inside, and it's only our decided perceptions that we ever know, in complete ignorance of the fields of energy that is really the only true existance. What is really going on, what we really are, is still a conundrum that we cannot adequately solve until WE manage to remove ourselves from our own box of perception. That's why a God may not be found through a universal theology, but rather through individual experience, with "Heaven" being not a place but a state of mind, a state of combined universal experience. From this pov, the world's "Holy Books" may be naught but introductory primers, a la "See Spot run. Run, Spot, run." Or "2+2" before "e=mc^2".
QUOTE (soundhertz+Oct 31 2006, 11:56 PM)
Every single atheist I know, bar none, ONLY see theism as belief in the God of Organized Religion.
I see this quite often too. But the other side of the coin is that if you acknowledge that there may possibly be a god, most theists assume that you have agreed to their idea of god.
Personally I consider myself an agnostic, but by most theists' logic if I don't believe in their god then by definition (since there is only one god) I don't believe in god. So they label me an atheist. (I live in the south. Anyone that I have this discussion with is likely to be a fundamentalist of one flavor or another.) I find it easier to accept that label than to argue with them over the nature of a possible god.
I see this quite often too. But the other side of the coin is that if you acknowledge that there may possibly be a god, most theists assume that you have agreed to their idea of god.
Personally I consider myself an agnostic, but by most theists' logic if I don't believe in their god then by definition (since there is only one god) I don't believe in god. So they label me an atheist. (I live in the south. Anyone that I have this discussion with is likely to be a fundamentalist of one flavor or another.) I find it easier to accept that label than to argue with them over the nature of a possible god.
QUOTE
Every single atheist I know, bar none, ONLY see theism as belief in the God of Organized Religion.
Then you haven't met me but since I intentionally keep away from people who have some belief in fairies, it is not likely. Logically, there is no distinction between an overt, publicly expressed belief or a hidden (privately expressed) belief, since there is no deity. Many people create and destroy deities every day; how many times has anyone heard of some one 'dabbling' in another religion or belief system? This creates and destroys omnipotent deities by the simple and instantaneous process of thought; arguably the human mind is far more powerful than any fairy.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Every single atheist I know, bar none, ONLY see theism as belief in the God of Organized Religion. |
Then you haven't met me but since I intentionally keep away from people who have some belief in fairies, it is not likely. Logically, there is no distinction between an overt, publicly expressed belief or a hidden (privately expressed) belief, since there is no deity. Many people create and destroy deities every day; how many times has anyone heard of some one 'dabbling' in another religion or belief system? This creates and destroys omnipotent deities by the simple and instantaneous process of thought; arguably the human mind is far more powerful than any fairy.
What you don't understand, and what you need to resolve, is that while you can be certain that you have some empirical data regarding universal processes, this data is unable to provide you with final conclusions;
Au contraire; any deity/fairy/gard has had countless opportunities to demonstrate its existence. No demonstration equals no deity. The cloying notion that the fairy may exist therefore I will believe is absurdly illogical and defies all evidence available. Why postulate about the nature of something that does not, can not and will not exist. I sympathise, to a small degree, about the very human need to have a protector of some kind, eg eternal parents, but a lack of acceptance about what growing up and maturity means should not encourage people to devise a concept of some other worldly being to replace our mortal, earthly protectors.
Belief in fairies is, plainly, a lack of maturity and full acceptance of personal responsibility.
QUOTE
Morality is a human construct.
to regulate human interaction for the common good. What is the problem here?
When human beings realised they could think, a different system of regulating behaviour was needed.
Physfan
QUOTE
Why postulate about the nature of something that does not, can not and will not exist.
The arrogance of being so sure for such a new species in a universe whose percentage of known information is so tiny - I guess you're a "fan" of physics but certainly not a legitimate explorer of it; the true scientist knows the folly of being "sure" of anything except that which has been proven. Unlike the all-knowing you, I am not sure. At least I don't tacitly imply I'm a god.
Does not
Can not
Will not
Yup, that's the spirit of science! Sheesh...
Fundamentalism - the reigns that hold back. It's not relegated to religion only.
