[Lemmy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

slaughtered 10,000 Philistines (aka Palestinians).

You are an ignorant man.

[BartSimpson]

Lemmy Lemmy:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

slaughtered 10,000 Philistines (aka Palestinians).

You are an ignorant man.

The Palestinians rightfully claim to be the inheritors of the Philistines and the etymology of the names of the group support the claim along with recent DNA research (that also ties the Palestinians to modern day Libyans who are descendant of the Carthaginians who originated in Palestine).

Simply put, Palestine is Greek for the Arabic Filistin.

[Proculation]

A little out of context but, did you see the documentary of Discovery channel with Stephen Hawkins, Into the Universe ?

It was awesome. Specially the second episode about time travel.

[Lemmy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

the Palestinians rightfully claim to be the inheritors of the Philistines and the etymology of the names of the group support the claim along with recent DNA research (that also ties the Palestinians to modern day Libyans who are descendant of the Carthaginians who originated in Palestine).

Simply put, Palestine is Greek for the Arabic Filistin.

Simply put, you haven't a clue.

[HyperionTheEvil]

$1:

In your opinion. Even if you consider the Bible fiction, the stories and the lessons it teaches are no less important and thought provoking. Think of it as reading 1984 or Animal Farm, which are both based on purely fiction and yet can still inspire political, ideological, and moral views. Aesop Fables, basically any science fiction show, or anything else.

Yes but outside of L Ron Hubbard no one has tried to make a religion out of science fiction. The difference is that few take Scientology seriously. For some reason people build their loves around religion. All fine an dandy, be my guest. It's when religion pokes it's nose into public policy such as the teaching of Intelligent Design or making judgments upon people based upon those mythical tests and then trying to formulate laws to deny them equal rights i have an issue

$1:

The fact you see the Bible as flaws or mythical does not negate the lessons or the morality or the guidance it can provide. If you have ethics and morality, most likely you got them from somewhere, be it from your parents and upbringing, or from your education, or anything else.

The question of it's contradiction's is not just a 'view' it's generally accepted

$1:

Okay...*Shrugs* Like I said, your interpretation. . If you don't believe, that's your choice. I do believe, and that's my choice. Beyond this, is you want to be insulting to those who do believe, then fine. But I have no desire to argue with you if you enter a discussion with your mind totally closed.

Religion should not have a free pass when it comes to a critical analysis of what it actually teaches. It's common for religious people to claim that they are "oppressed" or "insulted" when anyone question their belief system. If religious people can't even stand a cursory examination of one of the pillars of "Faith" ,they're various texts. Then it hardly should be used in deciding public policy

[HyperionTheEvil]

$1:

And here we go equating the research on stem Cells to baby killing, women have a right to abortion. I'ts her body she has the perfect right to control her own body. religion teaches that a fetus is a human being and has a soul

Prove that humanity has souls scientifically, i eagerly await peer reviewed articles on such

$1:

Kinda funny how you demand such evidence yet provide none yourself to the contrary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul#Science

$1:

Science and medicine seek naturalistic accounts of the observable natural world. This stance is known as methodological naturalism.[68] Much of the scientific study relating to the soul has involved investigating the soul as an object of human belief, or as a concept that shapes cognition and an understanding of the world, rather than as an entity in and of itself.

When modern scientists speak of the soul outside of this cultural and psychological context, they generally treat soul as a poetic synonym for mind. Francis Crick's book, The Astonishing Hypothesis, for example, has the subtitle, "The scientific search for the soul". Crick held the position that one can learn everything knowable about the human soul by studying the workings of the human brain. Depending on one's belief regarding the relationship between the soul and the mind, then, the findings of neuroscience may be relevant to one's understanding of the soul.

An oft-encountered analogy is that the brain is to the mind as computer hardware is to computer software. The idea of the mind as software has led some scientists to use the word "soul" to emphasize that the human mind has powers beyond or at least qualitatively different from what artificial software can do. Roger Penrose expounds this position in The Emperor's New Mind. He posits that the mind is in fact not like a computer as generally understood, but rather a quantum computer, that can do things impossible on a classical computer, such as decide the halting problem (although quantum computers in actuality cannot do any more than a regular Turing machine, including deciding the halting problem, they can in theory solve problems that would require billions of years for linear algorithms on the fastest computers in the world in minutes or seconds). Some have located the soul in this possible difference between the mind and a classical computer.

