Science has much better answers than "God did it" (hell, prophet)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thank you. Such posts do more to convince all here that they should have nothing whatsoever to do with the the ignorant, intolerant and fanatical creed that is Islam.
I do have to laugh when they quote something from their book and claim it's proof that muslims invented everything. But you're right, the more they post here the more it is obvious that they are religious automatons that can't think for themselves.
It's the best advertisement for why one would NOT want to convert to Islam.
The threat of asteroids is known from science, not religion. And I thought that revelations is about what's going to happen, not what has happened.
In fact, thanks to wicked science and its nasty atheistic missiles and bombs, we actually do have the technology to avert an asteroid strike, given the co-operative will, which is a darn sight more help than religion gives us.
The looney rantings of the 'divine' John could only look to you as though it was a scientific description of anything.
The Book of Revelation speaks of the future. And the effects of an asteroid hit were first spoken of in the Bible, and not science. And we have technology that may avert an asteroid strike if there is time to react. The one recent near miss only gave us three days of warning, and came within 40,000 miles of earth. And as todays science will tell you. It is not a question of if the earth will be hit, but rather a question of when. And based on that belief. All of a sudden the looney rantings of John suddenly are not that looney at all. For he is in agreement with science. When it appears you are not. Which means your thinking may be a little looney.
Science was discovered. Wow, and to think before "mind" science existed, without "mind" science is. I suppose all those science text books came from the big bang, intact and copyrighted!
Regrettably . . . few actually think about these things very deeply.
You only assert it which is not the truth. It is your falsehood, bunch of atheists!
I have to declare it here frankly that: inspite of the lies of atheists; they lie to themselves and to their conscience and to their disadvantage first of all and they do wrong themselves by their lies.
Not at all, but in fact God Almighty created everything in the universe and He disposes about the affairs of people in the entire universe.
And this is in the Quran 39: 62
اللَّهُ خَالِقُ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ وَهُوَ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ وَكِيلٌ
The explanation:
(God is the Creator of every [material and ethereal] thing, and He is the Guardian over [the provision of] every [living] thing.)
The Book of Revelation speaks of the future. And the effects of an asteroid hit were first spoken of in the Bible, and not science. And we have technology that may avert an asteroid strike if there is time to react. The one recent near miss only gave us three days of warning, and came within 40,000 miles of earth. And as todays science will tell you. It is not a question of if the earth will be hit, but rather a question of when. And based on that belief. All of a sudden the looney rantings of John suddenly are not that looney at all. For he is in agreement with science. When it appears you are not. Which means your thinking may be a little looney.
We need a little interpretation here since not only do we have Theist in place of English, but we have a bit of 'joining the dots' as I believe you called it or, in English, a leap of faith.
Today's science tells us that the earth is (in due course) likely to be hit by an asteroid. What does the Bible tell us?
"And the dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns, and on each head a blasphemous name. 2 The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority. 3 One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was astonished and followed the beast."
Now you may see that as science but you have sure made a leap of faith in doing so and therefore I would be looney and you would be looney in seeing anything scientific about the book of Revelations at all (1). And I don't imagine I've seen demons and most sane people don't imagine they've seen demons.
Only the not -so-looney-after-all C34 (known to be a highly unstable element) sees demons in his kitchen and sees accounts of asteroid strikes in Revelations and odd mentions of mythical monsters in Job as dinosaurs sharing the market square with Ramessid Egyptians.
No, I don't think anyone whose opinion counts for anything - not even Mystic though he probably thinks I'm relatively stupid - will see anything looney about MY thinking.
(1) I see it as metaphorical history as prophecy, and related to the (possibly Nazorene) writings from Qumran, but that's another matter.
And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood; And the third part of the creature which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships where destroyed.
Without question, John just described an Asteroid hit.
"Without question?" The only thing I can see "without question" is that you can take a bunch of ambiguous poetic imagery and interpret it as almost anything you want. But this does raise an interesting point: If the Bible is the word of God, and is meant to tell us useful stuff today, then why is it put in a language that was appropriate for people 1900 year ago?They didn't need to know it 1900 years ago. If anyone needs to know about it, then it is us modern folks, so why not pick imagery that speaks more clearly to the modern mind? Sure, it might have seemed like gibberish to people 1900 years ago, but who cares? Why not say something like:
"And the second angel sounded, and a great rock burning with fire fell into the sea: killing creatures in the sea and causing massive waves that destroyed ships."
