timberlandko wrote:I do it for much the same reason I cheer on a bob-tailed dog chasing its tail stump; its fun to watch 'em get all excited about something that just ain't gonna get 'em anything but excited, no matter how frantically they spin around. They're convinced if they just try hard enough, they'll get ahold of that thing that really ain't there - why not enjoy their futile - but entertaining - efforts?
OK better than reruns of Cheers. I am generally not well read enough in the popular religions to make a direct counter, without reading first. I was thinking of getting Asimov's Guide to the Bible : The Old and New Testaments (2Vols. in One). Comments?
Is there a nifty all-in-one-cheap-and-nasty handbook that betters Asimov's and exposes common problems with the popular religions, or perhaps you have a fave website that does the same?
"Nothing lasts forever." I think just about everyone would agree with that. Whether it's a mountain, a mole-hill, a distant star or the Twinky that's been lodged in the back-seat of your dad's Buick since 1967, all things eventually fade and are no more. As impermanent beings ourselves, we know and ungracefully accept this fact. One day, the end will come for our friends, our family, our neighbors, our IRS auditors, and even for ourselves. Yes, even the world, itself will one day stop spinning on its familiar axis and its property value on the open market will plummet.
The question is, "When?"
That's a toughie for a lot of people. According to science, our planet has a good five billion years before the warrantee on our sun runs out. At which point, it will expand to a Red Giant, engulfing Earth and the other inner planets and become far more cost-effective to replace than repair. Especially when one considers that the entire Universe only has a scant ohh, fifteen, sixteen trillion years to expand beyond all conceivable reason before it runs out of steam and starts collapsing back in on itself. Much like the current US economy.
Science also has shown us that the formation of the Universe was a messy business that left quite a bit of litter behind in the form of giant ice balls and big, nasty rocks. Many of which have the unfortunate habit of crashing into our planet uninvited and at highly inconvenient times. A fact the dinosaurs know about only too well...or would have, if there were any still alive...and had brains larger than a throat lozenge ...which they're not and they didn't...so, forget I even brought it up. Anyway, the point is, however long our planet has, we as a species might get dusted as early as tomorrow afternoon, somewhere around tea time, should a large enough chunk of space litter choose that moment to come barging rudely into our atmosphere.
On the other hand, there's God's Wrath. In the theory favored by those whose idea of the Universe is a small, cramped space consisting primarily of ghosties and ghoulies and long-leggedy beasties and things that go bump in the night, the world ought to be coming to a screeching halt any day now. So imminent is the End, in fact, that you may not even get to finish reading this sentence before being either whisked away to glamorous Paradise or plunged into Eternal Damnation. Assuming you're still with me, let me make clear that the supporters of this concept are all absolutely sure that Armageddon is at hand and that we are living in the very Last Days. The signs are all there, they say, the omens and portents are in place, the numbers are right and all the USDA prime grade prophecies are coming true. No doubt about it, the End is seriously nigh. So, ha-ha to everyone who just had their car washed.
The trouble with this theory is that it's been espoused many, many, many times before. Near-countless times before. Over thousands of years. By millions of people. Ad nauseum. And yet, to state the thuddingly obvious, they've all been wrong. However widespread the belief, however devout the believer, however precise the calculations, however unshakable the certainty, the promise of Doomsday's arrival has remained stubbornly unfulfilled. And yet, here we are in the dim, dun dawn of the 21st century, going at it again like post-modernist Chicken Littles. And if anything, cock-a-doofus-dooming with greater gusto than ever before.
The why, the what, the where, the when, the who and the how is what this site is all about. This peculiar obsession humans have for watching the clock when we should be enjoying the party has been going on for millennia. And despite an utterly abysmal historical record of failure upon failure and reality's willful refusal to call time-out, it's one that never seems to lose its dubious charm or go mercifully away.
baz, its considered good form hereabouts to properly attribute stuff
found on the web
Bombing for Allah.
<while I still have the right to self-expression.>
Raul-7,
Fantastic. You can quote. Thank you for showing us that you at least have an IQ equivalent to that of a parrot.
"You should not question us, for we are the followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Our views are correct and yours are wrong. Questioning our views is an insult to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Whom created all life and even wrote your religious text as a joke."
Tofurky Jurky
Peppered, Naturally smoked, No MSG or Nitrates. A delicious low-fat snack.
Raul-7
Can you tell me what the word allegory means? Do you know why allegories were developed throughout human history? Much of what you quote from your holy book bears a great deal of similarity to the allegories of other religions.
If all you can do is quote scripture, you really show as much versatility and intelligence as a conversant machine (that's a type of computer). I suppose, however, you are so deeply programmed that you cannot capture, sustain, and understand any insights you are offered from other members on the forum.
It would be nice if you could tell me something rather than try to teach me something. Show me what you understand about your religion, not what you know about it.
You could quote scripture and verse of your holy book all day long, but if you want to reach other people with your message of love and enlightenment, show me you can read and understand the book of another person's life. Isn't this where religion begins and ends?
