#101
|
|||
|
|||
Prayer request
You won't see lions around a campfire feeling bad about eating an antelope. "Freddy Mercury ate my hamster!" -- AJ |
Ads |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Prayer request
On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 19:05:40 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/19/2020 5:56 PM, John B. wrote: On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 16:18:47 +0200, Rolf Mantel wrote: Am 19.06.2020 um 15:51 schrieb : Certainly, atheists are happy to say that because it isn't possible in the length of time this universe has existed for the human genome to develop that magic must have happened to speed it up. And they object to most religions saying that God created the heaven and Earth as a retreat to magic. There were times when human scientists said "according to science, Bumblebees can't fly" Obviously, bumblebees can fly, and they don't need magic for it. Human scientists were just not sufficiently advanced in understanding insect flight. You are referring to a "theory" perhaps put forth by a collage student that proved that a bumble bee couldn't fly. Unfortunately or perhaps deliberately, the theory was based on a bumble bee being a fixed wing device when in fact it is not. A subsequent theory, that a bumble bee could fly, based on the bee being a moving wing device was also expounded which proved to be correct. Rather like the fact that Dihydrogen monoxide is a dangerous substance. Similarly, "it isn't possible in the length of time of this universe" is clearly not true. The human genome has developed in the time of this universe, and if we're too stupid to understand how, that's only a sign of our stupidity and not a sign the magic would be needed to create human beings. "Dihydrogen monoxide is a dangerous substance." Well, of course. Chemicals are bad, They certainly are. Do you realize that every single person, born before 1905, that imbibed Dihydrogen monoxide has died? -- cheers, John B. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Prayer request
On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 05:56:13 +0700, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 16:18:47 +0200, Rolf Mantel wrote: Am 19.06.2020 um 15:51 schrieb : Certainly, atheists are happy to say that because it isn't possible in the length of time this universe has existed for the human genome to develop that magic must have happened to speed it up. And they object to most religions saying that God created the heaven and Earth as a retreat to magic. There were times when human scientists said "according to science, Bumblebees can't fly" Obviously, bumblebees can fly, and they don't need magic for it. Human scientists were just not sufficiently advanced in understanding insect flight. You are referring to a "theory" perhaps put forth by a collage student that proved that a bumble bee couldn't fly. Unfortunately or perhaps deliberately, the theory was based on a bumble bee being a fixed wing device when in fact it is not. According to aerodynamics, Bumble Bees shouldn't be able to Fly. A subsequent theory, that a bumble bee could fly, based on the bee being a moving wing device was also expounded which proved to be correct. When chaos theory was developed, it explained scientifically how bumble bees can fly. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Prayer request
On Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 5:58:05 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
Sidestepping even further, what's the source of religion -- and what is the source of religious prohibitions? Social order? Maria Theresa, Dowager Empress of Austria, was in no doubt that it profited the Emperor, her son Joseph, the nearest thing to an atheist ever to serve on a European throne*, to pretend to be as religious as his subjects if he wanted his rule to be without too many mob disturbances. The entire Revolutionary Government of France took that as an official view and a reason to eradicate religion in the name of fraternite and liberty, etc.. You'll enjoy reading her letters. The Mosaic hygiene rules surely helped the Chosen People, who were few and beset on all sides by violent idolators, to survive and breed better than the idolators, who probably had a much larger infant mortality. Andre Jute *If your only acquaintance with Joseph is as the foolish emperor depicted in the movie Amadeus, you're in for a shock when you discover the reality. Peter Schaffer perpetrated a massive libel on Joseph. PS And Salieri didn't poison Mozart either, whatever Slow Johnny tells you. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Prayer request
On Saturday, June 20, 2020 at 6:51:20 AM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
The "real" Jesus: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/12/15/jesus-face-recreated-scientists-skulls_n_8809466.html which is also all wrong. Jesus was an Arab and therefore had much darker skin, a narrow face, a longer nose, a rather thin build, and a full hipster beard. Since he was Jewish, long sidelocks. At age 30 something, he should be showing the start of a receding hair line. Shush, you troll, you! It is politically very incorrect to point out that the Jews and the Muslims are both Semites, and that Arab anti-semites are therefore self-haters, and that Arab war on the Jews is civil war. About the appearance and manner of "the real Jesus": Those who believe in the child-directed myth of "the gentle Jesus" are perhaps the most pitifully thoughtless -- or indoctrinated -- of all. Jesus was a wild-eyed, wild-bearded, unkempt, an old-fashioned Old Testament prophet from the provinces, far more realistically portrayed as whipping the moneychangers from the Temple. He didn't belong to a Reformed synagogue. There are many ways in which the whip-wielding Jesus fits better in the Koran (where he duly makes a celebrity appearance) than in the more hagiographic passages of the New Testament. Andre Jute Read the sources, young man |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Prayer request
with Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/19/2020 5:34 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/18/2020 11:42 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/18/2020 6:43 PM, wrote: On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 3:11:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/17/2020 2:48 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 10:57:18 AM UTC-7, wrote: *SKIP* Hmm. I don't remember the Old Testament mentioning God's beard. Can you give me chapter and verse? If you can't, you should admit it's a cartoon. Of course it’s a cartoon representation. But then again, cartooning is the art of getting your point across using the least possible amount of ink. Since this is Usenet and not my PhD thesis, I don’t have a problem with that. And if you can’t get past whether or not God has a beard in order to consider the actual gist of my argument, I can’t help you. To further delute whatever you've been talking about, it just asks for an anecdote. Here it goes (it actually quite old, somewhat 25 years old): Religous person has died and then has been resurected. Other religous people have gathered to inquire. First question: "So have you seen God? What does he look like? Does he actually have a beard or something?". First answer: "Well, about that. First, she's black". What, in context of anthropology, makes actual sense. *CUT* -- Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Prayer request
On 6/19/2020 9:14 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, June 19, 2020 at 5:16:33 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/19/2020 5:34 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/18/2020 11:42 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/18/2020 6:43 PM, wrote: On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 3:11:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/17/2020 2:48 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 10:57:18 AM UTC-7, wrote: Was it recently as "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain in alienable rights."? "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia? "The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave." - Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, 1772? "God's hand was on me. God protected me and kept me through the battle." - George Washington "In the Name of the most Holy and undivided Trinity." - Treaty of Paris (1783) "With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly before God and the world Declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties - being with one mind resolved to die FREEMEN rather than to live SLAVES." - Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, July 5, 1775 Jay, it does not appear that you could make a very strong argument in a court of law. After WW II there was such an upwelling of religion that my father-in-law founded 26 churches himself and every one of them is still running. You have never seen a bad day in your life, one in which you had to wonder what you would have to say upon meeting your creator, so you can pretend he doesn't exist until that day. Yes, religion was big in the colonial US, but my point is that the founding fathers created a secular federal government. Jefferson, your first cited author, was a Deist and did not believe Jesus was the son of God. Jefferson was the guy pushing for separation of church and state and was even called an infidel. Of course, there are various opinions about what Jefferson believed. You're correct about his thoughts on Jesus, but "Deist" currently implies some things he probably didn't accept. And then you have to account for his (like anyone's) changing beliefs over time. I suppose the whole Sally Hemings thing wasn't too helpful for him either. I doubt very much that we can ever understand what really went on there. Relationships are incredibly complex in modern times with modern mores. They were no less complex back then. Your religious beliefs are no business of the government, and vice versa. OK, something I don't quite understand: Among many other "sins," the government defines murder as being its business. But as I understand it, there are religious sects that have condoned murder, or at least killing of certain individuals; and not just in easy cases like self defense. This has been true in at least some situations for at least some Christian, Islamic, Hindu and other sects or sub-sects. But of course, there's disagreement. Most religions do not condone murder. Some oppose even capital punishment. So if our government says "You can't murder people," isn't that adopting a certain religious viewpoint and disregarding another? We could ask (or could have asked) the same question regarding stores opening on Sunday, liquor sales, polygamy, some types of gambling, child marriage, homosexual acts and more. Isn't "good" vs. "bad" often a judgment based on religious views? - Frank Krygowski Frank, I think that you'd agree that my punching you in the mouth would be bad on your part and that you would hope that it is against my religious principles which it is. My problem is that from your comments you do not appear to have any principles beyond your own good. And that is pretty much the definition of atheist. As is often - or usually - the case, Tom, you are completely mistaken. And the funny