That is a beautiful story Hasnain, but there is one major glaring problem with it.
If anything like that did happen to the moon, it doesn't necessarily mean that allah automatically did it. The people at the time didn't have a clear understanding of how the cosmos really worked. Anything the would see in the sky would be a message from god if they didn't have a rational explanation for it.
It is entirely possible that if the moon had split in any kind of way, a celestial object may have smashed into, creating the scar. It is also, possible however, the it could have been a partial eclipse, and the prophet may have either been
a ) tipped off by an astrologer (they weren't called astronomers then)
B ) already had a knowledge of astrology himself.
Partial moon eclipses are very easy to predict, so it is entirely possible that the prophet knew about the eclipse before hand and told the people that he could get allah to split the moon.
The belt of rock that they possibly found on the moon may have either been from its inception as our moon when the solar system was in formation, or from a collision with a celestial body (such as an asteroid or comet).
To not question this in the proper way is foolhardy. To automatically attribute it to a god is even more foolhardy. Just because we don't know, doesn't automatically mean that god did it.
So, a scientifically proven miracle? Theres still no evidence that attests to this.
Thing is, I am asking people here for DIRECT evidence of god. Not any of his miracles or from what other people have written about him. We want DIRECT proof of gods existence.
Now, as for your machine analogy being the universe. Again, you have it wrong. If you re-read my statement, you will find that while we cannot prove that the cosmos wasn't created by god. Nobody can actually prove that it has been! Because again..... there is NO EVIDENCE! The universe is not a machine put here for the amusement of man by god. The universe is so vast that not one human in the thousands of years to come will ever go to the other end. To just glibly say that god created it, and not actually KNOW he did is rather surprising for someone as intelligent as you. You should be questioning this, just as I question everything that I know and believe in. Just because we don't 100% KNOW how the universe came to be, doesn't mean that we won't within a few years.
But you have to admit, it is extraordinarily ignorant to assume that you know 100% how it came to be, without any shred of evidence to back this "knowledge"... sorry mate, it's not knowledge, it's just a belief.
If it were up to religion, people would not critically think about ANYTHING. If something amazing happens in the night sky, we would be expected to attribute it to god. We wouldn't have gotten to where we are today with technology. This is all because we have separated fact from fairy tale. Science reports on the universe as it finds it. It doesn't make up fanciful tales about supernatural beings and miracles. It reports to the human race, the FACTS.
Now, if it weren't for the facts Hasnain, you wouldn't be chatting on this forum, you wouldn't even be sitting there in front of your computer screen. Its funny how people of religion can so freely accept the high-tech commodities and luxuries in life, but are so vehement about science that doesn't immediately benefit them for the better. Astronomy, cosmology, physics, chemistry and biology have given you this high-technology that you so gladly play with. It is also all the same sciences that many religiosos stamp their foot at and demonise when it threatens their core beliefs, when it threatens their very faith in god itself.
And yet religion still blindly squirms its way in our world.
Full Version: The God Who Wasn't There
well sorry i didnt quote my source i admit ive taken it out from some site nd i forgot to put the source (i thought i did but swaarry).
but its weird. there is a book. which tells u everything from the solar systems, the sun, how the unverse was created, to the way the planet orbit around the sun. all 1400 years ago and still people deny the fact that it is not written by god. take the theory of probability. source http://www.islamicmedicine.org/
n mathematics there is a theory known as ‘Theory of Probability’. If you have two options, out of which one is right, and one is wrong, the chances that you will chose the right one is half, i.e. one out of the two will be correct. You have 50% chances of being correct. Similarly if you toss a coin the chances that your guess will be correct is 50% (1 out of 2) i.e. 1/2. If you toss a coin the second time, the chances that you will be correct in the second toss is again 50% i.e. half. But the chances that you will be correct in both the tosses is half multiplied by half (1/2 x 1/2) which is equal to 1/4 i.e. 50% of 50% which is equal to 25%. If you toss a coin the third time, chances that you will be correct all three times is (1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2) that is 1/8 or 50% of 50% of 50% that is 12½%.
A dice has got six sides. If you throw a dice and guess any number between 1 to 6, the chances that your guess will be correct is 1/6. If you throw the dice the second time, the chances that your guess will be correct in both the throws is (1/6 x 1/6) which is equal to 1/36. If you throw the dice the third time, the chances that all your three guesses are correct is (1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6) is equal to 1/216 that is less than 0.5 %.
Let us apply this theory of probability to the Qur’an, and assume that a person has guessed all the information that is mentioned in the Qur’an which was unknown at that time. Let us discuss the probability of all the guesses being simultaneously correct.
At the time when the Qur’an was revealed, people thought the world was flat, there are several other options for the shape of the earth. It could be triangular, it could be quadrangular, pentagonal, hexagonal, heptagonal, octagonal, spherical, etc. Lets assume there are about 30 different options for the shape of the earth. The Qur’an rightly says it is spherical, if it was a guess the chances of the guess being correct is 1/30.
The light of the moon can be its own light or a reflected light. The Qur’an rightly says it is a reflected light. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/2 and the probability that both the guesses i.e the earth is spherical and the light of the moon is reflected light is 1/30 x 1/2 = 1/60.
Further, the Qur’an also mentions every living thing is made of water. Every living thing can be made up of either wood, stone, copper, aluminum, steel, silver, gold, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, oil, water, cement, concrete, etc. The options are say about 10,000. The Qur’an rightly says that everything is made up of water. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/10,000 and the probability of all the three guesses i.e. the earth is spherical, light of moon is reflected light and everything is created from water being correct is 1/30 x 1/2 x 1/10,000 = 1/60,000 which is equal to about .0017%.