I made my reply. I'm not arguing it further. Good luck with your beliefs.
goodboy. We have no evidence that Mohammad ever lived. the first quran appeared a century after his alleged death. Of the millions of "scientists" on Earth, whatever you believe you can find some who will support you. If you believe any religious texts are supported by science, please quote them.
tomliotta. There are no sounds in space. Om or otherwise.
PhilP. I have spent years on religious boards and heard the fable about history confirming the bible hundreds of times. I'm still waiting for the proof. As to the watchtower:
http://www.quotes.frac.dk/
http://www.quotes.frac.dk/
soundhertz. God does not have a perfect mind. Read the bible. God is not a nice person. Read the Old Testament. God is willing to let people die by the tens of millions and do nothing. Since he does not care now, why should anyone think he would care after death? You going to sue him if he doesn't?
Who made hell? Who decides who goes to hell? Who is in charge of hell? Clue: Not Satan.
Who made hell? Who decides who goes to hell? Who is in charge of hell? Clue: Not Satan.
newguy. The Ipuwer papyrus talks of the ground shaking for years. It is now generally accepted that it talks of the eruption of Thera, one of the most violent volcanic eruptions ever. It sent a tower of flames tens of miles into the sky, which could be seen to the north from Egypt. It sprayed lava and debris into the air which poisoned lands, animals and people, as well as making rivers run red.
Odd that we have traces of single campfires from the time of Exodus but thousands from people wandering around the desert for 40 years? No! No evidence Moses existed either. Or Solomon, David or Jesus.
Odd that we have traces of single campfires from the time of Exodus but thousands from people wandering around the desert for 40 years? No! No evidence Moses existed either. Or Solomon, David or Jesus.
QUOTE
Does not
Can not
Will not
Yup, that's the spirit of science! Sheesh...
Fundamentalism - the reigns that hold back. It's not relegated to religion only.
I made my reply. I'm not arguing it further. Good luck with your beliefs.
Can not
Will not
Yup, that's the spirit of science! Sheesh...
Fundamentalism - the reigns that hold back. It's not relegated to religion only.
I made my reply. I'm not arguing it further. Good luck with your beliefs.
Soundhertz,
The absurdity of your response is your belief in the 'one and only gard'. As long as I say Allah and the others are fictional, your beliefs are intact, however, say that about "your" gard and that's different. Your "gard" is different, it is real. Your delusions are sustained.
My arrogance? Yours surpasses any supposed arrogance of mine, but you cannot see the irony.
Physfan
I am inclined to answer the question asked in the title of this thread with a "yes." The connection seems to me to be in the critical study of religion from a materialistic, scientific viewpoint. So we can turn to many and diverse fields such as archaeology, psychology, sociology, anthropology, history, comparative mythology to find answers to the questions that naturally arise when one takes a good look at the kaleidoscopic array of religious beliefs in the world today, as well as the historic development of religious movements.
Some questions that I have asked are: What is the origin of religion? Why do religious beliefs and faith in a deity persist in an enlightened world? Why is religious conflict so common? Why do some religions survive while others die out? What motivates individuals to convert to other religions? Why are do some persons seem inherently more disposed to hold strong religious convictions that others?
Here are some links to sites that I have found useful:
http://www.as.ua.edu/rel/studyingreligion.html
http://religjournal.com/
http://dmoz.org/Science/Social_Sciences/Ps.../Neurotheology/
Some questions that I have asked are: What is the origin of religion? Why do religious beliefs and faith in a deity persist in an enlightened world? Why is religious conflict so common? Why do some religions survive while others die out? What motivates individuals to convert to other religions? Why are do some persons seem inherently more disposed to hold strong religious convictions that others?
Here are some links to sites that I have found useful:
http://www.as.ua.edu/rel/studyingreligion.html
http://religjournal.com/
http://dmoz.org/Science/Social_Sciences/Ps.../Neurotheology/
Hello, Science-Religion Inquirers-Thinkers, Everybody, Mind, and Spirit!