Now if the Bible said this, then a lot more people today would see the relevance. Certainly an all-knowing God would know this, so why not write this, instead of writing a bunch of vague imagery that can be interpreted a zillion different ways?
On a philosophy thread, one wants precision. All language is metaphor, and, therefore, metaphor is needed to unfold metaphor. A scientist, no hogwash here, in relation to the end of the world by man's hubris and manufacturing heating up the planet, when models said a decade or so ago we were going to freeze and be buried by fast moving glaciers racing down upon us from those evil Canadians, well this scientist said that the "natural" mathane (in a Siberian area and when this gets out we are all doomed along with the polar bears) is being produced in the "gut" of the lake and being "burped" up through the ice. Sounds like a sick child rather than a "natural" world. When one "discovers" the laws of "nature" one places mind into the object. There are no laws in nature just as there is no beauty, just as there is no ethics, just as there are no methods. All made up and placed into metaphor (experimentation is to validate the metaphor, but the metaphor is not "real", and the instruments used, including the trained mind, and that mind's stage in development "sees" what it is made and trained to see).
Hawkings said that space was infinite, no hog wash here, except that that infinity has to be "shown" by theory; unless that chair of his is a time/space contraption that gets him to the never ending ending and he can give us a photograph-although I want to see for myself. He said that, matter, of course, he may have said creation, anyway the stuff from the big bang is finite. Nothing here and rather droll and no one yawned. Philosophy without science had that figured out some time ago (well when philosophy was called science and before). His answer on what was here before the big bang was something like a something after and a not something before-everything here is theoretical and as he would like to ask Einstein why he didn't believe in black holes, in 50 years or so another smartest man in the world will wonder why Hawkings didn't believe in something. Some one can find this with precision, I am not interested, as like the Dali Lama in his golden chair surrounded by his adorers giving us ethics, and Hawkings on his mechanical chair surrounded by his adorers telling us how the universe is billions of light years from here (well, never ending from here), no one laughed.
Religion, or the gods, are the mind's conceptual form of reason. It is proper in the religious sphere that reason takes the shape it does and the good theological systems and their improvement is doing just that in that sphere of reason. One has no idea if a "real" god exists or not, even Hawkings would not make that claim, but the conceptualizations of theology actualizes the god concept. After all, if it took the shape of our holy science with its follower's belief in the notion that a metal process of dialectical knowledge is actually the absolute, that will put egg on one's face, then it would be science and not religion. Actually, I think the case could be made that these two systems are actually trading places.
God is for mind, philosophically, what is formed up and set up in the mind was considered to be higher then when the mind relied on objective objects, ie, the "real", as science and technology; the Greek never took much advantage of these as is known. The real is merely without content as I indicated above and mind adds that. The conception, a metal system, a rational structure (rarely seen on data forum) is attached to the "real" and that actualizes it. The "real" is not actual without the concept-yes the half wit is half for a reason. The never ending space is for mind as well. Both god and infinity are not had directly in the physical "real" but a concept has to be formed up and the "real" is in the mind for these two (and at philosophical moments in the past, god and infinity are one, just as in some of these moments god and reason are one). The synthesis of this concept and mental "real" actualizes both ideas. Hawkings is a genius because subject and object are infinitized in the mind, he can do this, at least on this particular infinite idea, because infinity can not be had objectively.
What does the hogwash of religion work out, that all the parasites on this thread take and do not thank it for their inflated little persons. The Greek god Zeus represents mind and he over throws the Titans, the powers of nature, he does not kill them but limits them into their places. This is the philosophical awakening of mind but it is still dependent on external objects for its thought, a crutch if you will, but set down by poets and epic writers. In the Jew account, the world is spoken into being. The whole story is "spiritualized" or made mental, as the objects come from words and it is mind (god) that limits the physical, therefore, a higher development than the Greek. The point there, among other things, is the mental over the physical, or to have dominion over nature (obviously not appreciated by all the save the globe types now, where mind needs to retreat); obviously in the progress of this religion to its limit and the introduction of the christian, the mind concept is greatly expanded for it is to have dominion over this mental world as well, and this if figured in the Christ as the end of the Heroic world, the "real" in mind that is ideas. The words, from a god, are more "real" than the objects that come from them. It is debatable now, I suppose whether philosophy is higher than theology, but given the seemingly state of both, well that seems mute.