The Qur’an speaks about hundreds of things that were not known to men at the time of its revelation. Only in three options the result is .0017%. I leave it upto you, to work out the probability if all the hundreds of the unknown facts were guesses, the chances of all of them being correct guesses simultaneously and there being not a single wrong guess. It is beyond human capacity to make all correct guesses without a single mistake, which itself is sufficient to prove to a logical person that the origin of the Qur’an is Divine.
and u ask me that i sit infront of my laptop while religious. wht r u implying. cause im religious so i should not use a piece of technology. i use the internet not just for fun but also for my education creed. we people are told to gain knowledge (hence the quran).
hence ill be posting few more miracles so u can ignore. nd by the way it was a full moon, people all around the world 1400 years ago to the king to scholars and to normal people have witnessed it. as to the crack found, if your not a geologist you can follow one theory but on the other hand if the world top geologist examine the moon crack and says the moon was indeed split and than put together doesnt that ticks something. not to mention a handfull of the top scientist who follow science and work in nasa say so and still u decline the fact. very well moving on till i find the next miracle for u to turn down.
but its weird. there is a book. which tells u everything from the solar systems, the sun, how the unverse was created, to the way the planet orbit around the sun. all 1400 years ago and still people deny the fact that it is not written by god. take the theory of probability. source http://www.islamicmedicine.org/
n mathematics there is a theory known as ‘Theory of Probability’. If you have two options, out of which one is right, and one is wrong, the chances that you will chose the right one is half, i.e. one out of the two will be correct. You have 50% chances of being correct. Similarly if you toss a coin the chances that your guess will be correct is 50% (1 out of 2) i.e. 1/2. If you toss a coin the second time, the chances that you will be correct in the second toss is again 50% i.e. half. But the chances that you will be correct in both the tosses is half multiplied by half (1/2 x 1/2) which is equal to 1/4 i.e. 50% of 50% which is equal to 25%. If you toss a coin the third time, chances that you will be correct all three times is (1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2) that is 1/8 or 50% of 50% of 50% that is 12½%.
A dice has got six sides. If you throw a dice and guess any number between 1 to 6, the chances that your guess will be correct is 1/6. If you throw the dice the second time, the chances that your guess will be correct in both the throws is (1/6 x 1/6) which is equal to 1/36. If you throw the dice the third time, the chances that all your three guesses are correct is (1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6) is equal to 1/216 that is less than 0.5 %.
Let us apply this theory of probability to the Qur’an, and assume that a person has guessed all the information that is mentioned in the Qur’an which was unknown at that time. Let us discuss the probability of all the guesses being simultaneously correct.
At the time when the Qur’an was revealed, people thought the world was flat, there are several other options for the shape of the earth. It could be triangular, it could be quadrangular, pentagonal, hexagonal, heptagonal, octagonal, spherical, etc. Lets assume there are about 30 different options for the shape of the earth. The Qur’an rightly says it is spherical, if it was a guess the chances of the guess being correct is 1/30.
The light of the moon can be its own light or a reflected light. The Qur’an rightly says it is a reflected light. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/2 and the probability that both the guesses i.e the earth is spherical and the light of the moon is reflected light is 1/30 x 1/2 = 1/60.
Further, the Qur’an also mentions every living thing is made of water. Every living thing can be made up of either wood, stone, copper, aluminum, steel, silver, gold, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, oil, water, cement, concrete, etc. The options are say about 10,000. The Qur’an rightly says that everything is made up of water. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/10,000 and the probability of all the three guesses i.e. the earth is spherical, light of moon is reflected light and everything is created from water being correct is 1/30 x 1/2 x 1/10,000 = 1/60,000 which is equal to about .0017%.
The Qur’an speaks about hundreds of things that were not known to men at the time of its revelation. Only in three options the result is .0017%. I leave it upto you, to work out the probability if all the hundreds of the unknown facts were guesses, the chances of all of them being correct guesses simultaneously and there being not a single wrong guess. It is beyond human capacity to make all correct guesses without a single mistake, which itself is sufficient to prove to a logical person that the origin of the Qur’an is Divine.
and u ask me that i sit infront of my laptop while religious. wht r u implying. cause im religious so i should not use a piece of technology. i use the internet not just for fun but also for my education creed. we people are told to gain knowledge (hence the quran).
hence ill be posting few more miracles so u can ignore. nd by the way it was a full moon, people all around the world 1400 years ago to the king to scholars and to normal people have witnessed it. as to the crack found, if your not a geologist you can follow one theory but on the other hand if the world top geologist examine the moon crack and says the moon was indeed split and than put together doesnt that ticks something. not to mention a handfull of the top scientist who follow science and work in nasa say so and still u decline the fact. very well moving on till i find the next miracle for u to turn down.
The spherical earth theory was infact first mentioned over 1000 years before Mo jumped on the bandwagon,like most things Muslims claim was first mentioned in the Koran the Spherical Earth theory was just lifted from the great minds of years gone by.
Oh and did you really just claim that geologists at NASA teach that the moon was infact split in 2 and then put back together ?
Oh and did you really just claim that geologists at NASA teach that the moon was infact split in 2 and then put back together ?
"Asking the question "does God exist?" would be pointless. My answer would be "No, He doesn't," regardless of whether God truly exists or not. The question would be impossible to answer from an evidentiary standpoint simply because anything which God might have done (that is, any supernatural act which might serve as evidence for His existence) would have to be explained away in terms of natural causes, not because we know what those natural causes could possibly be, but simply because a supernatural God is not allowed to exist! "
Biology: nature
"Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." (Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986, p. 250.)"
Inteligent design
Concept and design necessitate an intelligent designer. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified (it's meaningful). We can't have a Shakespearean sonnet without Shakespeare. (William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities, 1998.)
The best at the end.
Physics: Physics can show that "Gravity causes God".
'The Scientific Proof of God' (Hammond, G. E.)
"In fact, the theory (read discovery) clearly explains how it is that "Gravity causes God" and also that "God causes Gravity". Let me caution you that we are not here to be bamboozled or bombasted by the juvenile "riddles'a Gawd" that pseudointellectual gaffes have so wantonly enjoyed for centuries on the peasants. The scientific proof of God is here to wipe every one of them off the slate.. to answer scientifically, rationally, and axiomatically every one of them, and finally lay them to rest and bury them, or place them on the ash heap of history. "
Abstract:-- This paper follows The Cartesian Theory (Hammond, New Ideas in Psychology Vol. 12(2), 1994) which advanced 3-axis brain cleavage as the cause of the Structural Model. This second paper reports gravitational curvature in the brain. Intelligence plus Personality form a 4D space. The eigenvector of the 4x4 metric is the Secular Trend and Einstein curvature Guv of linearized gravity. Penrose's quantum brain gravity is the source thus confirming the Hameroff-Penrose model. This factor proves to be the classical "God" of history. A causal link between Relativity and the Structural Model yields the world's first experimentally confirmed scientific proof of God.
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com/Hammond5s1.html
oh btw... he won't respond to u privately, if you're not recognized international authority, Nobel Laureate, or unusual interdisciplinary expert, as there is no one who is qualified to confer with him privately on this matter unless they have the 3 following credentials:
1. Postgraduate education in Physics
2. Professional expertise in Psychometry (Factor Analysis)
3. Professional competence in Divinity
some of the following debate
http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/200105/0081.html
Biology: nature
"Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." (Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986, p. 250.)"
