What good does religion offer the world today?

The idea by the ancients was that men were all parts and pieces of their fathers and their fathers. Sort of like Frankenstein, comprised of different parts from different dead people... The walking dead, zombies.

But we were not just dead physically but we were dead spiritually because of the compounded sins over the many generations.

The ancients had nothing much to do back then but observe the mating rituals of animals and from this they deduced their ideas.

They noticed how an egg laid by a female hen never ever grew into a living creature.

From this alone they concluded that it was that man that transferred the soul to this egg.

They did not consider that both the egg and sperm transferred living information to the offspring.

In fact an egg has a much more robust life force than a sperm.

An egg can lie fertile for a much longer period than the life of a sperm.

But in their male arrogance they considered the egg just an (pardon the pun) empty shell just waiting for the male to give it life.

They did not consider that it was the union of both that created a new and sinless (innocent) life. Sure traits are passed on but a trait versus acting out in bad behavior are two different things.

Many people without bad family history can become criminally minded.

Because it is the joining of both male and female traits that emphasize negative traits not the compounding of traits from fathers over generations.

In fact females also pass on DNA information from their fathers to their offspring too.

So you can stock this up as another errant idea that was fostered in the Bible that turned out to be totally wrong.

Jesus would have also have inherited DNA information from Mary's fathers too.

This led to the idea that only male genealogies mattered and females contributed nothing but a body to an offspring and no soul or spiritual parts.

Females are just as "spiritual" as men if not more so... In the male arrogance of the biblical writers we have inherited error compounded by error.

Not a stitch of it is true and science has proven it wrong for the most part leaving the other parts suspicious and highly improbable.

Both males and females contribute "life" and physicals traits to an offspring not just the males.

Females contribute the living and very robust mitochondria and the males contribute the highly mutated and unstable male DNA.

It is widely known by geneticists that female mitochondria will far outlast the male Y chromosome which is mutating at a rapid pace.

Since (other than Dan Brown's claims) Jesus left no physical offspring the only offspring we can obtain from this begotten child would be a spiritual transference of codes and traits. A spiritual birth.

One wonders if a spiritual birth and all this religious hogwash is really needed to simply be a good and empathetic person.

And the bribery of eternal life is a gimmick truly passed on from the generations promising something that is merely an "empty shell" of dogma preying on the fears inherent in a temporal and finite lifespan.

The "gift" of eternal life, all you've got to do is make a preacher rich to obtain it. (cynical)

It causes someone to take their eye off the value of their own short and brief existence trading it for a promise that is as fragile as an empty shell.

The egg is not empty, it is full of life but the doctrine created by this errant allegory creates an empty promise that leads to a vacant and delusional religious existance.

Religion is a commercial enterprise that’s based on a perfect marketing tool: Eternal life.

In that it is exactly the same for the USA, cicerone. A bunch of sheeple are needed to provide cover for the worst war criminals/terrorists the world has ever had the displeasure of encountering.

That sign is a lie, Cobbler. There were no Muslim hijackers.

Science flies you to the moon, the government of GW Bush flew some types of aircraft into WTC towers.

I really, really can't understand how people can be so incredibly naive, stupid, obtuse, blind, dumber than a sack of hoe handles.

Muslim hijackers COULD NOT HAVE MELTED OR VAPORIZED WTC structural steel. There was melted/vaporized WTC structural steel, lots of it!

The ERGO so many are missing, avoiding, afraid to admit is that there were NO MUSLIM HIJACKERS.

Look in the mirror. You'll find a perfect example.

That was patently dishonest, cicerone, what you have done. That is a reflection of how folks like you deny reality, with a vengeance.

It is a reflection of folks who won't face up to the facts - there are absolute impossibilities in the US government official story, not one or two, but many and still there are these incredibly dishonest or just willfully stupid people who will not accept hard science, science even the idiots among the truth deniers know.

I hand the mirror back to you, cicerone, and ask you the following question:

How did the US government/US military 1990s discovered and developed nanothermite, an incredibly powerful new kind of super explosive that no one in the world has access to except the US government/US military, get into the WTC twin towers and WTC 7, cicerone imposter?

"Trump Care" is an oxymoron... Trump doesn't care about anyone but himself.

The sign says the truth...

Religion produces terrorists and science produces progress and innovation.

"Melted" Steel
Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

Comment:
Science, you should try it sometime...

You are the one claiming the steel was "melted"... Straw man...

There was no melted steel... just bent steel, demolition would have melted the steel. Your own argument proves you wrong.

