 |
|
|
|
 Vice President Joe Biden said President Barack Obama is exploring executive orders to help stop mass shootings.
January 10th, 2013
01:37 AM ET
Biden's gun panel meets with faith leadersBy Kevin Bohn, CNN Senior Producer Washington (CNN) – Vice President Joe Biden and officials on his gun violence committee held an unannounced meeting Wednesday evening with a group of 12 national faith leaders. One theme brought up by several participants was the "moral tragedy" reflected in the gun violence the nation has seen over the past several months. FULL STORY
« Previous entryMy Take: An open letter to Justin Bieber
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
| Part of 
@SImran : Vedic hymns were initially transmit.ted by ora.l transmis.sion from generation to generation
So, you admit that each generation could change them and therefore you DON'T know what the earliest one said, much less beginnin with the creation of matter, energy and time.
Pretty much like each generation of Bible writers could have changed its contents!
Post by 'Live4Him' is an instance of the Begging the Question fallacy
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html
Fallacy Spotter, don't forget also the Too Friggin Stupid To Hit The Reply Button fallacy. L4H committed that one several times.
@Fallacy Spotting 101
You have no idea what you're doing here, do you? You don't even realize that fallacies are only applicable to postulates, not to pointing out the other's flaws. You just randomly pick a fallacy and claim that it applies. Which is why I ignore your posts.
BTW – To the others on the forum – I'm out of here for today.
BTW, how do you explain the flood in the Bible?
@SImran : Pretty much like each generation of Bible writers could have changed its contents!
Wrong. A computer analysis of the Bible reveals an 99.9% accuracy rate in transmission since before Christ.
l4h
Come on what about the ears
And have the very initial manuscripts been found?
Besides the fact that the original Bible and modern Bibles are in different languages, one of the major problems is that the original manuscripts don't exist anymore. So we can't compare modern Bible versions directly to the originals. Furthermore, the manuscripts which we do have are not exactly what was originally written. To explain, the oldest manuscripts of the Old Testament go back to 250 BCE. Yet, the Old Testament was being written over a period of time long before that, from 1400-400 BCE. That's a long time, especially for the earliest books – nearly 1200 years between original and copy!
@Live4Him,
"Wrong. A computer analysis of the Bible reveals an 99.9% accuracy rate in transmission since before Christ."
So why are the three synoptic Gospels so different rather than similar – particularly if they have a common source?
And how many authors and 'editors' did the old testament have? It was rewritten and rewritten over centuries to try to make it consistent.
Modern translations are still messing with it. What percentage of modern translations refer to Lilith?
@ Live4Him:
“So, you admit that each generation could change them and therefore you DON'T know what the earliest one said, much less beginnin with the creation of matter, energy and time.”
Yes. We don't know what the very earliest version of the creation story said word for word. It was told orally for thousands of years before it became written.
The genesis stories that give so many of you apoplexy are categorically NOT to be taken literally. They are compilations of oral histories taken from various peoples from different geographical areas in different times. I believe his quote was "Oral history is like gossip." He went on to say that although different peoples had different details to their versions of the creation story there is a core of similarities that is the revelation of God. The details that are inconsistent are the ones that got screwed up in the telling and retelling over however many years it took from the original revelation to a primitive intellect until the Hebrews codified and wrote it down. The creation story is there to reveal the important core, not the specific details. In other words, it is important for us to know the WHAT (that God created). It is not important for us to know HOW he did it in detail (what was the process, how long did it take, when did it happen...).
Further, we are to remember that when we read scripture we must read it as it was written. In the case of the creation story you must read it as if you were a hunter/gatherer (caveman) who did not have a concept of time (no watches, no calendars, most likely someone who didn't keep track of how old he was – think about indigenous peoples who had no contact with western civilization until the 20th century). And you must also bear in mind that you may only refer to the human technology of the time at which the revelation was made. You can't assume that Ug the caveman who had his vision quest result in a Revelation would have been told anything that would require a degree in physics or astronomy. As human intellect evolved, revelations became more complex.
Tim the Destroyer of Worlds has no need for guns. He has has flaming furry fists of doom. Ferretianism is the one true religion. Repent!
http://www.banjoferret.com
@Live4Him
a) Given the need for a supernatural action to create matter, energy and time,
b) Given the need for a supernatural action to create life,
Therefore, this implies some God is necessary, but not necessariuly the Biblical God
You have yet to clarify your premise A. Firstly there is the fact that man created time as a means to measure and understand the world in which we live. We, therefore, created the concept of a beginning.