Inteligent design
Concept and design necessitate an intelligent designer. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified (it's meaningful). We can't have a Shakespearean sonnet without Shakespeare. (William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities, 1998.)
The best at the end.
Physics: Physics can show that "Gravity causes God".
'The Scientific Proof of God' (Hammond, G. E.)
"In fact, the theory (read discovery) clearly explains how it is that "Gravity causes God" and also that "God causes Gravity". Let me caution you that we are not here to be bamboozled or bombasted by the juvenile "riddles'a Gawd" that pseudointellectual gaffes have so wantonly enjoyed for centuries on the peasants. The scientific proof of God is here to wipe every one of them off the slate.. to answer scientifically, rationally, and axiomatically every one of them, and finally lay them to rest and bury them, or place them on the ash heap of history. "
Abstract:-- This paper follows The Cartesian Theory (Hammond, New Ideas in Psychology Vol. 12(2), 1994) which advanced 3-axis brain cleavage as the cause of the Structural Model. This second paper reports gravitational curvature in the brain. Intelligence plus Personality form a 4D space. The eigenvector of the 4x4 metric is the Secular Trend and Einstein curvature Guv of linearized gravity. Penrose's quantum brain gravity is the source thus confirming the Hameroff-Penrose model. This factor proves to be the classical "God" of history. A causal link between Relativity and the Structural Model yields the world's first experimentally confirmed scientific proof of God.
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com/Hammond5s1.html
oh btw... he won't respond to u privately, if you're not recognized international authority, Nobel Laureate, or unusual interdisciplinary expert, as there is no one who is qualified to confer with him privately on this matter unless they have the 3 following credentials:
1. Postgraduate education in Physics
2. Professional expertise in Psychometry (Factor Analysis)
3. Professional competence in Divinity
some of the following debate
http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/200105/0081.html
My apologies for accidentally editing your post, I was meant to reply to it only.
"Asking the question "does God exist?" would be pointless. My answer would be "No, He doesn't," regardless of whether God truly exists or not. The question would be impossible to answer from an evidentiary standpoint simply because anything which God might have done (that is, any supernatural act which might serve as evidence for His existence) would have to be explained away in terms of natural causes, not because we know what those natural causes could possibly be, but simply because a supernatural God is not allowed to exist! "
Biology: nature
"Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." (Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986, p. 250.)"
Denton the mentor of Michael Behe, the same Behe who got absolutely owned when it came to putting Intelligent Design on trial. The evidence he put forward was irreducible complexity, which was systematically shown to be incorrect and thoroughly reducible indeed.
http://ipb.quicksilverscreen.com/index.php...=60540&st=0
Here is the lecture by the Christian Biologist Ken Miller demonstrating the ins and outs.
http://ipb.quicksilverscreen.com/index.php...&pid=390655
Inteligent design
Concept and design necessitate an intelligent designer. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified (it's meaningful). We can't have a Shakespearean sonnet without Shakespeare. (William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities, 1998.)
Ah yes! The same Dembski that decided not to testify at Kitzmiller v Dover and thus pulled out of providing evidence to back up the hypothesis of intelligent design.
The best at the end.
Physics: Physics can show that "Gravity causes God".
'The Scientific Proof of God' (Hammond, G. E.)
"In fact, the theory (read discovery) clearly explains how it is that "Gravity causes God" and also that "God causes Gravity". Let me caution you that we are not here to be bamboozled or bombasted by the juvenile "riddles'a Gawd" that pseudointellectual gaffes have so wantonly enjoyed for centuries on the peasants. The scientific proof of God is here to wipe every one of them off the slate.. to answer scientifically, rationally, and axiomatically every one of them, and finally lay them to rest and bury them, or place them on the ash heap of history. "
Abstract:-- This paper follows The Cartesian Theory (Hammond, New Ideas in Psychology Vol. 12(2), 1994) which advanced 3-axis brain cleavage as the cause of the Structural Model. This second paper reports gravitational curvature in the brain. Intelligence plus Personality form a 4D space. The eigenvector of the 4x4 metric is the Secular Trend and Einstein curvature Guv of linearized gravity. Penrose's quantum brain gravity is the source thus confirming the Hameroff-Penrose model. This factor proves to be the classical "God" of history. A causal link between Relativity and the Structural Model yields the world's first experimentally confirmed scientific proof of God.
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com/Hammond5s1.html
oh btw... he won't respond to u privately, if you're not recognized international authority, Nobel Laureate, or unusual interdisciplinary expert, as there is no one who is qualified to confer with him privately on this matter unless they have the 3 following credentials:
1. Postgraduate education in Physics
2. Professional expertise in Psychometry (Factor Analysis)
3. Professional competence in Divinity
some of the following debate
http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/200105/0081.html
http://ipb.quicksilverscreen.com/index.php...&pid=487947
"Asking the question "does God exist?" would be pointless. My answer would be "No, He doesn't," regardless of whether God truly exists or not. The question would be impossible to answer from an evidentiary standpoint simply because anything which God might have done (that is, any supernatural act which might serve as evidence for His existence) would have to be explained away in terms of natural causes, not because we know what those natural causes could possibly be, but simply because a supernatural God is not allowed to exist! "
Biology: nature
"Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." (Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986, p. 250.)"
Denton the mentor of Michael Behe, the same Behe who got absolutely owned when it came to putting Intelligent Design on trial. The evidence he put forward was irreducible complexity, which was systematically shown to be incorrect and thoroughly reducible indeed.
http://ipb.quicksilverscreen.com/index.php...=60540&st=0
Here is the lecture by the Christian Biologist Ken Miller demonstrating the ins and outs.
http://ipb.quicksilverscreen.com/index.php...&pid=390655
Inteligent design
Concept and design necessitate an intelligent designer. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified (it's meaningful). We can't have a Shakespearean sonnet without Shakespeare. (William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities, 1998.)
Ah yes! The same Dembski that decided not to testify at Kitzmiller v Dover and thus pulled out of providing evidence to back up the hypothesis of intelligent design.
The best at the end.
Physics: Physics can show that "Gravity causes God".
'The Scientific Proof of God' (Hammond, G. E.)