DiscipulusIgnorantus: Your referenced links are excellent! However, if you need all your questions above and more answered, please get a hold of my 2006 book Gods, Genes, Conscience; whose subtitle is self-explanatory: A socio-intellectual survey of our dynamic mind, life, all creations in between and beyond, on Earth; or A critical reader’s theory of everything: past, present, future; in continuum, ad infinitum, in case you might be interested in scrutinizing it, at your convenience, of course--whereas it took me about 15 years (1990-2005) to research, update, and publish it online (print-on-demand paperback)!
Otherwise, many of your questions might have had been discussed here, Let's begin the Dialogue and Reconciliation of Science and Religion Now!, a thread within this dynamic Creation/Evolution forum, that I started in May. Please feel free to comment on any relevant issues therein and/or herein, at your convenience.
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening!
Best wishes, Mong 11/10/6usct12:14a; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
DiscipulusIgnorantus: Your referenced links are excellent! However, if you need all your questions above and more answered, please get a hold of my 2006 book Gods, Genes, Conscience; whose subtitle is self-explanatory: A socio-intellectual survey of our dynamic mind, life, all creations in between and beyond, on Earth; or A critical reader’s theory of everything: past, present, future; in continuum, ad infinitum, in case you might be interested in scrutinizing it, at your convenience, of course--whereas it took me about 15 years (1990-2005) to research, update, and publish it online (print-on-demand paperback)!
Otherwise, many of your questions might have had been discussed here, Let's begin the Dialogue and Reconciliation of Science and Religion Now!, a thread within this dynamic Creation/Evolution forum, that I started in May. Please feel free to comment on any relevant issues therein and/or herein, at your convenience.
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening!
Best wishes, Mong 11/10/6usct12:14a; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
congratulations mr.Mong and mr.neil boyd
is much interesting the fact of creation or evolution are some originated:creation
evolutionist,or some thing as anthropic principle.
i think as occured the evolution of the cancer cells,that get live in a host,and get
destroy all the regulator genes,and ours circadian clocks( breaking the its connexions,as well as silenciating gens reverting the transcriptions of the rna that
create proteins and enzims derived of changes of places of acid-nucleic,rearranging the dna,and symmetry breaking in the aminoacids,that does
increase the entropy(disorders of the proteins and enzims,that increase the
increase the funcionament of the genes that regulate the division,the differentiation
growth of the cells,as the case of the telomeros that regulate division,and the numbers of division that a cell can suffer-then the telomerase enzims appear when
occur the appearing cancerous cells in the head.
then the evolution,is a word used to explain as desordened system pass to
systems more ordened,as selectin rules tthat if branching,seeking the ways
more inteligible,and that can process systems more complexes with ordinal and cardinal classes,and that its parameters can be symmetric in the evolution of time
and space,through of non-linear partial differential equations with derivatives of time until second-order.then these parameters only can be variables through of a
uniform conjunts,of variations obedecing and ordened and symmetric mathematics rules( as the golden ratio of sequence of fibonacci) that non-linear
sequences and fractal structures that pattern to cellular adherence,motion between thw cells,growth,molecular structure,etc
i think that the dna also occult hidden symmetries and variables that permit rearrange of the molecules,that permit freedom degrees,to that it can permit
the cells if modify without to be sillenciating the genes of cancer cells,bacters
virus,etc.then it is evolution.
is much interesting the fact of creation or evolution are some originated:creation
evolutionist,or some thing as anthropic principle.
i think as occured the evolution of the cancer cells,that get live in a host,and get
destroy all the regulator genes,and ours circadian clocks( breaking the its connexions,as well as silenciating gens reverting the transcriptions of the rna that
create proteins and enzims derived of changes of places of acid-nucleic,rearranging the dna,and symmetry breaking in the aminoacids,that does
increase the entropy(disorders of the proteins and enzims,that increase the
increase the funcionament of the genes that regulate the division,the differentiation
growth of the cells,as the case of the telomeros that regulate division,and the numbers of division that a cell can suffer-then the telomerase enzims appear when
occur the appearing cancerous cells in the head.
