Ever wondered who would win the American elections if the wh

posted on December 10th, 2008, 3:34 am

I wont to make a request!!!!!!

Please get to the point! Don't secret the point wile trying to make a point that you hope will make a grate impact with some one it real just is a dry speech that will be wasted.

Please get to the point, if the fact is well presented and forwards the conversation apposed to side lining it, it will have the impact you are looking for but only by looking for a solution apposed to making the other wrong!!!

Well we all wont the same things but they get distorted and discarded buy domination and making people wrong.

Also...

I am dyslexic please get to the point so I can read it i get reading futeg easy in this thread and can contribute. short and to the point please.

posted on December 10th, 2008, 6:03 am

There is a point. I know the reading is hard, but it REALLY is worth it.

posted on December 10th, 2008, 12:41 pm

Serpicus never gets to the point. He just fluffs up his otherwise empty points like cotton candy, using a long list of ancient civilisations who are used as examples of how the "west" is a "fraud" and other such nonesense. He also extracts a lot of large words from the dictionary because this feeds his ego. Religious people also feed off the feeling of "persecution".

In contrast, my viewpoint is compact.

1/ We cannot disprove God, but we cannot disprove garden fairies either. Agnostic in principle, atheist in practise. We should not believe in something just because we cannot disprove it. This is a recipe for believing in anything. In fact history shows that people invented all kinds of deities in response to brutal existence devoid of any understanding of the natural world.

2/The natural world contains delights and horrors, and to postulate that "God" "permitted" them is to postulate that his existence is not required (see the book by Peter Atkins about the increasingly lazy God). The universe is exactly as we would expect if there were no God - indifferent.

3/ As a footnote, the "holy" books are sprinkled with violence and absurdity, and contain no prophecies or science that was intentionally put there, and much bad science too. They should not be apologised for, but many people do, because the desire to believe that there is a life beyond this one is powerful.

THE END. Anyone who continues to try to counter these concise and powerful arguments is either desperate, or dishonest, or lacks the basic knowledge required, or some or all of the above. On fresh, unashamed and simple analysis, it becomes apparent just how weak Serpicus's position is. The "western" world is far from perfect, but it is not evil, and should not be used as an excuse to attack science, the pursuit of knowledge, or "materialism", another favourite target of the religious.

posted on December 11th, 2008, 3:17 am

Well said, Lazarus, well said...

posted on December 11th, 2008, 4:49 am

Whoa, I've totally missed our political debate?!

Thank God.

posted on December 11th, 2008, 5:03 am

Not quite political... but god definitely had something to do with it 

posted on December 11th, 2008, 5:40 am

"Religious people" humm,,, when ever you categorize 100% of a group with out expiation it puts in place unfair stereotypes this is not wrong to me but its no accurate and is hart full and I stand for a world that works for all and that cant happen with stereotypes.

Heres some thing to chow on there is no truth there is no wrong or right we all make it up as we go a long.

Lets pic a problem and find a solution.

Serpicus never gets to the point. He just fluffs up his otherwise empty points like cotton candy, using a long list of ancient civilisations who are used as examples of how the "west" is a "fraud" and other such nonesense. He also extracts a lot of large words from the dictionary because this feeds his ego. Religious people also feed off the feeling of "persecution".

In contrast, my viewpoint is compact.

1/ We cannot disprove God, but we cannot disprove garden fairies either. Agnostic in principle, atheist in practise. We should not believe in something just because we cannot disprove it. This is a recipe for believing in anything. In fact history shows that people invented all kinds of deities in response to brutal existence devoid of any understanding of the natural world.

2/The natural world contains delights and horrors, and to postulate that "God" "permitted" them is to postulate that his existence is not required (see the book by Peter Atkins about the increasingly lazy God). The universe is exactly as we would expect if there were no God - indifferent.

3/ As a footnote, the "holy" books are sprinkled with violence and absurdity, and contain no prophecies or science that was intentionally put there, and much bad science too. They should not be apologised for, but many people do, because the desire to believe that there is a life beyond this one is powerful.

THE END. Anyone who continues to try to counter these concise and powerful arguments is either desperate, or dishonest, or lacks the basic knowledge required, or some or all of the above. On fresh, unashamed and simple analysis, it becomes apparent just how weak Serpicus's position is. The "western" world is far from perfect, but it is not evil, and should not be used as an excuse to attack science, the pursuit of knowledge, or "materialism", another favourite target of the religious.

posted on December 11th, 2008, 11:41 am

Language can be unfortunate, but in this case it's fine ewm. Think about what the word religious means. Religious people who are not religious are not religious, if you know what I mean. 