There is the syllogism, and in religion this is worked out in the higher concept of the trinity, long before science. There is the abstract idea and that needs to be negated by the particular. Both are abstract and the particular needs to be negated by the "real" which re-enters the abstract. This negation of the negation completes the "process". In the higher functioning of mind, philosophy, this takes place in the mind alone and actualizes the three, and in theology this is know as the trinity.
All religions are monotheistic and trinitarian, it is just that reason could not become an object of itself in these metaphors until christianity. Each spere of thought attempts the working out of this issue, or mind, and the various spheres of thought get at this from more than one direction. It is regrettable that all one reads are mindless statements that have no content and these are posted on a philosophy page rather rather than a gossip thread or bumper sticker thread, where precision is not an issue.
The Moslem religion, as a side note, refuses to incarnate their god and merely attempts to accomplish reconciliation by the prophet. The syllogistic process can not be completed there, so mind is always at unrest. As christians, or what goes by that name, deconstruct the trinity, then christianity, or mind there, will not find reconciliation. Atheists need to do the same, and they seem to have no structure at all except this fragile hold on a split subjective/objective-external dependency, as illustrated by their only attachment to "science".
All this non-reconciliation of mind can be controlled of course. Law, force, political correctness, irrationalism, contentless thought, subjective authority (this is strange on the data forum, as I assume this is a bunch of nobodies), brain washing schools such as religious (particularly those Moslem ones), passing science off as finished and absolute, aesthetics is a good one, abstract ethics, and other such stuff. A thinking person though will get through it but I suppose these are quite rare as all of these methods are designed to annihilate the subjective into a conformism; whether religious or secular, as both come from a "pure" (in the philosophical sense) religion that was the social first form.
We need a little interpretation here since not only do we have Theist in place of English, but we have a bit of 'joining the dots' as I believe you called it or, in English, a leap of faith.
Today's science tells us that the earth is (in due course) likely to be hit by an asteroid. What does the Bible tell us?
"And the dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns, and on each head a blasphemous name. 2 The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority. 3 One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was astonished and followed the beast."
Now you may see that as science but you have sure made a leap of faith in doing so and therefore I would be looney and you would be looney in seeing anything scientific about the book of Revelations at all (1). And I don't imagine I've seen demons and most sane people don't imagine they've seen demons.
Only the not -so-looney-after-all C34 (known to be a highly unstable element) sees demons in his kitchen and sees accounts of asteroid strikes in Revelations and odd mentions of mythical monsters in Job as dinosaurs sharing the market square with Ramessid Egyptians.
No, I don't think anyone whose opinion counts for anything - not even Mystic though he probably thinks I'm relatively stupid - will see anything looney about MY thinking.
(1) I see it as metaphorical history as prophecy, and related to the (possibly Nazorene) writings from Qumran, but that's another matter.
The Book of Revelation describes an Asteroid hit. It's so obvious a child could point this out to you. And such advanced information should not be ignored. And the Bible pointed this out to us long before science even knew asteroids existed.
And in your post you mention that science states that we may likely be hit by an Asteroid. Then you present a totally unrelated part of Scripture as it that was the Bibles responce. While you fully ignore Revelation 8:8,9.
And then you jump from there and start talking about who has experience demons as opposed to who has not. If you are going to adress this topic at all. At the very least you should adress the correct passage in Scripture that is being spoken of. The one that I claim has advanced knowledge. What John describes in Revelation 8:8,9 would be confirmed by most scientist as a description of an Asteroid hit. And just because you don't believe the Bible, is no good reason for you to ignore that passage. And then replace it with a totally unrelated one. That makes me think you some how want to divert attention away from Revelation 8. Now, why would you want to do that?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But you're right, the more they post here the more it is obvious that they are religious automatons that can't think for themselves. 