"In fact, the theory (read discovery) clearly explains how it is that "Gravity causes God" and also that "God causes Gravity". Let me caution you that we are not here to be bamboozled or bombasted by the juvenile "riddles'a Gawd" that pseudointellectual gaffes have so wantonly enjoyed for centuries on the peasants. The scientific proof of God is here to wipe every one of them off the slate.. to answer scientifically, rationally, and axiomatically every one of them, and finally lay them to rest and bury them, or place them on the ash heap of history. "
Abstract:-- This paper follows The Cartesian Theory (Hammond, New Ideas in Psychology Vol. 12(2), 1994) which advanced 3-axis brain cleavage as the cause of the Structural Model. This second paper reports gravitational curvature in the brain. Intelligence plus Personality form a 4D space. The eigenvector of the 4x4 metric is the Secular Trend and Einstein curvature Guv of linearized gravity. Penrose's quantum brain gravity is the source thus confirming the Hameroff-Penrose model. This factor proves to be the classical "God" of history. A causal link between Relativity and the Structural Model yields the world's first experimentally confirmed scientific proof of God.
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com/Hammond5s1.html
oh btw... he won't respond to u privately, if you're not recognized international authority, Nobel Laureate, or unusual interdisciplinary expert, as there is no one who is qualified to confer with him privately on this matter unless they have the 3 following credentials:
1. Postgraduate education in Physics
2. Professional expertise in Psychometry (Factor Analysis)
3. Professional competence in Divinity
some of the following debate
http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/200105/0081.html
QUOTE
In this lecture, Dr. Stenger will show that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God. Dr. Stenger argues that the evidence we have can be used to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that this God does not exist. Not only does the universe show no evidence for God, it looks exactly as it would be expected to look if there is no God.
http://ipb.quicksilverscreen.com/index.php...&pid=487947
QUOTE(mark8 @ Aug 1 2009, 01:20 AM) 
In fact, the theory (read discovery) clearly explains how it is that "Gravity causes God" and also that "God causes Gravity"....This factor proves to be the classical "God" of history.
You wanted scientifical proof. Here it is.
QUOTE(mark8 @ Aug 1 2009, 01:20 AM)
Dr. Stenger argues that the evidence we have can be used to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that this God does not exist.
Thing is, Dr. Stenger argues. Hammond is not arguing with anyone. The proof is causal relationship based on scientifical evidence.
QUOTE(Venea @ Aug 1 2009, 10:44 AM)
You wanted scientifical proof. Here it is.
No this is not "scientifical" proof, it is the ravings of a man who hit his head too hard.
Thing is, Dr. Stenger argues. Hammond is not arguing with anyone. The proof is causal relationship based on scientifical evidence.
No this is not "scientifical" proof, it is the ravings of a man who hit his head too hard.
Thing is, Dr. Stenger argues. Hammond is not arguing with anyone. The proof is causal relationship based on scientifical evidence.
Hmmm! Hammond, is arguing that is the meaning of putting forward your ideas - it is to argue them. The only thing is, he has nothing but fallacy, presupposition, insane logic and no evidence whatsoever.
Here is a wonderful parady of his bizarre idea using my favourite deity the Spaghetti Monster.
Scientific Proof of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
Which is beyond reasonable dispute
http://www.internetactivist.org/FSM/essay3.html
To show you how this guy is a major crackpot, read his attempt to start a new religion below.
having been rejected by all scientists and religious organizations he has contacted, Hammond has announced that he is creating his own religion.
GOD=G_uv Hammond founds COSA Church
The acronym COSA stands for:
"Church of the Scientific Advent"
Yes.... I am founding a new Church. It is to be an interdenominal Church, and people of all religions are free to join. Founded on the discovery of a scientific proof of God... this Church is open to all religions, because the scientific proof of God upon which it is founded has proved the truth and correctness of all existing Relgigions including the 5 major faiths: Christianity, Islam, Judiasm, Hinduism and Buddhism. All other faiths are also included. It is to be a nonprofit institution.
It is to be an "Internet Church" and anyone can join. We should have our own website and our own Newsgroup... all in good time.
The first step is to establish an ad hoc directorship... consisting of volunteers. The requirements for office consist of the following:
1. A familiarity with the discovery of the scientific proof of God as outlined at: http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
2. Faith in the fact that the existence of God can be scientifically proved, and that this would be a miracle for the World.
Hold on - hold on! Faith is required when there is NO evidence why would you need faith if you have scientific proof? Behold a classic crackpot
3. An interest in building a Church large enough to force a competent evaluation of this discovery by the Scientific community and the Religious authorities.
4. A belief that the existence of this discovery cannot wait for the establishment to move and that the New Scientific Gospel must be gotton out by the creation of a Church which will spread the word of the advent of this new miracle to the world population.
Anyone wishing to join, or volunteer to be on the board of directors, or in any other way become involved, may email me at:
COSAchurch@hotmail.com
To join the church (no obligations) simply send an email to the above address with the word COSA in the subject line and your email address will be added to the COSA (Listserv) email list which will be discussing the organization, mission and Charter of the new church. You can freely post and discussion you want to the list.
Serious inquiries only, please.
Please state your qulifications for any board level appointment and/or any other questions/ideas/suggestions you might have. No SPAM please!
Sincerely, George Hammond M.S. Physics
Chairman of the Board of Directors COSA
http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.religion...8003abb1e55fe98
For a person who dislikes religion Venea, all you have put forward is religion in one form or another.
After doing some more reasearch on this guy, I found a discussion on IlovePhilosophy.com - where he gets entirely owned and offers this little gem.
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewt...41&start=50
This guy is extremely delusional period!
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/George_Hammond
QUOTE
I was forced to publish the Scientific Proof of God in an obscure journal (Noetic Journal). I do not have a PhD (am an M.S.), and I am not affiliated with a University. I am therefore a MAVERICK scientist. The leading journals (Science, Nature, Phil. Tran. Royal Society, etc. etc.) wouldn't even consider publishing a "scientific proof of God" even if it was written by a Nobel Laureate never mind some no account unknown physicist living in a homeless shelter without even a PhD.... are you kidding?
Furthermore... there isn't even any such thing as an "expert" who could review the thing. How many people in the world are experts in Psychometry, Biology, Anatomy, Physics and Theology all at the same time? NOBODY is the answer... nobody but me apparently.
Furthermore... there isn't even any such thing as an "expert" who could review the thing. How many people in the world are experts in Psychometry, Biology, Anatomy, Physics and Theology all at the same time? NOBODY is the answer... nobody but me apparently.
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewt...41&start=50
This guy is extremely delusional period!