All languages are imprecise, ewm. I think it's obvious I'm referring to those people who take their scriptures literally or at least seriously. It is these very people who are prone to all kinds of rationalisations and apology making in their desperate struggle to want a life beyond this one.

posted on December 11th, 2008, 5:11 pm

think this sums up your argument fairly concisely. The beauty (and horror) of the religious texts are that they can be interpreted in a variety of ways (Satanic Verses anyone?): they are not at all clear, otherwise you wouldn't be arguing "context" and you wouldn't have said that "people deliberately see to justify their own bigotry". Likewise, if religious texts were at all clear, we wouldn't have religious wars within a religion based on interpretation. You don't know my particular brand of beliefs and yet you refer to me as atheist. You don't know where I am from or what my raising has been and yet you refer to me as "western". You are the bigot who believes for the simple reason that if someone has different ideas from yours they must be a "western" atheist who also is named "Mr. Palin"

--- Religious texts are not ambiguous, but are not easy to glean from at the first go. I agree with you on that. This is why they require a wholistic and patient reading /understanding.
People do try to justify their points of view - whether bigoted or otherwise - for the sake of self-justification. Blaming religion is merely a convenient scapegoat.
However, as we can see in cases such as the Aryan brotherhood and KKK there is no theism being invoked just plain atheistic racism, which for some even delves into pure genetic theory.
So in conclusion to go one way or the other is neither here nor there.

Nationality, race, origin, even ethnicity can be used as we have seen in the Balkans, the World Wars, Ireland etc, just as religion can be in religious wars. So singling out religion when WW2 and WW1 as well as the Russian revolution had materialistic motivations isn't quite objective.

So as regards you and I, we seem now to be on common ground. Each ideology can be misused. Religion can be used to incense, whereas atheism when lacking in any code of conduct can leave the door open to rationales of convenience which spout the same wars and genocide that religion can.

In the end it is for the individual to feel with his heart and evaluate with his mind - together they go a long way in opening up someone to understanding the truth.
You pretty much can't go wrong there.

posted on December 11th, 2008, 5:47 pm

as regards Laz. I do agree with ya - you're always brief and compact.. two words im sure your Girlfriends (maybe boyfriends hey i dont know u that well lol ) will definitely associate with you **wik wink**... hope that isnt the  cause of all your pent up hostility.

1/ We cannot disprove God, but we cannot disprove garden fairies either. Agnostic in principle, atheist in practise. We should not believe in something just because we cannot disprove it. This is a recipe for believing in anything. In fact history shows that people invented all kinds of deities in response to brutal existence devoid of any understanding of the natural world.

-- You cannot prove atheism either. You havent broken through the confines of the universe to demonstrate there is nothing beyond, nor have you been dead and come back to life to conclusively prove nothing is there. So by your argument of proving something to accept it - why should anyone consider atheism viable when it too is not based on anything proven...
nothing in modern science actually contradicts the theistic premise.
a simple example since you cited the Quran so many times - Pharaoh as mentioned in Quran was declared by experts on ancientEgypt to be inaccurate.
The verse stating that Pharaoh said "no God do I know for you but myself" has been bashed as being inaccurate since all Pharaohs even Ramses 2 were deified as part of the pantheon and not the sole deity.
Until 2007's expedition by the US's Orientalist institute where they have found that one Pharaoh - Amenhotep III did not just deify himself in his life as Ramses did, but also declared himself the living embodiment of the entire Pantheon.
On his death he was deemed to have ascended to the Solar disc called the Aten, which prompted his son Akhenaton to worship the sun... since his father the embodiment of the entire Pantheon now resided there. This discovery is also prompting a reassociation of the initial accusation against Akhenaton of being a heretic who inspired Mosaic monotheism..

another example is the surah 81:13 - I swear by the planets that recede. A verse that has muslim apologetics adding parentheses to clarify day and night for fear of sounding ridiculous... yet the verse is in perfect line with the fact that planets are receding as part of universal expansion.