Wrong again, try again.

$1:

H the E meet Eugenics. Eugenics, meet H the E.

Meet the crusades, or meet today's efforts by religionists across the world to deny peopel civil rights based upon what some mythical deity supposedly said thousands of years ago (But wasn't actually written down until centuries later.

$1:

See, science is SUPPOSED to be based on open debate, research, experiment and testing but it isn't always. Like religion, there will always be humans to try and pervert it.

Yes it can be abused, but the purity of science still remains, the reason that it is abused because of human weaknesses and prejudices not because of any flaw in the scientific method. Religion is far from even getting close to that point, it merely exists so that it can be abuses

Once again the Catholic church hiding pedophiles for decades and even the current pope helped do the same thing, and yet according to the church the pope is infallible. How does a pope who hides child molesters maintain this mystical perfection. Simple, that religion insists that it so and will warrant no challenge to their authority, or their authority against priests being allowed to marry, or openly gay people entering the religious orders (why they would want to is beyond me)

[PostFactum]

One American scientist, when someone asked him why he believes in god, he put wooden shavings with metal, mixed them after that took the magnet and separated metal shavings from wooden. He said "If I can separate wood from metal, the god can separate good from bad" So the main thing is to believe, religion in most of times isn't bad, it makes life easier

[sandorski]

PostFactum PostFactum:

One American scientist, when someone asked him why he believes in god, he put wooden shavings with metal, mixed them after that took the magnet and separated metal shavings from wooden. He said "If I can separate wood from metal, the god can separate good from bad" So the main thing is to believe, religion in most of times isn't bad, it makes life easier

Either you left out some detail or what the guy said makes absolutely 0 sense.

[HyperionTheEvil]

From the original article , a quote from Dr Hawking

$1:

"There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, (and) science, which is based on observation and reason," Hawking told ABC News's Diane Sawyer in an interview Monday.

"Science will win because it works."

[commanderkai]

HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:

Yes but outside of L Ron Hubbard no one has tried to make a religion out of science fiction. The difference is that few take Scientology seriously. For some reason people build their loves around religion. All fine an dandy, be my guest. It's when religion pokes it's nose into public policy such as the teaching of Intelligent Design or making judgments upon people based upon those mythical tests and then trying to formulate laws to deny them equal rights i have an issue

Morality, ethics, and religion will always be mixed within public policy. The only way you can stop this is by oppressing the hundreds of millions of individuals with religious faith. You might not understand why. You probably don't care to, but a person's morals or ethics rarely stop once they leave their home.

$1:

Religion should not have a free pass when it comes to a critical analysis of what it actually teaches.

Actually no. Theological discussion occur quite often. Religious individuals don't agree like a mindless hive (it's funny how a lot of atheists or non-believers see it as such) but internal discussions and debate among the faithful occur quite often.

$1:

It's common for religious people to claim that they are "oppressed" or "insulted" when anyone question their belief system. If religious people can't even stand a cursory examination of one of the pillars of "Faith" ,they're various texts. Then it hardly should be used in deciding public policy

It's not the questioning. It's how you question, and what your attitude is. If you come off as a pompous asshole, then yes, people will be insulted. You enter a discussion with preconceived notions and judgments about what religious members or individuals believe, and you expect those who disagree with you to prove you wrong.

You truly want to talk to "religious" individuals, then see a priest, a minister, a rabbi, an imam. Whoever. They'll be quite open with you, and they certainly can tell you what they believe. The problem is, for you, is that you might not understand the answers.

[Dragom]

Quick add in about Stem Cells

It's past June 5 of 2010. Stem cells no longer involve Fetus's or Umbilical Cords.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez

You jab a patient with a sharp piece of metal (possibly rusty) to get some living cells and then you revert those cells to their pre-embryonic state. Then instead of allowing clones to grow in the petri dish you use a few of them to patch a severed spinal cord or rebuild an semi-destroyed liver.