If there is no beginning, there is no need of an external force to begin anything.
Matter and energy exist. We can observe and measure them. They combine, they change, they evolve.
From that change comes life. If there is no need of an external force to begin matter and energy and matter and energy create life, there is no need of any supernatural anything, let alone a god.
@myweightinwords
"there is the fact that man created time"
Wrong. Time existed before man. Mankind only devised a means to measure it more granular than the rising and setting of the sun.
"We, therefore, created the concept of a beginning."
Wrong. Astrophysists admit that matter, energy and time did not exist in the singularity. This is why scientist cannot answer what happened prior to the Big Bang.
"From that change comes life."
That's a conclusion without empirical evidence. When scientist tried to create life in a labratory setting, they failed.
Wrong. Time existed before man. Mankind only devised a means to measure it more granular than the rising and setting of the sun.
Can you prove this? How does a concept exist without a mind to construct it?
Time is a construct, an imperfect tool used to wrench the abstract into a form that can be controlled, contained.
Wrong. Astrophysists admit that matter, energy and time did not exist in the singularity. This is why scientist cannot answer what happened prior to the Big Bang.
Who said anything about a big bang? There you go jumping to conclusions without doing the ground work again.
You see the world in duality: believer/non-believer, Christian/Atheist, creation/big bang. This is the beginning of your inability to reason through this subject.
That’s a conclusion without empirical evidence. When scientist tried to create life in a laboratory setting, they failed.
And yet they have cloned a sheep. Is that not creating life where life did not exist? Sperm and egg are united in a Petrie dish, and a fetus forms, is that not creating life where life did not exist?
Matter + Energy = Life: Seed (Matter) + Sun (Energy) = Plant Nothing unproven about that. Sure, it helps to have the right environment, but still.....
@myweightinwords : Can you prove this? How does a concept exist without a mind to construct it?
How long ago did dinosaurs exist? If you say "65 million years ago", you've agreed that time existed prior to mankind (and proven your posit to be false).
Wrong. We have retroactively applied the concept of time in order to better understand our relation to the past.
The dinosaurs lived before the modern age as we understand it to be.
Tell me, do you believe time is linear? Or is our perception of it linear?
One more try.
@myweightinwords
'Who said anything about a big bang?'
I thought we were discussing empirical evidence here, but it appears you don't have any. The math shows that time must have begun sometime in the last 15 billion years.
'Is that not creating life where life did not exist?'
A new individual was created from living parts supplied by one or more hosts is not the creation of life.
'Matter + Energy = Life:'
There is matter and energy on every celestral object in the universe – yet the only known life is on earth. Therefore, this premise has been falisified.
'We have retroactively applied the concept of time'
Thanks! You falsified your own premise. As I stated earlier – time existed prior to mankind.
@l4h
Just watch on How It Is Made, they are making EARS out stem cells.
Test
@ME II : "Nothing exists which is not natural – a god would not be natural – Therefore, no god exists."
This is the logic fallacy known as cir-cu-lar logic. You begin with the premise that the supernatural doesn't exist so that you can prove that a supernatural being doesn't exist.
"You begin with the premise that the supernatural doesn't exist"
So, show that that premise is false.
Unless you show me something supernatural, then my premise is assumed to be true, correct? Isn't that what you said?
ps
"a) Given the need for a supernatural action to create matter, energy and time,
b) Given the need for a supernatural action to create life,
Therefore, this implies some God is necessary, but not necessariuly the Biblical God."
This is circular.
How many times do I have to tell you to blog on your own time and not on my dime, "Live4Him"? You are now guilty of : #8 Thou shall not steal and Thou shall not bear false witness for your continued thievery. My patience is growing short. Okay, "Chick-a-dee"?
@ME II : This is circular.
SIGH... I have to spell EVERYTHING out to you.
a) Given the need for a supernatural action to create matter, energy and time,
Given that there is no known natural explaination for the creation of matter, energy and time
b) Given the need for a supernatural action to create life,
Given that there is no known natural explaination for the creation of life
Therefore, this implies some supernatural action is necessary, but not necessariuly the Biblical God."
So, I begin with a recognized fact (i.e. no natural explanation for universe), build upon it with another recognized fact (i.e. no natural explanation for life), to reach my conclusion. Nothing circular at all. Lazy, yes, but not circular.
Why did God create umbilical cords?
So babies can bungee jump.