Certainly, given your track record, I do not expect these verses to be worth anything to you, but the point I am making is that these books (the Quran or Bible or Torah or Vedas etc) are a little more than the mere fairy tales, that you repeatedly insist they are.
Which is why you then necessarily have to at least prove what you have in your hands - vis a vis these books - to be irrelevant in order to prove and demonstrate atheism as viable.
Otherwise your argument is merely based on preference - not logic, not any science that you are trying to falsely postulate as your raison d'être.

2)The natural world contains delights and horrors, and to postulate that "God" "permitted" them is to postulate that his existence is not required (see the book by Peter Atkins about the increasingly lazy God). The universe is exactly as we would expect if there were no God - indifferent.


-- If something is "permitted" then the one granting the permission is indispensable to the existence of that which is permitted. Otherwise, there would be nothing permitted. If then nothing has been permitted would it then exist? So where does that apply to God in any practical sense.


3/ As a footnote, the "holy" books are sprinkled with violence and absurdity, and contain no prophecies or science that was intentionally put there, and much bad science too. They should not be apologised for, but many people do, because the desire to believe that there is a life beyond this one is powerful.

-- Bad science.. well in the above example we see science being bad in regards to the book . Are you now going to shift your stance and say modern archaeology is bad science too?
Violence issue we have dealt with amply in my discussion with dom - so your mentionof it here shows your deliberate unwillingness to absorb new material or to expand outside the confines of your own rigid opinion.. oh well.
No one apologizes for religion. It is a deliberate dodge by those intending to levy an accusation, to label a clear response which debunks the accusation as "apologeticism" It isnt apologeticism to set the record straight based on what is indeed written with quotes and reference to context.

I apologize if you felt I beat around the bush. But being compact and brief especially in regards to topics that entail much detail almost always goes hand in hand with a superficial understanding.
After all, one cannot understand all the details and facts on a subject, and then make an informed decision, if all one has are short summaries which miss out on the details and nuances which actualyl go towards forming an informed opinion.

So if you do try to bring over your "compact and brief" attributes to topics as discussed here, you'll be bringing over the disappointment you cause in the bedroom to the reading audience...

posted on December 11th, 2008, 5:58 pm

Yes we are in agreement. ANY ideology can be misused. To me it simply underscores the fact that do not derive our morals from religion or atheism or anything else (we certainly don't get them from the religious texts and I am relieved about that). As for atheism, the reason we don't get our morals from atheism is because it only represents a default position, starting from scratch and observing the natural world using our common sense (recall the saying that if atheism is a religion then bald is a hair colour). This is why atheists often combine their worldview with "humanism", a kind of ethical code, and I have to say that although it isn't perfect, it leaves the literal morals of the koran and bible way behind. Most "moderate" religious people are humanists in all but name.

There is one fact I am utterly convinced about. If an ideology can be abused (and all human ones can), it does not come from "God", unless his intent was to cause mayhem, and he was bad at science when he went to school (as a study of the holy texts shows). The typical argument that it is "up to us" to come to the correct conclusion is just a device religious people use, one of many excuses for a flawed belief system. "Flawed" hardly does justice to the shocking results of taking these "holy" books seriously or literally. And if they are not to be taken seriously, then there is even less reason to take them as inspired.

This could easily confuse someone who still thinks they believe in God, but it doesn't confuse me at all, because I have much better reasons not to believe in God. You seem not to understand Serpicus that the failings of religion are only one reason why I am an atheist.

I have a pointed question, which you have "answered" in the past but very unsatisfactorily. Think about it again. How can you observe the natural world and think it was created? Where do leeches, liver flukes, obligate predators and natural disasters fit into God's plan?

Don't respond with "creation has fallen" since I know you accept evolution (literal creationists are proposing superfast, superstrong evolution when they talk about the "fall"). Don't respond with "God used evolution to create the world", since no deity is required for evolution (remember Atkins' increasingly lazy God). Don't repond with "God setup the universe and then put his feet up" because for exactly the same reason this is rubbish. Study some general relativity, and you'll realise that whatever the "starting" event was, time did not exist prior to it - cause and effect have no meaning when space and time do not exist. God did not exist "forever" into the past because there was no forever and there was no past. If the universe started with a brane collision the arguments are the same. The fallacy is to think that the Bang happened on some "spacetime stage". It did not.

Your method: start with a belief that God exist, search for evidence to back it up, if indeed you can (you cannot).