thing is that atheists can have an even more strongly developed moral code than religious people. On one hand, the kindest, most helpful, most charitable, most "Christian" person I know is an atheist. So yes, an atheist _can_ have a wonderful moral code. On the other hand, I know some atheists who are, IMO, absolutely horrid people with no apparent moral standards at all. Sure. Everybody gets to have assholes. So I think the "can" in your sentence is overly lax, to the point of uselessness. If we could get the information, it would be productive to sample a large group of atheists and a large group of religious (or spiritual, or "believing") people, and examine the moral codes of those in each group. Look for a correlation. But first we'd have to agree on the moral codes, which is a tough job in itself. Don’t look for moral codes. Look for moral behaviour. Just don’t count going to church as one of them. They just have to develop it from first principles, rather than just being told that some bearded man in the sky will pitch you into a lake of fire if you’re not nice to your fellow man. I've found that it's very, very common for atheists to mock religious people with that cartoon image. But I don't know any religious person who literally believes in that cartoon figure. So that tactic amounts to a straw man argument. No, it’s a convenient conversational shorthand to distill the Old Testament down to a single phrase. Hmm. I don't remember the Old Testament mentioning God's beard. Can you give me chapter and verse? If you can't, you should admit it's a cartoon. Which god? The father, the son or the holy ghost? Ghosts don't have beards, the son DID have a beard, and it's in all of the pictures. The shroud of Turin guy has a beard. From the interweb: Jesus wore a beard. He followed Jewish law, which prohibited adult males from ‘disfiguring the edges of their beard.’ (Leviticus 19:27; Galatians 4:4) Also, the Bible mentions Jesus’ beard in a prophecy about his suffering.—Isaiah 50:6. Like father, like son, so two out of three gods have a beard. QED. I'm sure there is a 12th century rabbi who proved that Yahweh the uni-god has a beard, and he was very specific about how to trim it. Try to put up a picture of a clean-shaven Jesus in your church and see how far that gets you. It's been done. In fact, it was done for several hundred years before the beard appeared in depictions of Jesus. http://www.religionfacts.com/jesus/gallery Also https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-st...-have-a-beard/ I think we should approach this from another direction, a bike related direction. Did Jesus ride a recumbent? If not, he probably didn't have a beard. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Prayer request
On 6/19/2020 10:10 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/19/2020 5:34 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/18/2020 11:42 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/18/2020 6:43 PM, wrote: On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 3:11:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/17/2020 2:48 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 10:57:18 AM UTC-7, wrote: Was it recently as "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain in alienable rights."? "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia? "The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave." - Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, 1772? "God's hand was on me. God protected me and kept me through the battle." - George Washington "In the Name of the most Holy and undivided Trinity." - Treaty of Paris (1783) "With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly before God and the world Declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties - being with one mind resolved to die FREEMEN rather than to live SLAVES." - Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, July 5, 1775 Jay, it does not appear that you could make a very strong argument in a court of law. After WW II there was such an upwelling of religion that my father-in-law founded 26 churches himself and every one of them is still running. You have never seen a bad day in your life, one in which you had to wonder what you would have to say upon meeting your creator, so you can pretend he doesn't exist until that day. Yes, religion was big in the colonial US, but my point is that the founding fathers created a secular federal government. Jefferson, your first cited author, was a Deist and did not believe Jesus was the son of God. Jefferson was the guy pushing for separation of church and state and was even called an infidel. Of course, there are various opinions about what Jefferson believed. You're correct about his thoughts on Jesus, but "Deist" currently implies some things he probably didn't accept. And then you have to account for his (like anyone's) changing beliefs over time. I suppose the whole Sally Hemings thing wasn't too helpful for him either. I doubt very much that we can ever understand what really went on there. Relationships are incredibly complex in modern times with modern mores. They were no less complex back then. Your religious beliefs are no business of the government, and vice versa. OK, something I don't quite understand: Among many other "sins," the government defines murder as being its business. But as I understand it, there are religious sects that have condoned murder, or at least killing of certain individuals; and not just in easy cases like self defense. This has been true in at least some situations for at least some Christian, Islamic, Hindu and other sects or sub-sects. But of course, there's disagreement. Most religions do not condone