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:"You should not question us, for we are the followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Our views are correct and yours are wrong. Questioning our views is an insult to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Whom created all life and even wrote your religious text as a joke."
NO, NO, NO. Can you hear me screaming at the top of my lungs? It is not the cursed Spaghetti Monster, it is the Linguine Lush. You will go to hell.
Can I laugh at myself? Do I have a sense of humor or am I in a constant state of hubris? Why do I have 6 toes on one foot and 4 on the other? Who is Kate Williams? What are those people like who paint lines on the road?
Well yeah, and who was the first person to think "um raw oyster, I wonder if it's good to eat?"
Oh dys. You've done it again. You have managed to reduce the intensity of our fervent philosophy to a "one liner".
Lovin' it.
Raul-7 wrote:timberlandko wrote:I do it for much the same reason I cheer on a bob-tailed dog chasing its tail stump; its fun to watch 'em get all excited about something that just ain't gonna get 'em anything but excited, no matter how frantically they spin around. They're convinced if they just try hard enough, they'll get ahold of that thing that really ain't there - why not enjoy their futile - but entertaining - efforts?
If you question them about their manners, they say, "We were only arguing for the sake of amusement." Ask them, "Were you mocking God, His revelations, and His Messenger?" (Quran 9:65).
They have forgotten all about God who also has ignored them. The hypocrites indeed are evil-doers. (Quran 9:67)
For the hypocrites and the unbelievers, God has prepared hell wherein they will live forever. Hell is their proper punishment. God has condemned them and they will suffer a permanent torment like that of those who lived before you, whose power, wealth, and children were much greater than yours. (Quran 9:68)
The very fact that your religion preaches eternal torment is reason for it to be be classified with the rest of Babylon the great. (See Revelation: ch 17, 18)
No, bring me the verse for the Gospel, not some man-made version of the Bible.
Raul,
[url=http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1848179#1848179][u][i][b]Back here, I[/b][/i][/u][/url] wrote:
The article proves nothing but that its author is a religionist, and writes with a religionist bias and a disregard for fact or proper forensic practice. I submit that not only is the article indeed biased, but also that it amounts to proselytizing, per the focus of the website on which it appears. Interestingly, the article neglects to mention Flew, the "Reformed Athiest" at the center of its proposition, in no way endorsed, and in fact rejected, the tenets of the Abrahamic mythopaeia, Flew stating "I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam ... ", and emphatically disavowing any belief in an afterlife.
The article goes on to misconstrue several statements made by scientists, implying, for instance, that Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, endorses ID-iocy:
Quote:Francis Crick, for instance, one of the scientists who revealed the helix shape of DNA admitted in the face of the findings regarding DNA that the origin of life indicated a miracle:
An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.
. Taken out of context, and construed to fit the article's premise, the Crick quote never the less does not indicate Crick's endorsement of any religionist tenet.
In fact, the following is an accurate representation of Crick's view on the issue:
Quote: ... Speaking to The Telegraph, Crick, 86, said: "The god hypothesis is rather discredited." Indeed, he says his distaste for religion was one of his prime motives in the work that led to the sensational 1953 discovery.
"I went into science because of these religious reasons, there's no doubt about that. I asked myself what were the two things that appear inexplicable and are used to support religious beliefs: the difference between living and nonliving things, and the phenomenon of consciousness."
Crick argues that since many of the actual claims made by specific religions over 2,000 years have proved false, the burden of proof should be on the claims they make today, rather than on atheists to disprove the existence of God.
Source
The article is biased, it is unscientific, it is dishonest, and it is typical of its genre. Poppycock is poppycock, whether Judaic, Islamist or Christian. That is not to say there may not be validity to any such proposition, but merely to point out the poppycock so far in these discussions employed to prop up any religionist proposition is what it is; poppycock.
While religionists frequently cite one or another fringie who falls in with their particular fairytale, or twist the words of reputable scientists and academicians to offer the appearance of support for their absurd proposition, the fact of the matter is the overwhelming majority of the scientific and academic communities unambiguously reject any semblence or itteration of any sort of supernatural causality.
Now, once again, demonstrate objectively that faith be differentiable from superstition.
You neither have acknowledged the refutation of your assertion concerning the article you cited as "Proof" of your proposition, nor have you met the challenge posed. Now, once again, demonstrate objectively that faith (yours or anyone else's) be differentiable from superstition.
Raul-7 wrote:No, bring me the verse for the Gospel, not some man-made version of the Bible.
Jesus, in John 11:11, said in relation to Lazarus:"He said these things, and after this he said to them: "Laz´a·rus our friend has gone to rest, but I am journeying there to awaken him from sleep."
In saying so, he agreed with Solomon who said in Ecclesiastes 9: 5,6. "For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten. 6 Also, their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished, and they have no portion anymore to time indefinite in anything that has to be done under the sun."
If the dead are not conscious, how will they suffer?
Even a cursory inspection of the first 2 chapters of Genesis will reveal that the punishment for sin was to be death. No more, no less.
Those religions preaching the pagan concept of hell are like the blind leading the blind.