"Scientific" (rational) method: Believe nothing at first. Then observe the universe. No God is required, and while we are free to postulate that he exists in addition to the free and uncreated universe, all that does is puts us in the unenviable position of having to explain what, exactly, he is doing up there, how he got into the stream of time, why he ignores everything, etc etc ad infinitum.

Occam's razor has served science well. Choose the simplest explanation which can explain the data (observations, facts). There is no God.

[Dominus_Noctis]

posted on December 11th, 2008, 6:02 pm

Last edited by Dominus_Noctis on December 11th, 2008, 7:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

“However, as we can see in cases such as the Aryan brotherhood and KKK there is no theism being invoked just plain atheistic racism, which for some even delves into pure genetic theory.
So in conclusion to go one way or the other is neither here nor there.”

Well, the Aryan brotherhood which originated in 1967 follows Odenism, which is the ancient religion of the Vikings, and if you are referring to the Nazi party of Germany, it officially supported what was called “positive Christianity”. Plus, the personality cult of its leaders certainly qualifies as a form of ritual and system of belief (aka religion). The KKK was made up of predominantly Protestants (and now Southern Baptists). It also is a cult with all the accompanying propaganda, special titles, worship of various historical/fictional characters and thus a form of religion. Again, you seem to presume that atheism is its own breed of religion (I guess in your mind, a monolithic anti-religion), and I think you just simply can’t get it through your head that the lack of a religion does not bind people together into “atheistic racism” as you put it. That is to say, you constantly seem to propose that atheists are their own group; equivalent to Protestants, 12vers, Ismailis, Catholics etc. This is further corroborated when you state “Each ideology can be misused. Religion can be used to incense, whereas atheism when lacking in any code of conduct can leave the door open to rationales of convenience which spout the same wars and genocide that religion can”. Atheism is no religion, philosophy, ideology, belief system. To quote, an ideology is “any body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group. There are two key elements necessary for an ideology: it must be a group of ideas or beliefs and this group must provide guidance. Neither is true of atheism. First, atheism is by itself just the absence of belief in gods; it's not even a single belief, much less a body of beliefs. Second, atheism by itself offers no guidance on moral, social, or political matters. Atheism, like theism, can be part of an ideology, but neither can be an ideology by themselves”. Thus, not only is your comparison unfounded, but it is also grossely inaccurate. I do however hold, as both you and Laz have stated, that once an ideology/creed etc is created (on whatever basis it choses as groundwork), it can (and usually is) "misused".

As far as your argument of “pure genetic theory” goes: what on earth are you talking about? I’ve never heard of this “pure genetic theory” you speak of… do you mean eugenics to insure Aryan survival? This (being eugenics) has really very little to do with any sound genetics of any sort. Remember, “Nature” has no plan, and if humans aren’t dying before reproducing, they are passing on their genes just fine.

In regard to your statement about “Religious texts are not ambiguous, but are not easy to glean from at the first go”: so you mean to say that you know the “one true meaning”, and everyone else is wrong? I guess that would go with your next statement though, about finding “the truth”. Pray tell, what is “the Truth,” with a capital T? Afterall, your statement would seem to imply that there can be no personal interpretation of a “holy book”, not to mention that different religious groups (of the same overarching religion) cannot all possibly be correct then. Furthermore, since most religious texts claim they are the one true interpretation, and the Qu’ran, for example, claims it abrogates both the Old and New Testaments, then according to you there can only be one true religion and one true sect of that religion.

"another example is the surah 81:13 - I swear by the planets that recede. A verse that has muslim apologetics adding parentheses to clarify day and night for fear of sounding ridiculous... yet the verse is in perfect line with the fact that planets are receding as part of universal expansion."

This is CLEAR? How is this "part of universal expansion" anyhow; the "planets" (I assume you are talking about Mars, Uranus, Jupiter... the big bodies that are in this solar system) aren't receding from one another surely... so do you mean recede from other bodies in our galaxy... cuz that ain't happening either (for most)... so you must mean from other galaxies... which can't incorporate all galaxies, since some are on a collision course with us. Your "perfect line" is so knotted and requires so much extrapolation that I'd hardly even call it interpretable. Might as well go with the old crystal ball. Well, I guess then that the laws of this universe break down when considering the Last Day (for Islam) as well. However, I guess you'll state again "it's not a science book" and continue with your obfuscating and verbose statements, not to mention irrelevant and childish attacks on "manhood".