That's incredibly simplistic and wrong. Blanket statements usually are wrong, the world is too complicated and nuanced for monochrome thinking.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski

Religion didn't give us nuclear weapons, that was scientists. The terrorists who flew the planes into the twin towers were motivated by American hegemony in the ME as much by religion. Probably more so.

At the risk of sounding like a Rush fan, Ditto.

The need to 'scapegoat' must be pretty strong. Yes, 9/11 was done by some misguided religious zealots and funded by another. We would be stupid not to look at what actually motivated them though. Their religion made them willing to die but the motivation for their acts was something else.

As for the 'W' conspiracy theory, I can't believe anyone could think that a plot that complicated and requiring so many people could be kept secret. Our government is far too incompetent and 'leaky' to pull something like that off.
Theories like that distract us from the actual motivations of the perpetrators and those who back them. To portray them as "A small group of Thugs" as one Pentagon military officer called them shows me the depth of stupidity at work there. Thugs do not sacrifice their own lives.

That sort of a question is impossible to answer, as religion has a different meaning to different cultures and even individual people within the same faith.

I find the modern ideas in regards to religion, where some claim that it is outdated, and either just a breeding ground of dangerous ideology or a way for gullible fools to be skimmed out of their life savings for the benefit of their 'religious leader', to be somewhat shortsighted.

There are many, many people who take great comfort and hope from their religion. And kudos to them, if they do. Let them, please.

Furthermore, it's my belief that without religion, in fact, that without all the religious upheaval Europe went through in the early 1500's, society as we know it today wouldn't exist. And many of the great minds that came after, were firmly entrenched in their own religious beliefs. Even Isaac Newton, whose views on Christianity were certainly 'different' then mainstream England back in the day(which was of course mostly Anglican back then), never really took the existence of God in doubt.

And lets not forget that several of the major holidays (Christmas, Easter, Pentecost) in Western society have their roots in Christianity: would we have alternatives for them without religion? And even if we did, what would the idea behind the holiday be? ('Holiday to commemorate the invention of the A-bomb'? 'Holiday to celebrate scientific progress'?)

Newton wrote more books on magic than any other subject.

You keep on lying about this without having any evidence, izzy. Why do you lie like this? There were no Arab hijackers. There isn't any evidence to show there was.

UA175, the plane that the official story says hit the south tower, had the wrong kind of engine, an engine that had NEVER been installed in 767-200 series planes. Which UA175 was, a 767-200 series plane.

It flew thru the south tower and landed on Murray Street, oooooooppppps, that wasn't supposed to happen. That engine was one installed on 747s.

Wrong engine equals it wasn't UA175 which equals there were no Arab hijackers.

Lord almighty, there are gullible people around, aren't there, izzy?

Who was the guy who said, "Blanket statements usually are wrong, the world is too complicated and nuanced for monochrome thinking"?

I'm not quite sure what you mean to infer with this statement? Yes, the man had peculiar ideas, but I'm not talking about that aspect of his personality.

I wasn't trying to infer anything. I just thought it's interesting that one of the most celebrated scientists in history was more concerned with things like alchemy than 'natural law.'

A renowned "thinker" like you ought not to be pointing fingers, izzy.

Sir Issac Newton says the free fall of WTC 7 means the 9/11 US operation was a false flag operation.

Free fall can only occur with a controlled demolition, izzy. Didn't you say you were a teacher?

I was under the impression that these were Jewish and Pagan in origin, Christians merely celebrated them, along with the unbelievers.

Maybe tis I that is wrong

Yep, he kind of blew it there..

Once again Izzy, you are wrong...

Science gave us an understanding of nuclear forces and a religious crusading country, religious presidents and the overtly religious military complex gave us nuclear weapons. The religious Japanese imperialism gave us the necessity to use them to prove our own religious fortitude.

Would you say the war in the Middle East is secular? I rest my case.

You never cease to astound me at your lack of ability to reason even the simplest of concepts.

"Most religious people in both Japan and the US during world war II were pro war..." Look it up if you don't believe me. I did.

That is where your "nuclear bombs" were paid for and developed from.

A science meant to feed and supply the world with energy was used by religious people to annihilate and cause mass destruction.

Just as the Christian right today uses dirty polluting gas, oil and coal to profit from in the name of their God.

Science has been warning these filthy rich religious zealots for years that this is not the way to go but you cannot argue with the revelations of their clergy...

You really should think before you go arguing with me unless you really prefer that egg on your face...