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/George_Hammond
QUOTE(hasnain @ Jul 31 2009, 06:54 PM)
well sorry i didnt quote my source i admit ive taken it out from some site nd i forgot to put the source (i thought i did but swaarry).
but its weird. there is a book. which tells u everything from the solar systems, the sun, how the unverse was created, to the way the planet orbit around the sun. all 1400 years ago and still people deny the fact that it is not written by god. take the theory of probability. source http://www.islamicmedicine.org/
hence ill be posting few more miracles so u can ignore. nd by the way it was a full moon, people all around the world 1400 years ago to the king to scholars and to normal people have witnessed it. as to the crack found, if your not a geologist you can follow one theory but on the other hand if the world top geologist examine the moon crack and says the moon was indeed split and than put together doesnt that ticks something. not to mention a handfull of the top scientist who follow science and work in nasa say so and still u decline the fact. very well moving on till i find the next miracle for u to turn down.
but its weird. there is a book. which tells u everything from the solar systems, the sun, how the unverse was created, to the way the planet orbit around the sun. all 1400 years ago and still people deny the fact that it is not written by god. take the theory of probability. source http://www.islamicmedicine.org/
hence ill be posting few more miracles so u can ignore. nd by the way it was a full moon, people all around the world 1400 years ago to the king to scholars and to normal people have witnessed it. as to the crack found, if your not a geologist you can follow one theory but on the other hand if the world top geologist examine the moon crack and says the moon was indeed split and than put together doesnt that ticks something. not to mention a handfull of the top scientist who follow science and work in nasa say so and still u decline the fact. very well moving on till i find the next miracle for u to turn down.
Hasnain, I know about probability as part of my degree in IT.
When using probablity, you also have to weight up certain evidences or FACTS known about each side. So far religion has no evidence or facts to back it's bold claims. There fore the probability is not leaning in gods favour at all. With all the evidence to the contrary Hasnian, the probability is that there is NO god.
This can be found via using a probability equation called Bayes Theorem.
The equation is :
P(H | E) = P(E | H) P(H)
P(E|H) P(H) + P(E|~H)(1- P(H))
Where
P(H | E) is the probability/plausibility of the hypothesis H in light of evidence E.
P(E | H) is the probability of observing Evidence E given that hypothesis H is true.
P(H) is the probability that a Hypothesis is true based upon background assumptions
P(E) is the probability of observing the evidence regardless of the truth of the hypothesis
(Taken from my old "Discreet Structures, expanded edition. The use of mathematics, statistics and probability within computer science. 2007" Text book)
Essentially, this equation weighs up the available evidence for what you are trying to find. It then calculates the probability.
So, essentially, if there is little to no evidence of any one thing existing, then the probability lays in the direction of the opposite. Non existence.
Using probability to try to prove gods existence is an old creationist trick that has been debunked to the most severe extent.
*Sigh* There is NO evidence that the moon has split Hasnian, I've looked and there is NO evidence. Besides, I thought the koran has not attributed any miracles to dirty ol' mo? Seems a bit of a double standard doesn't it?
So again, fail on trying to prove a miracle Hasnain. There is no split on the moon, just lava flows and small meteor impacts.
And again, I am asking for DIRECT evidence of gods existence. A rib bone maybe, or even just a small DNA sample. If you know and love god so much, and if he loves everybody on this earth equally, then surely he'll be more than happy to prove his existence and give you a bit of him so that it can be tested.
So Hasnain... in fact, any religious person on these threads, if you have NO evidence to back your claims, then you have no argument.
I'm easier to please. I just want an autographed lock of his hair. 
dont get me wrong on this but im not attacking if it might seem to some of you.
the evolution theory you guys believe that everything came out of existence from what it was present on earth (minerals, elements - whateva) u saw dinasaurs, wierd little n big mutha pukka creatures and so. you guys believe that apes and monkeys were the ancestors of the modern humans and we formed ourself from our primates to whom what we are right now. now there is this question that is bothering me on this yea, do you guys believe in ADAM and EVE (hawwa), do you believe they existed. can someone answer this so i can ask another question on this. thanx
the evolution theory you guys believe that everything came out of existence from what it was present on earth (minerals, elements - whateva) u saw dinasaurs, wierd little n big mutha pukka creatures and so. you guys believe that apes and monkeys were the ancestors of the modern humans and we formed ourself from our primates to whom what we are right now. now there is this question that is bothering me on this yea, do you guys believe in ADAM and EVE (hawwa), do you believe they existed. can someone answer this so i can ask another question on this. thanx
Venea just got destroyed. The mushroom cloud still hangs in the air. Nice one Mark8. Enough said.
I can not believe you guys are still debating with Hasnain. He is the very definition of lost cause. I suppose that the lurkers still find great reading material in the rebuts.
It amazes me that the theists forget the most critical step in any theistic argument: Make sure to substitute the words "your god" into "the flying spaghetti monster" from time to time. Proving a God exists is one thing... but finding the correct God is an entirely different and more complex matter.
Lets assume that we have 100 percent knowledge that SOME god/s exist. Okay. Which one/s? I bet that absolutely NO THEIST has even gone near this one. That is why Hasnain and Venea never compare notes on who's god is the correct one.
This is because: You decide to believe in the God first, and next you try to rationalize it. You have 100 percent conviction in the answer... and then you attempt to justify your claims while never modifying your answer. Hence the floundering and weak debate set forth by the already 100 percent correct theists.
Atheists and agnostics add up the evidence... and THEN decide. A gray area is a gray area, and it would be stupid to fill a mystery with a myth.
Even if the theists are correct, either Venea or Hasnain is guaranteed to be wrong, if not both. How does that feel guys, knowing that one of you is absolutely incorrect on your religious choices? You are telling me that you both are content, having 100 percent faith in your answer while one of you is guaranteed to be incorrect? Haha, no way. I know that you are both intensity motivated to be religious in the first place, for whatever reason... but you both lack certainty.
So do the atheists! Yay! We will solve the mysteries with evidence and you go ahead and explain them with myth... just don't hurt anyone along the way please.
I can not believe you guys are still debating with Hasnain. He is the very definition of lost cause. I suppose that the lurkers still find great reading material in the rebuts.
It amazes me that the theists forget the most critical step in any theistic argument: Make sure to substitute the words "your god" into "the flying spaghetti monster" from time to time. Proving a God exists is one thing... but finding the correct God is an entirely different and more complex matter.