Future is now and catch up to the times guys.

[HyperionTheEvil]

$1:

Morality, ethics, and religion will always be mixed within public policy. The only way you can stop this is by oppressing the hundreds of millions of individuals with religious faith. You might not understand why. You probably don't care to, but a person's morals or ethics rarely stop once they leave their home.

They have often been mixed, very often to the detriment to society, we long ago learned that killing you're neighbor was a bad idea because his relatives might be as blood thirsty as you were and might come looking for revenge. It didn't stop us from doing just that, but at least were learned a few lessons over the centuries but religion has more often than not been in the forefront of actually excusing , or openly advocating that behavior.

$1:

Actually no. Theological discussion occur quite often. Religious individuals don't agree like a mindless hive (it's funny how a lot of atheists or non-believers see it as such) but internal discussions and debate among the faithful occur quite often.

Theological discussion as to the "nature" of god. Fine with me. I have issues when the followers of those same said theologians start wanting to puch religion into classrooms and daily life that i take umbrage and then push back

$1:

It's not the questioning. It's how you question, and what your attitude is. If you come off as a pompous asshole, then yes, people will be insulted. You enter a discussion with preconceived notions and judgments about what religious members or individuals believe, and you expect those who disagree with you to prove you wrong.

So wait you refer to me as a pompous asshole and then have the wherewithal to chastise me on "Attitude". Im perfectly willing to accept that "god" (Jehova, Jesus, whatever) exists. And religious people can believe whatever they want. Scientologists believe that Tom Cruise is an important religious figure. But if Scientologists start pushing Tom Cruise somehow a learned individual on public policy then i call BS. The same goes for Christians, Muslims or the Natural Law Party.

Im not asking anyone to prove that their god exists for them, i don't give a rat's ass. However the total lack evidence suggests that there is and was never any deity or deities involved in mankind's actions. If people want to believe feel free, but if you want to change the way a country works because of what you "believe", such as denying gay-marriage or gay adoption then i damn well want to see proof that you're right and this god or gods actually exists

$1:

You truly want to talk to "religious" individuals, then see a priest, a minister, a rabbi, an imam. Whoever. They'll be quite open with you, and they certainly can tell you what they believe. The problem is, for you, is that you might not understand the answers.

I have gone that road a long time ago, and the problem was not that didn't understand the "Answers". The "Answer" to the doubt in "Faith" is simply having more faith.

That isn't an answer, it's a cop out.

[angler57]

All of these arguements become less important as we age.

If you have ever had other folks trying very hard to kill you. If you have ever beat death a couple of times. Or, are of an age where reading obits you find people much younger dying each day.

Being a hand-mate with the reaper gives a very different point of view.
Until a person has been to that place explaining it is impossible.
If you have never lived in fear for your life moment by moment you ain't never lived.

Looking into anothers unseeing face has a very special meaning. One second a vital living person. Then.

[PostFactum]

sandorski sandorski:

PostFactum PostFactum:

One American scientist, when someone asked him why he believes in god, he put wooden shavings with metal, mixed them after that took the magnet and separated metal shavings from wooden. He said "If I can separate wood from metal, the god can separate good from bad" So the main thing is to believe, religion in most of times isn't bad, it makes life easier

Either you left out some detail or what the guy said makes absolutely 0 sense.

Agree, but has the moral side one, that if you believe, you can do.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

"Thou shalt not kill" is an imperfect translation of the original Hebrew that uses the word ratsah as the verb, which literally means murder.

Exactly. There has never been a prohibition against killing in any historic civilization of repute. The point is, you are only allowed to kill with the permission of the state. Killing without permission of the state is called "murder."

What the passage really means is don't kill anyone unless your master tells you to.

Christinaity is at a point of transition, and has been for some time. Judaism and Christianity were originally slave religions. They were invented and developed by slaves or oppressed peoples. That's why they stress being nice, regardless of circumstance, and getting your reward in heaven.

However, now that Christianity becomes awkward when its practitioners are rulers. So that's where a lot of the hypocrciy of Chirstianity comes from--the tension between the slave religion as practiced by masters.

So said Nietszche, anyways. I happen to agree.