then the evolution,is a word used to explain as desordened system pass to
systems more ordened,as selectin rules tthat if branching,seeking the ways
more inteligible,and that can process systems more complexes with ordinal and cardinal classes,and that its parameters can be symmetric in the evolution of time
and space,through of non-linear partial differential equations with derivatives of time until second-order.then these parameters only can be variables through of a
uniform conjunts,of variations obedecing and ordened and symmetric mathematics rules( as the golden ratio of sequence of fibonacci) that non-linear
sequences and fractal structures that pattern to cellular adherence,motion between thw cells,growth,molecular structure,etc
i think that the dna also occult hidden symmetries and variables that permit rearrange of the molecules,that permit freedom degrees,to that it can permit
the cells if modify without to be sillenciating the genes of cancer cells,bacters
virus,etc.then it is evolution.
the religion are generated due the weakness of the sciences to explain our relation with the universe,and of reality of our existence as "eu" in the universe.
then the universe can be illusion of our mind,ou as causality,connexion of cause and effect are due at ours perception as the time and the space are interne creations,that does have also a psichologic times.
then the universe can be illusion of our mind,ou as causality,connexion of cause and effect are due at ours perception as the time and the space are interne creations,that does have also a psichologic times.
I am with Dr. Dawkins, if science cannot explain something ,why would any rational person think theology could.To invoke God is to"hide our ignorance behind a theological fig leaf."
QUOTE
If Heaven is spending eternity with a nutbag like you, the finality of death has an attractive ring to it. Newguy, which cult do you belong to? Come on, be open, honest and forthright, tell us your complete affiliations of cultism.
Physfan
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
If Heaven is spending eternity with a nutbag like you, the finality of death has an attractive ring to it. Newguy, which cult do you belong to? Come on, be open, honest and forthright, tell us your complete affiliations of cultism. Physfan Every single atheist I know, bar none, ONLY see theism as belief in the God of Organized Religion. I have tried mightily to introduce other lines of consideration for a possible God, but it falls on deaf ears every time, with the exception of vkamath here, who seems to have no problem assimilating (I'm not saying believing, just merely assimilating) the idea of a non-mainstream God. Of all the atheists I know, this is the most curious enigma to me, that they simply cannot behold in their minds the idea of a non-religious God. It's either Mr. Hellfire/Damnation Worship Me correctly or Else! - or it's no God at all. Jehovah is the automatic default, with no alternative allowed. Very very curious. Every atheist I know. And if I can't get past that, I can't discuss, because I share with atheists their disbelief in a God of populist culture. |
<----------This is Showtopic= 9466
----------->Showtopic= 9643
QUOTE (Newguy 2006October10+)
vkamath: Let me start by asking that you separate my following statements from anything that PhilP has already stated. Although PhilP and I would probably agree on a few things, if he is a standard Jehovah's Witness, then it is safe to assume that we have some MAJOR differences where Jesus Christ and Biblical Christianity are concerned. Anyway, on to the point of my post:
--------------->Showtopic= 26390
I NEED MORE INFO if you please...(on this glorious Sabbath)
QUOTE
It makes his transgressors the losers, by their realization that it would have been better if they had never existed than this eternal useless agony, yet God allows this ever-deadly punishment to continue forever, in comparison to the speck of time that damned them;
It makes a mockery of altruism: be good or you will be punished, when true virtue should be disinterested, attempted without thought of reward - or punishment for it's lack;
It tarnishes the sterling reputation of what a loving creator should be and would do. The first Commandment is broken repeatedly by his followers, who don't know they have already put their own graven image before the very one they pray to.
In the name of logic and reason, this God cannot exist.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel @ Aug 13 2009, 05:36 PM)
Although you insist on labeling ideas "stupid," you raise a valid issue of afterlife-belief versus reincarnation. In my study of Christianity, I have found that the teachings are not in conflict with reincarnation beliefs.
Then your 'studies' are ridiculously worthless.
QUOTE
"Heaven" and "Hell" need not be interpreted as states of afterlife.
The fact that you even speak of heaven and hell lets me know just how incomplete your knowledge of Christianity is. The afterlife options according to Jesus aren't heaven and hell, but life and death.