@Live4Him,
Yes, please explain everything. Such as how "Given that there is no known natural explaination for the creation of matter, energy and time" leads to only a supernatural creation?
1) You are excluding any natural explanation, that is not currently known.
2) You are excluding the possibility that some form of matter/energy/space-time.has always existed, i.e. never created.
@ME II : "Sorry, but where did you get that idea?"
Perhaps I've been wrong. Do YOU think we're in a classroom setting? Or are we in a philiosophical setting? In the former, it is my responsibility to answer all the questions. In a philiosophical setting (i.e. as equals), you have the responsibility to bring SOMETHING that adds value to the discussion.
Going by your idea, the Hindu's premise is that the universe originated from the navel of Vishnu. Prove them wrong!
l4h
Who took prayer out of school?
I noticed a pattern on this page. L4H starts a PHILOSOPHICAL debate, then (I am as.suming) loses ground and leaves that thread and starts another one.
He does not provide a single counter-argument in response to the arguments provided by others, just accuses them of acting like classroom kids! And he thinks he adds value to discussion!
In a philosophical setting, if challenged on an assertion you made, you must prove it. You keep avoiding that.
@Live4Him,
What are you going on about? You made a claim, but unless you give some basis, e.g. evidence, to think that it is true, no one is obligated to accept it as true.
For example, by your logic, if I make the claim.
– God does not exist
That claim is now considered true unless you can show it to be false. This is called shifting the burden of proof (even though science doesn't deal in "proof").
This classroom vs philosophy setting is a red-herring.
Did not Socrates, supposedly, simply ask a lot of questions? I.e. the Socratic method?
@Me1 : Going by your idea, the Hindu's premise is that the universe originated from the navel of Vishnu. Prove them wrong!
Bad logic. The Hindu's CONCLUSION is that "...". There are no underlying premises in your postulate. Premises begin with "given ..." along with something that is observable by all. Using my earlier example:
"Given the need for a supernatural action to create matter, energy and time"
Could be translated into:
"Given that rhere is no natural explaination for the origins of matter, energy and time. Therefore, a supernatural explaination must exist."
Sim< that is because she is posting from her job and has no time to scroll through the posts, so she creates a new thread. Or, it is as you stated. Either way, it's dishonest.
@ME II : You made a claim, but unless you give some basis, e.g. evidence, to think that it is true
Well, there's the rub, isn't it? I presented the evidence, but you refused to accept it (without giving any reason for rejecting it). There is nothing that can force you to be reasonable.
@ME II : – God does not exist
1) One cannot prove a negative.
2) There is evidence that a supernatural force is needed for the existence of this universe. This could be God (i.e. falsifying your conclusion).
@ME II : Did not Socrates, supposedly, simply ask a lot of questions? I.e. the Socratic method?
He asekd questions of HIMSELF, not others. For others, he said "If you want to debate me, define your terms." Perhaps I should follow his lead on this issue.
So, you want it to be stated by ME1 in proper format. Now who is in a classroom here?
Ok, I will do that for him –
Is God Necessary?
a) Given the need for a supernatural action to create matter, energy and time,
b) Given the need for a supernatural action to create life,
Therefore, this implies some God is necessary.
Which God Did It?
a) Given the Vedas account that begins with the creation of matter, energy and time
b) Given no other religions begins with the creation of matter, energy and time (and i will wilfully overlook Abrahamic religions like you overlook other religions)
Therefore, this implies that only the Hindu religion is worthy of consideration.
Did Brahma Do It?
a) Given accurate transmission of Vedic scripture over > 6000yrs
b) Given the explanations brought forth by science of process of evolution matching the the Dasavataras of Vishnu
Brahma is the right answer!!!
@Live4Him,
"I presented the evidence, ut you refused to accept it (without giving any reason for rejecting it)."
What you called evidence was an assertion, i.e. "Given the need for supernatural action... God is necessary."
But you have not shown evidence that supernatural action is needed.
"1) One cannot prove a negative."
Actually, one can through contradiction.
"2) There is evidence that a supernatural force is needed for the existence of this universe."
Great! what is this evidence of which you speak?
Is the following incorrect?
"The Socratic method ... is a form of inquiry and debate between individuals with opposing viewpoints based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to illuminate ideas."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method)
@SImran : Given the Vedas account that begins with the creation of matter, energy and time
I'm going to challenge this premise. The Hindu religion does not begin with the creation of matter, energy or time. Second, the earliest extant manuscripts date from the 11th century and are not 6000+ years old. They are less than 1000 years.