Lets assume that we have 100 percent knowledge that SOME god/s exist. Okay. Which one/s? I bet that absolutely NO THEIST has even gone near this one. That is why Hasnain and Venea never compare notes on who's god is the correct one.
This is because: You decide to believe in the God first, and next you try to rationalize it. You have 100 percent conviction in the answer... and then you attempt to justify your claims while never modifying your answer. Hence the floundering and weak debate set forth by the already 100 percent correct theists.
Atheists and agnostics add up the evidence... and THEN decide. A gray area is a gray area, and it would be stupid to fill a mystery with a myth.
Even if the theists are correct, either Venea or Hasnain is guaranteed to be wrong, if not both. How does that feel guys, knowing that one of you is absolutely incorrect on your religious choices? You are telling me that you both are content, having 100 percent faith in your answer while one of you is guaranteed to be incorrect? Haha, no way. I know that you are both intensity motivated to be religious in the first place, for whatever reason... but you both lack certainty.
So do the atheists! Yay! We will solve the mysteries with evidence and you go ahead and explain them with myth... just don't hurt anyone along the way please.
The whole argument of probability is pointless anyway, notice how with the scientific miracle revelations,he doesn't actually cite the verse in the quran that actually says what he claims?
Maybe because often it's so vague and wide open to interpretation with the benefits of hindsight and the fact it actually never comes even close to being scientific.
[quran revealing spherical earth]
Well for one it was common knowledge that the earth was spherical among most people (coins predating quran with a globe on them) not just the ancient astronomers that discovered it 1000 years before the quran supposedly did.
But also there's an argument that the quran thinks that it WAS actually flat!! (he laid out the earth like a carpet or a bed Q:20:53)
or that the quran thinks the earth and the sky are in a FIXED position held there by god Q:35:41 "Lo! Allah graspeth the heavens and the earth that they deviate not ..."
or that the quran thinks the sun orbits around the earth "Q:21:33 - It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course. " this too (although wrong) would likely have come from aristotles geocentric ideas about the universe.
of course it depends on who's translation you go buy as that can sometimes handily correct the mistakes that are in the infallible quran, but i like to choose the source of translations that are popular with muslims, but then still, if you point out that you can still find mistakes they say 'oh it's the translation, you can't fully understand it with translations, yo must learn arabic'
TBH when it comes to the vague 'scientific' insights in the quran the phrase 'Dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants' comes to mind.
[quran revealed moon was reflected light]
Again already known well before quran by ancient astronomers, also Aristotle had spoken about it when proving the earth was spherical, he talked about the earths shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse(if earth was disc shaped instead of spherical then sometimes the earth shadow would be on edge and look like a line on the moon) clearly indicating it was understood the light on the moon was coming from the sun.
Also the quran verse doesn't say the moon was a reflection, it says the moon is a light (noor) and the sun is a lamp (siraaj)! Why not say it was a reflection (ikaas) of the sun?
Q:71:16 "And made the moon a light in their midst, and made the sun as a (Glorious) Lamp? "
[Every living thing is made of water]
Well for one we are not 'Made Of Water' it makes up a large part of us but you can't get life from just water alone. You still need the building blocks of life (the amino acids that formed the proteins, the nucleic acids) so it fails to mention those acids, yet THEY are the building blocks of life, not water.
Also I'm pretty sure science back then and before actually had somewhat of a fair idea about the composition of what people,animals,plants fruits etc were made of too and they of course understood the essential role of water to sustain life, hence praying for rain for the crops etc, but i can't be bothered to do all the homework to show it to you. (the truth is out there/school)
But also you mentioned in the probability stuff that he could have chosen thousands of things other than water such as "wood, stone, copper, aluminum, steel, silver, gold, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, oil, water, cement, concrete, etc. The options are say about 10,000."
And what is water made of? well it's not really important seeing as life doesnt come from water alone.
But why does the quran not say two parts hydrogen to one part oxygen or something instead ? that might have boosted your probability stats.
You can go on forever with these claims, and we can keep batting em out the park, but first i think all christians, muslims (all the literalists in the house say HEY) that put these types of things forward as evidence, should FIRST research HONESTLY against your own claim, put yourself in our shoes and go do some honest research.
Oh and guess what, we don't go to religious sites to get the facts (well ... maybe just to see what you guys think the facts are), tho i know you can't resist it so lets say don't JUST research why your claim is right on the religious sites, also research why your claim might be wrong based on the facts that lay away from religious bias or pseudo-science. you should try to be your biggest critic, then you will be able to make a much more informed argument IMO
Maybe because often it's so vague and wide open to interpretation with the benefits of hindsight and the fact it actually never comes even close to being scientific.
[quran revealing spherical earth]
Well for one it was common knowledge that the earth was spherical among most people (coins predating quran with a globe on them) not just the ancient astronomers that discovered it 1000 years before the quran supposedly did.
But also there's an argument that the quran thinks that it WAS actually flat!! (he laid out the earth like a carpet or a bed Q:20:53)
or that the quran thinks the earth and the sky are in a FIXED position held there by god Q:35:41 "Lo! Allah graspeth the heavens and the earth that they deviate not ..."
or that the quran thinks the sun orbits around the earth "Q:21:33 - It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course. " this too (although wrong) would likely have come from aristotles geocentric ideas about the universe.
of course it depends on who's translation you go buy as that can sometimes handily correct the mistakes that are in the infallible quran, but i like to choose the source of translations that are popular with muslims, but then still, if you point out that you can still find mistakes they say 'oh it's the translation, you can't fully understand it with translations, yo must learn arabic'
TBH when it comes to the vague 'scientific' insights in the quran the phrase 'Dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants' comes to mind.
[quran revealed moon was reflected light]
Again already known well before quran by ancient astronomers, also Aristotle had spoken about it when proving the earth was spherical, he talked about the earths shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse(if earth was disc shaped instead of spherical then sometimes the earth shadow would be on edge and look like a line on the moon) clearly indicating it was understood the light on the moon was coming from the sun.
Also the quran verse doesn't say the moon was a reflection, it says the moon is a light (noor) and the sun is a lamp (siraaj)! Why not say it was a reflection (ikaas) of the sun?
Q:71:16 "And made the moon a light in their midst, and made the sun as a (Glorious) Lamp? "
[Every living thing is made of water]
Well for one we are not 'Made Of Water' it makes up a large part of us but you can't get life from just water alone. You still need the building blocks of life (the amino acids that formed the proteins, the nucleic acids) so it fails to mention those acids, yet THEY are the building blocks of life, not water.