murder. Some oppose even capital punishment. So if our government says "You can't murder people," isn't that adopting a certain religious viewpoint and disregarding another? We could ask (or could have asked) the same question regarding stores opening on Sunday, liquor sales, polygamy, some types of gambling, child marriage, homosexual acts and more. Isn't "good" vs. "bad" often a judgment based on religious views? - Frank Krygowski Frank, I think that you'd agree that my punching you in the mouth would be bad on your part and that you would hope that it is against my religious principles which it is. My problem is that from your comments you do not appear to have any principles beyond your own good. And that is pretty much the definition of atheist. As is often - or usually - the case, Tom, you are completely mistaken. And the funny thing is that atheists can have an even more strongly developed moral code than religious people. On one hand, the kindest, most helpful, most charitable, most "Christian" person I know is an atheist. So yes, an atheist _can_ have a wonderful moral code. On the other hand, I know some atheists who are, IMO, absolutely horrid people with no apparent moral standards at all. Sure. Everybody gets to have assholes. So I think the "can" in your sentence is overly lax, to the point of uselessness. If we could get the information, it would be productive to sample a large group of atheists and a large group of religious (or spiritual, or "believing") people, and examine the moral codes of those in each group. Look for a correlation. But first we'd have to agree on the moral codes, which is a tough job in itself. Don’t look for moral codes. Look for moral behaviour. Just don’t count going to church as one of them. They just have to develop it from first principles, rather than just being told that some bearded man in the sky will pitch you into a lake of fire if you’re not nice to your fellow man. I've found that it's very, very common for atheists to mock religious people with that cartoon image. But I don't know any religious person who literally believes in that cartoon figure. So that tactic amounts to a straw man argument. No, it’s a convenient conversational shorthand to distill the Old Testament down to a single phrase. Hmm. I don't remember the Old Testament mentioning God's beard. Can you give me chapter and verse? If you can't, you should admit it's a cartoon. Of course it’s a cartoon representation. But then again, cartooning is the art of getting your point across using the least possible amount of ink. Since this is Usenet and not my PhD thesis, I don’t have a problem with that. And if you can’t get past whether or not God has a beard in order to consider the actual gist of my argument, I can’t help you. It loses a lot in translation, mind you, but it sort of gets the point across. If God said “There is no heaven and there is no hell. Here are some rules. I don’t care if you follow them, and I won’t punish you if you don’t.”, would your moral compass point a different direction? If so, then fear of retribution is the foundation of your moral behaviour. Sorry, your argument is far too binary. Those are not the only two choices; not even close. Yes, it’s a very binary argument, but rather than start with a 100 page treatise on the origins of religion, I chose (for the sake of brevity) to boil it down to that. My feeling is that organized religion started at the confluence of “How did we get here?” and “If I invoke some omnipresent being in the sky, maybe these yahoos might actually do what I tell them to do.” You chose to boil the argument down to a mocking cartoon - a cartoon that atheists frequently use for ridicule. Your argument lost everything in that "translation," if it actually had much substance before that. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Prayer request
On 6/20/2020 7:27 AM, news18 wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 05:56:13 +0700, John B. wrote: On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 16:18:47 +0200, Rolf Mantel wrote: Am 19.06.2020 um 15:51 schrieb : Certainly, atheists are happy to say that because it isn't possible in the length of time this universe has existed for the human genome to develop that magic must have happened to speed it up. And they object to most religions saying that God created the heaven and Earth as a retreat to magic. There were times when human scientists said "according to science, Bumblebees can't fly" Obviously, bumblebees can fly, and they don't need magic for it. Human scientists were just not sufficiently advanced in understanding insect flight. You are referring to a "theory" perhaps put forth by a collage student that proved that a bumble bee couldn't fly. Unfortunately or perhaps deliberately, the theory was based on a bumble bee being a fixed wing device when in fact it is not. According to aerodynamics, Bumble Bees shouldn't be able to Fly. A subsequent theory, that a bumble bee could fly, based on the bee being a moving wing device was also expounded which proved to be correct. When chaos theory was developed, it explained scientifically how bumble bees can fly. I thought they determined that bumblebees use Infinite Improbability Drives. No? -- - Frank Krygowski |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A Dog's Prayer | Simon Jester | UK | 0 | September 20th 19 09:58 PM |
Nativity Prayer of St. Augustine | Claire Towny | UK | 4 | December 25th 09 08:25 PM |
Chalkbot is as worthless as prayer. | Anton Berlin | Racing | 3 | July 8th 09 09:25 PM |
A short prayer.... | Callistus Valerius | Racing | 8 | June 12th 07 02:46 PM |
The Cyclists Prayer | Mark Johnson | UK | 3 | March 9th 05 07:24 PM |