Therefore, your conclusion has been falsified.
@ME II
Last time.
"What you called evidence was an assertion"
The evidence is the lack of a natural explaination.
"The Socratic method ... is ... based on asking and answering questions"
Actually, it is correct but you're misinterpreting it. The implication is that BOTH sides ask and answer questions – not just your opponent. That is a classroom, where the teacher teaches the students.
Vedic hymns were initially transmit.ted by ora.l transmis.sion from generation to generation and still are in some villages of south India. Written manuscripts came later.
How did you conclude that they do not mention creation of time, space and matter?
The Hindu cosmology and timeline is the closest to modern scientific timelines and even more which might indicate that the Big Bang is not the beginning of everything but just the start of the present cycle preceded by an infinite number of universes and to be followed by another infinite number of universes. It also includes an infinite number of universes at one given time.
The Rig Veda questions the origin of the cosmos in: "Neither being (sat) nor non-being was as yet. What was concealed? And where? And in whose protection?…Who really knows? Who can declare it? Whence was it born, and whence came this creation? The devas were born later than this world's creation, so who knows from where it came into existence? None can know from where creation has arisen, and whether he has or has not produced it. He who surveys it in the highest heavens, he alone knows-or perhaps does not know." (Rig Veda 10. 129)
The Rig Veda's view of the cosmos also sees one true divine principle self-projecting as the divine word, Vaak, 'birthing' the cosmos that we know, from the mon.istic Hira.ny.aga..rbha or Golden Womb. The Hiran.yaga.rbha is alternatively viewed as Brahma, the creator who was in turn created by God, or as God (Brahman) himself. The universe is considered to constantly expand since creation and disappear into a thin haze after billions of years. An alternate view is that the universe begins to contract after reaching its maximum expansion limits until it disappears into a fraction of a millimeter. The creation begins anew after billions of years (Solar years) of non-existence.
The pura.nic view as.serts that the universe is created, destroyed, and re-created in an eternally repeti.tive series of cycles. In Hindu cosmology, a universe endures for about 4,320,000,000 years (one day of Brahma, the creator or ka.lpa) and is then destroyed by fire or water elements. At this point, Brahma rests for one night, just as long as the day. This process, named pra.laya (literally especial dissolution in Sanskrit, commonly translated as Cata.cly.sm), repeats for 100 Brahma years (311 Trillion, 40 Billion Human Years) that represents Brahma's lifespan. Brahma is regarded as a manifestation of Brahman as the creator.
We are currently believed to be in the 51st year of the present Brahma and so about 156 trillion years have elapsed since He was born as Brahma. After Brahma's "death", it is necessary that another 100 Brahma years (311 Trillion, 40 Billion Years) pas.s until a new Brahma is born and the whole creation begins anew. This process is repeated again and again, forever.
Therefore, your falsification of my conclusion has been falsified. Try again!
@Live4Him,
"The evidence is the lack of a natural explaination."
Have you not heard that absence of evidence is not evidence of absensce. I thought that was a major debate point for the existence of God.
"Actually, it is correct but you're misinterpreting it. The implication is that BOTH sides ask and answer questions – not just your opponent."
So, I am allowing to ask questions then? Great.
@ME II : Live4Him : "since the stated premises are generally accepted by all" This is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad populum.
You really don't understand logic fallacies either. A logic fallacy can only be considered a fallacy IF it was used as a premise in a conclusion. No postulate can included EVERY LITTLE FACT, so premises are usually understood / accepted by all. However, if a premise is faulty, it is the responsibility of the opponent to prove it false.
Post by 'Live4Him' contains a high redefinition and is an instance of an equivocation fallacy.
http://fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html
@Live4Him,
Didn't see this one earlier.
You are arguing for the truth of your conclusion, not just the validity of your logic, and therefor the truth of your premises. You are arguing that your premise is true because "it is generally accepted by all" (paraphrased). It is this argument that contains the fallacy. not the larger argument.
And while we are on the subject of moral failures: (only for the new members of this blog)
The reality of 21st century moral tragedies in regards to se-x, abortion, contraception and STD/HIV control: – from an agnostic guy who enjoys intelligent se-x-
Note: Some words hyphenated to defeat an obvious word filter. ...