This post has been edited by MjolnirPants on Aug 14 2009, 12:01 AM
Showtopic= 26430 &view=findpost&p=425339
It makes a mockery of altruism: be good or you will be punished, when true virtue should be disinterested, attempted without thought of reward - or punishment for it's lack;
It tarnishes the sterling reputation of what a loving creator should be and would do. The first Commandment is broken repeatedly by his followers, who don't know they have already put their own graven image before the very one they pray to.
In the name of logic and reason, this God cannot exist.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It makes his transgressors the losers, by their realization that it would have been better if they had never existed than this eternal useless agony, yet God allows this ever-deadly punishment to continue forever, in comparison to the speck of time that damned them; It makes a mockery of altruism: be good or you will be punished, when true virtue should be disinterested, attempted without thought of reward - or punishment for it's lack; It tarnishes the sterling reputation of what a loving creator should be and would do. The first Commandment is broken repeatedly by his followers, who don't know they have already put their own graven image before the very one they pray to. In the name of logic and reason, this God cannot exist. soundhertz: I'm more than aware of your disdain for "hell"...there's no need for you to remind me. What I would ask you for, and it wouldn't be the first time... |
QUOTE (light in the tunnel @ Aug 13 2009, 05:36 PM)
Although you insist on labeling ideas "stupid," you raise a valid issue of afterlife-belief versus reincarnation. In my study of Christianity, I have found that the teachings are not in conflict with reincarnation beliefs.
Then your 'studies' are ridiculously worthless.
QUOTE
"Heaven" and "Hell" need not be interpreted as states of afterlife.
The fact that you even speak of heaven and hell lets me know just how incomplete your knowledge of Christianity is. The afterlife options according to Jesus aren't heaven and hell, but life and death.
This post has been edited by MjolnirPants on Aug 14 2009, 12:01 AM
Showtopic= 26430 &view=findpost&p=425339
QUOTE (goodboy+Sep 30 2006, 03:29 AM)
hi everyone,
Is there any connection between science & religion???
this question bewildered me for a long time, because i believe that the true religion should have some strong scientific evidence to prove it, after a lot of research i found the answer for this question. if you are interested check these websites:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sci...scientists.html
http://www.islam-for-everyone.com/come_to_...ibliography.htm
http://www.nooran.org/en/index.htm
Exactly, Truth exists. His-story (scary) Some say He's the evidence that demands our belief
Is there any connection between science & religion???
this question bewildered me for a long time, because i believe that the true religion should have some strong scientific evidence to prove it, after a lot of research i found the answer for this question. if you are interested check these websites:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sci...scientists.html
http://www.islam-for-everyone.com/come_to_...ibliography.htm
http://www.nooran.org/en/index.htm
Exactly, Truth exists. His-story (scary) Some say He's the evidence that demands our belief
found this...
User posted image: User posted image
User posted image: User posted image
QUOTE (Michael J+Aug 25 2009, 08:37 PM)
found this...
It is a pity they don't actually come with those warning stickers.
It is a pity they don't actually come with those warning stickers.
QUOTE (TheDoc+Aug 25 2009, 11:41 PM)
It is a pity they don't actually come with those warning stickers.
It might be wise to print these out and carry them around with you. You never know when you might need one.
It might be wise to print these out and carry them around with you. You never know when you might need one.
someone needs to do a run of these stickers. They'd be popular 
QUOTE (goodboy+Sep 30 2006, 03:29 AM)
hi everyone,
Is there any connection between science & religion???
this question bewildered me for a long time, because i believe that the true religion should have some strong scientific evidence to prove it, after a lot of research i found the answer for this question. if you are interested check these websites:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sci...scientists.html
http://www.islam-for-everyone.com/come_to_...ibliography.htm
http://www.nooran.org/en/index.htm
The first link doesn't say what the Koran says, it only has people saying it must have been divinely inspired. It's pure appeal to authority.
The second link no longer works.
The third link has weak stuff like STD's don't get spread by populations that don't have extramarital sex. (worded very different but that's the idea)
It calls don't eat "the flesh of swine (pork, etc.) for that surely is filth" scientific proof.