Also I'm pretty sure science back then and before actually had somewhat of a fair idea about the composition of what people,animals,plants fruits etc were made of too and they of course understood the essential role of water to sustain life, hence praying for rain for the crops etc, but i can't be bothered to do all the homework to show it to you. (the truth is out there/school)
But also you mentioned in the probability stuff that he could have chosen thousands of things other than water such as "wood, stone, copper, aluminum, steel, silver, gold, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, oil, water, cement, concrete, etc. The options are say about 10,000."
And what is water made of? well it's not really important seeing as life doesnt come from water alone.
But why does the quran not say two parts hydrogen to one part oxygen or something instead ? that might have boosted your probability stats.
You can go on forever with these claims, and we can keep batting em out the park, but first i think all christians, muslims (all the literalists in the house say HEY) that put these types of things forward as evidence, should FIRST research HONESTLY against your own claim, put yourself in our shoes and go do some honest research.
Oh and guess what, we don't go to religious sites to get the facts (well ... maybe just to see what you guys think the facts are), tho i know you can't resist it so lets say don't JUST research why your claim is right on the religious sites, also research why your claim might be wrong based on the facts that lay away from religious bias or pseudo-science. you should try to be your biggest critic, then you will be able to make a much more informed argument IMO
QUOTE(hasnain @ Jul 31 2009, 02:14 AM)
right imagine there is a object or a machine, which no one in the world has ever seen or heard of before and which is a very complex piece . it is shown to you. if i ask you who is the first person who will be able to provide details of the mechanism of this unknown object? - what will you reply?
Well i can see this is a poorly disguised rehashed version of the blind watchmaker argument, and that has already been dealt with 1000s of times, the fact it keeps getting brought up by ppl like yourself just shows a distinct lack of imagination. (strange how you all seem to have that in common!)
I do believe it was dealt with sufficiently already but here's my 2 bits on your question as it was written.
Ok so no one has seen or heard of it before, let's say me n you are the first lucky 'so n so's' to find it. (we can name it the scriptfu-n-hasnain-atron ...a bit of a mouthful, ...err we can discuss it later)
So who in the world can be the first to provide details of it? ... Why it's us of course! - yay
We can see if it's animal,vegetable or mineral, or something else, we can get details of its dimensions,weight,shape,colour we can observe what it appears to do (its function), we can observe and hypothesize how it appears to do it, and why, we can observe what the smaller pieces look like,do,weigh,colour,function etc etc and so on ...
So in short as you asked, who will be able to first provide details of the object, MY answer is WE CAN!
Also the Jet streams are a complex thing that wasn't known by anyone in the world until the 1920s, have it your way and we would have said oh that's just god whizzing around the planet or something
QUOTE(Wtiberon @ Jun 30 2007, 07:54 AM)
Its all about choice. If you prefer science to religion all power to you, all I'm saying is don't belittle someones faith because you are so wrapped up in your version of the universe. Religion doesn't manifest hatred, people do. Wars, murder, crime and suffering are a result of people not beliefs.
Good people do good deeds, evil people do evil deeds, but for good people to do evil deeds - only religion can do that.
51 years a dedicated christian, followed by 24 years of freedom from the bullshit of religion.
Gods are all man-made without exception. The problem is they have a habit of taking you over. They are so easy to invent, not so easy to destroy.
To date we have a list of almost 3000 of these parasites, and the list grows daily.
The Germans have a saying "Man takes drink, drink takes drink, drink takes man"
QUOTE
QUOTE(Wtiberon @ Jun 30 2007, 07:54 AM) *
Its all about choice. If you prefer science to religion all power to you, all I'm saying is don't belittle someones faith because you are so wrapped up in your version of the universe. Religion doesn't manifest hatred, people do. Wars, murder, crime and suffering are a result of people not beliefs.
Its all about choice. If you prefer science to religion all power to you, all I'm saying is don't belittle someones faith because you are so wrapped up in your version of the universe. Religion doesn't manifest hatred, people do. Wars, murder, crime and suffering are a result of people not beliefs.
The Catholic Church are the biggest war mongerers in the history of mankind.
FACT
One things for fucking sure... the universe made me not some god... tho if the universe is god by Human definition then so be it! Im sure we were'nt made to give the universe human characteristics.. like for instance making up some god in our image..
QUOTE(Skamp @ Aug 3 2009, 04:25 PM)
The Catholic Church are the biggest war mongerers in the history of mankind.
FACT
FACT
Oh come on now. All the Catholic Church has done is to "save", on average, 1630 people every day - for the last 1650 years.
QUOTE(eezZzee @ Aug 5 2009, 01:20 AM)
One things for fucking sure... the universe made me not some god... tho if the universe is god by Human definition then so be it! Im sure we were'nt made to give the universe human characteristics.. like for instance making up some god in our image..
True! For me religion is the tail wagging the dog.
You want a god, then think up a name - say Bollox4brains - and behold, man-made god #2877 is made!
Step 2 - compose a mythology starting with "In the beginning........."
Step 3 - add a few powers - "All-seeing" and "All-powerful" generally covers this. Season to taste.
Step 4 - now label Bollox4brains the "one-true" to eliminate the opposition.
Step 5 - condemn, demonise and kill all those who see through the bullshit.
I'll have to do some searching and find my post where I came up with a new religion....
Found it! Only 2 hours or so of searching...
Found it! Only 2 hours or so of searching...
QUOTE
There is a new god that is to be worshipped by all attractive women out there and it is growing as we speak. This new god can cause women to go into a frenzy with feelings that are euphoric and the need to smoke a cigarette after this feeling passes. I am this god's only priest and there for I'm the only one able to allow these women access to this god.
I wonder if I can collect donations tax free and get people to do stupid shit with this new religion.
I wonder if I can collect donations tax free and get people to do stupid shit with this new religion.
QUOTE(czechmate @ Aug 5 2009, 11:07 AM)
Oh come on now. All the Catholic Church has done is to "save", on average, 1630 people every day - for the last 1650 years.
Yes yes my bad,they were ''saving'' people.
The best thing old Henry ever did was shag around,it's just a shame he knocked down so many impressive buildings that said he did make some wonderfull ruins.
QUOTE(Bam76 @ Aug 6 2009, 07:13 AM)
I'll have to do some searching and find my post where I came up with a new religion....
Found it! Only 2 hours or so of searching...
Found it! Only 2 hours or so of searching...