*Update*: I just found another source Miracles of the Qur'an - Modern Science Reveals New Miracles of the Qur'an that states that "These words in the above verses fully describe orbital movements stemming from the force of gravity. Of these, the word "khunnas" refers to the planets' attraction towards their own centres and also their attraction towards the Sun, which is the centre of our Solar System". So which is it Serpicus? Or are you going to say they are all correct and thereby forfeit your statement of there being only one correct interpretation possible.

posted on December 11th, 2008, 7:50 pm

@Laz

In the end all that you are now saying is this:
"I base my premise on ABC. ABC is my premise. therefore I base my premise on ABC"

Come on Laz. lol

posted on December 11th, 2008, 8:00 pm

@Dom.

the question on truth - read, discuss, evaluate. Argument is irrelevant and a waste of your time and yields nothing.

in regards to your link:
this is the compete text sated there:
The word "khunnas" in Surat at-Takwir 15 bears such meanings as shrinking and cowering, retracting and turning back. The Arabic expression translated as "hide themselves" in the 16th verse is "kunnas." The word "kunnas" is the plural form of "kanis" and refers to a specific path: entering a nest, the home of a body in motion or things entering their homes and hiding there. Again in verse 16, the word "aljawari," the plural form of the word "jariya" which means one that moves and flows, is translated as "that ride their course." Bearing in mind the meaning of these words, it is very possible that these verses refer to the gravitational forces of the planets and their movements around their orbits.

These words in the above verses fully describe orbital movements stemming from the force of gravity. Of these, the word "khunnas" refers to the planets' attraction towards their own centres and also their attraction towards the Sun, which is the centre of our Solar System. (Allah knows best.) The force of gravity already existed in the universe-although it was only possible to reveal this attractive force with mathematical formulae with Sir Isaac Newton, who lived in the 17th and 18th centuries. The word "aljawari" in the following verse emphasises the orbital movements that arise as a result of the centrifugal force that opposes this attractive one. There is no doubt that the use of the word "aljawari" together with "khunnas" (attraction towards the centre, shrinkage) and "kunnas" (path, entering the nest, the home of a body in motion) indicates an important scientific truth that nobody could have known about 1,400 years ago. (Allah knows best.) Moreover, these verses, one of the subjects sworn on in the Qur'an, are another indication of the importance of the subject.


did what I say about expansion go against anything explained in regards to gravity and centrifugal force?** if you understand the nature and behavior of expansion in regards to gravity and centrifugal force**
this is what i mean by interpretation - with reference to the context it is anchored in and around the same premise.


Which is why truth is dependent on your intentions... read, discuss, and understand .. not  argument and thinking the last word here benefits anyone or anything

[Dominus_Noctis]

posted on December 11th, 2008, 8:22 pm

Last edited by Dominus_Noctis on December 11th, 2008, 8:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yes of course it went against what you said about "gravity and centrifugal force"! Gravity is acting to slow down the expansion of the universe, and is not the reason for cosmic inflation: local perturbations are not equivalent to cosmological expansion. The universe is in fact expanding at an accelerating rate due to dark energy, which cannot even be discussed on the local scale of "my" source. Here, I'll re-quote:

"another example is the surah 81:13 - I swear by the planets that recede. A verse that has muslim apologetics adding parentheses to clarify day and night for fear of sounding ridiculous... yet the verse is in perfect line with the fact that planets are receding as part of universal expansion."

You stated that "the planets are receding as part of universal expansion", yet in the other source "these verses refer to the gravitational forces of the planets and their movements around their orbits". These are clearly two different suppositions, both derived from the same passage. In fact, the only way that you would have thought to describe "universal expansion" using this passage would have been if you had already known that was the case through modern science. However, in a few billion years gravity will have little effect on the expansion of the universe (presumably), thus making this passage really inaccurate in that second context. Lastly, you base this premise (as does the article) on words that can be interpreted in multiple ways. This again goes against your "specific interpretation" hypothesis. To sumarize: the two systems cannot be described by one passage without using making a passage ridiculously vague and ambiguous (and thus I could interpret that it also is describing how a protostar develops into a solar system, or how multiple planets at lagrange break eachother apart).

Your "truth" answer didn't answer anything. I suggest re-reading that paragraph to come up with a logical statement.