Is there any connection between science & religion???
this question bewildered me for a long time, because i believe that the true religion should have some strong scientific evidence to prove it, after a lot of research i found the answer for this question. if you are interested check these websites:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sci...scientists.html
http://www.islam-for-everyone.com/come_to_...ibliography.htm
http://www.nooran.org/en/index.htm
The first link doesn't say what the Koran says, it only has people saying it must have been divinely inspired. It's pure appeal to authority.
The second link no longer works.
The third link has weak stuff like STD's don't get spread by populations that don't have extramarital sex. (worded very different but that's the idea)
It calls don't eat "the flesh of swine (pork, etc.) for that surely is filth" scientific proof.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 26 2009, 11:27 AM)
It calls don't eat "the flesh of swine (pork, etc.) for that surely is filth" scientific proof.
Of course it's not scientific or proof. Here's what the Bible says, even though that's not scientific either:
Deuteronomy 14
4 These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the
goat,
5 the deer, the gazelle, the roe deer, the wild goat, the ibex,
the antelope and the mountain sheep.
6 You may eat any animal that has a split hoof divided in two and
that chews the cud.
7 However, of those that chew the cud or that have a split hoof
completely divided you may not eat the camel, the rabbit or the
coney. Although they chew the cud, they do not have a split
hoof; they are ceremonially unclean for you.
8 The pig is also unclean; although it has a split hoof, it does not
chew the cud. You are not to eat their meat or touch their
carcasses.
9 Of all the creatures living in the water, you may eat any that has
fins and scales.
10 But anything that does not have fins and scales you may not eat;
for you it is unclean.
11 You may eat any clean bird.
12 But these you may not eat: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture,
13 the red kite, the black kite, any kind of falcon,
14 any kind of raven,
15 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk,
16 the little owl, the great owl, the white owl,
17 the desert owl, the osprey, the cormorant,
18 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.
19 All flying insects that swarm are unclean to you; do not eat them.
20 But any winged creature that is clean you may eat.
21 Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to an
alien living in any of your towns, and he may eat it, or you may
sell it to a foreigner. But you are a people holy to the LORD your
God. Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk.
[Moderator: Suspended 15 days for copyright infringement, lack of discussion of the copied text, pure cut-and-paste without even the shallowest attempt to format it correctly for this forum, and lack of proper attribution to copyright holder. You set a poor model for our incoming freshmen class to emulate and will likely never write a worthy essay on a scientific topic.]
Of course it's not scientific or proof. Here's what the Bible says, even though that's not scientific either:
Deuteronomy 14
4 These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the
goat,
5 the deer, the gazelle, the roe deer, the wild goat, the ibex,
the antelope and the mountain sheep.
6 You may eat any animal that has a split hoof divided in two and
that chews the cud.
7 However, of those that chew the cud or that have a split hoof
completely divided you may not eat the camel, the rabbit or the
coney. Although they chew the cud, they do not have a split
hoof; they are ceremonially unclean for you.
8 The pig is also unclean; although it has a split hoof, it does not
chew the cud. You are not to eat their meat or touch their
carcasses.
9 Of all the creatures living in the water, you may eat any that has
fins and scales.
10 But anything that does not have fins and scales you may not eat;
for you it is unclean.
11 You may eat any clean bird.
12 But these you may not eat: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture,
13 the red kite, the black kite, any kind of falcon,
14 any kind of raven,
15 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk,
16 the little owl, the great owl, the white owl,
17 the desert owl, the osprey, the cormorant,
18 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.
19 All flying insects that swarm are unclean to you; do not eat them.
20 But any winged creature that is clean you may eat.
21 Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to an
alien living in any of your towns, and he may eat it, or you may
sell it to a foreigner. But you are a people holy to the LORD your
God. Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk.
[Moderator: Suspended 15 days for copyright infringement, lack of discussion of the copied text, pure cut-and-paste without even the shallowest attempt to format it correctly for this forum, and lack of proper attribution to copyright holder. You set a poor model for our incoming freshmen class to emulate and will likely never write a worthy essay on a scientific topic.]
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.