After watching this i want to resurrect Zeus and his Olympians.
QUOTE(Skamp @ Aug 6 2009, 01:39 PM)
After watching this i want to resurrect Zeus and his Olympians.
I'll get back to you soon guys. This is just a short clip that resembles how living with God works in reality:
CODE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFNZMxcWdm0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fhome.php%3F&feature=player_embedded
I'm speechless. This is what we are dealing with? Write off. Plain and simple.
QUOTE(Venea @ Aug 12 2009, 06:22 PM)
I'll get back to you soon guys. This is just a short clip that resembles how living with God works in reality:
CODE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFNZMxcWdm0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fhome.php%3F&feature=player_embedded
well.....that cleared up.....nothing. for the sake of being nice, im gonna assume there was a point to this.
QUOTE(Wtiberon @ Jun 29 2007, 06:18 PM)
Science and religion are both languages for explaining the universe or another way of saying it is an attitude for looking at the universe. What you are doing is taking science's values and trying to apply them to religion, that doesn't work. Science's only worth is as a universal language for explaining measurable occurrences. Thing is people have been doing this for thousands of years.
Think about it this way. Someone wants to bake a loaf of bread. Science can explain how it is that the bread turns from ingredients of flour, yeast, and sugar to a loaf. However you don't necessarily need science in order to bake the bread. Science is good at the how but it's really bad at answering the whys. For instance can science explain why water boils at 100 degrees Celsius? Why not 80 degrees Celsius? Now once science moves into the realm of the unmeasurable it instantly becomes an article of faith just like religion.
Religion is a totally different animal. Religion, in its purest form, attempts to better a persons life by first humbling them and then by giving them a purpose. For billions of people it works, why ridicule it? Would our world really be better without religion (and don't give me the argument of religious wars, and intolerance. These exist just find without religion. I mean look at you guys, intolerant of religion.)?
I'm not against science or for religion. I'm just tired of people bashing religion like sheep because they are blinded by science and told it is better.
Think about it this way. Someone wants to bake a loaf of bread. Science can explain how it is that the bread turns from ingredients of flour, yeast, and sugar to a loaf. However you don't necessarily need science in order to bake the bread. Science is good at the how but it's really bad at answering the whys. For instance can science explain why water boils at 100 degrees Celsius? Why not 80 degrees Celsius? Now once science moves into the realm of the unmeasurable it instantly becomes an article of faith just like religion.
Religion is a totally different animal. Religion, in its purest form, attempts to better a persons life by first humbling them and then by giving them a purpose. For billions of people it works, why ridicule it? Would our world really be better without religion (and don't give me the argument of religious wars, and intolerance. These exist just find without religion. I mean look at you guys, intolerant of religion.)?
I'm not against science or for religion. I'm just tired of people bashing religion like sheep because they are blinded by science and told it is better.
don;t give you that argument? why? because it's true? and no they do not exist just fine without religion. Almost all the most deadly wars/battles/crusades have been fought over because of a belief system. Make more blanket statements. geez.
QUOTE
Science is good at the how but it's really bad at answering the whys. For instance can science explain why water boils at 100 degrees Celsius? Why not 80 degrees Celsius?
Well, actually science can explain that, however you have to delve very deep into the realm of chemical physics. You can also find that not all water boils at exactly the same temperature, it all depends what is dissolved in it, however these differences are minute.
When I was a christian
I would argue that christians were wrong about the solar system, but they weren't wrong about the spiritual world, the more science develops the closer we will get to a spiritual realm... when that happens it will be the same as when the christians were wrong about the solar system, only this time it happens to the atheists and scientists. I would use the analogous argument of how we can't visibly see radio waves or air, just like we can't detect the spiritual realm.
now i know everything i said is bullocks and illogical.
I would argue that christians were wrong about the solar system, but they weren't wrong about the spiritual world, the more science develops the closer we will get to a spiritual realm... when that happens it will be the same as when the christians were wrong about the solar system, only this time it happens to the atheists and scientists. I would use the analogous argument of how we can't visibly see radio waves or air, just like we can't detect the spiritual realm.
now i know everything i said is bullocks and illogical.
When I was a Christian I welcomed criticism. I wanted all of the arguments against religion to be big, so that my denial of such arguments were big as well. I felt the bigger the wall was that I built would result it in a happier god. I honestly thought that. That is why I know that religious zealots LOVE criticism. It is just another chance for them to prove their faith in the face of such "tests".
Simply put, religious people enjoy sacrificing common sense to appease their god/s. From the outside it looks insane.... but I fully understand what is going in in their heads.
I am also well aware of the deep dark secret that all religious zealots have: They are not 100 percent convinced and have doubts, no matter what they say. How can you be an atheist to 99.9 percent of the world's religions and still 100 percent believe in a single religion? How can you be perfectly situated both geographically and chronologically to just happen to be worshiping the CORRECT god? In the core of every religious person lies a seed of doubt... and they know it.
Simply put, religious people enjoy sacrificing common sense to appease their god/s. From the outside it looks insane.... but I fully understand what is going in in their heads.
I am also well aware of the deep dark secret that all religious zealots have: They are not 100 percent convinced and have doubts, no matter what they say. How can you be an atheist to 99.9 percent of the world's religions and still 100 percent believe in a single religion? How can you be perfectly situated both geographically and chronologically to just happen to be worshiping the CORRECT god? In the core of every religious person lies a seed of doubt... and they know it.
As I went down and climbed the stair
I met a god who wasn't there
It wasn't there again today
I wish that it would go away
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."
Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813
"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"
-John Adams letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
-James Madison's letter to Wm. Bradford, April 1, 1774
I met a god who wasn't there
It wasn't there again today
I wish that it would go away
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."
Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813
"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"
-John Adams letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
-James Madison's letter to Wm. Bradford, April 1, 1774
QUOTE
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
-James Madison's letter to Wm. Bradford, April 1, 1774
-James Madison's letter to Wm. Bradford, April 1, 1774
hmmm, which is perhaps the fore-bearer of "Religion Poisons Everything".
QUOTE
As I went down and climbed the stair
I met a god who wasn't there
It wasn't there again today
I wish that it would go away
I met a god who wasn't there
It wasn't there again today
I wish that it would go away
This could be the story of many a reformed religious person's life. A person can reconcile their disbelief in adulthood, but there is always a lingering bit of programming left behind from childhood... or in the genes themselves. It is just enough to provide a hint of dogma in everything we do... which is an unfortunate scar.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.