The Brutal Effects of Stupidity and Irresponsibility:
: The failures of the widely used birth "control" methods i.e. the Pill (8.7% actual failure rate) and male con-dom (17.4% actual failure rate) have led to the large rate of abortions and S-TDs in the USA. Men and women must either recognize their responsibilities by using the Pill or co-ndoms properly and/or use safer methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and S-TDs.- Failure rate statistics provided by the Gut-tmacher Inst-itute. Unfortunately they do not give the statistics for doubling up i.e. using a combination of the Pill and a condom.
Added information before making your next move:
from the CDC-2006
"Se-xually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain S-TDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psy-ch-ological consequences of S-TDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs as-sociated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."
And from:
Consumer Reports, January, 2012
"Yes, or-al se-x is se-x, and it can boost cancer risk-
Here's a crucial message for teens (and all se-xually active "post-teeners": Or-al se-x carries many of the same risks as va-ginal se-x, including human papilloma virus, or HPV. And HPV may now be overtaking tobacco as the leading cause of or-al cancers in America in people under age 50.
"Adolescents don’t think or-al se-x is something to worry about," said Bonnie Halpern-Felsher professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco. "They view it as a way to have intimacy without having 's-ex.'" (It should be called the Bill Clinton Syndrome !!)
Obviously, political leaders in both parties, Planned Parenthood, parents, the "stupid part of the USA" and the educational system have failed miserably on many fronts.
The most effective forms of contraception, ranked by "Perfect use":
– (Abstinence, 0% failure rate)
– (Masturbation, mono or mutual, 0% failure rate)
Followed by:
One-month injectable and Implant (both at 0.05 percent)
Vasectomy and IUD (Mirena) (both at 0.1 percent)
The Pill, Three-month injectable, and the Patch (all at 0.3 percent)
Tubal sterilization (at 0.5 percent)
IUD (Copper-T) (0.6 percent)
Periodic abstinence (Post-ovulation) (1.0 percent)
Periodic abstinence (Symptothermal) and Male condom (both at 2.0 percent)
Periodic abstinence (Ovulation method) (3.0 percent)
Every other method ranks below these, including Withdrawal (4.0), Female condom (5.0), Diaphragm (6.0), Periodic abstinence (calendar) (9.0), the Sponge (9.0-20.0, depending on whether the woman using it has had a child in the past), Cervical cap (9.0-26.0, with the same caveat as the Sponge), and Spermicides (18.0).
@ME II : What empirical evidence do you have for your conclusion?
Glad you asked! Here are the premises that I base my conclusion upon for the Biblical God / Jesus.
Is God Necessary?
a) Given the need for a supernatural action to create matter, energy and time,
b) Given the need for a supernatural action to create life,
Therefore, this implies some God is necessary, but not necessariuly the Biblical God.
Which God Did It?
a) Given the Biblical account that begins with the creation of matter, energy and time,
b) Given no other religions (other than the Abrahamic branches) begins with the creation of matter, energy and time,
Therefore, this implies that only the Abrahamic religions are worthy of consideration.
Did the Judism God Do It?
a) Given accurate transmission of the Jewish Bible,
b) Given the fulfillment of foretold specific prophecies (incl: Eze 37) in the Jewish Bible
Therefore, the God of the Jews is a viable answer contender.
Did the Islamic God Do It?
a) Given inaccurate transmission of the Koran Bible,
b) Given the factual inaccuracies (i.e. members of the Trinity)
c) Given the lack of specific prophecies in the Koran
Therefore, the God of the Muslims is not a viable contender.
Did the Christian God Do It?
a) Given accurate transmission of the Christian Bible (i.e. Jewish / OT and NT),
b) Given the fulfillment of foretold specific prophecies (incl: Eze 37, Rev 13) in the Christian Bible
Therefore, the God of the Christian is a viable answer contender. Since it includes the Jewish beliefs as well, it is the better answer.
looks like fruit loops for lunch.
Live4Him is clueless regarding the term empirical.
Is God Necessary?
Why is there a need for supernatural here? What we donot understand today may well be explained naturally tomorrow, just like so much already has been. Supernatural / unnatural is only one hypothesis, definitely not a need!
Which God Did It?
How many religious cosmologies have u read to state that only Abrahamic religions begin with creation of matter etc.. If you read even briefly the concept of Hinduism or Sikhism, you will be astonished how close their descriptions are to what scientists are finding – something like a big bang is actually described in Vedas!
How stupid can you be to claim that only Abrahamic religions are worthy of consideration!!! Get out of your rabbit hole man!
Did the Judism God Do It?
Prophecies? Really? Have you ever read how each prophecy has been bu.sted?
Did the Islamic God Do It?
The followers of the Islamic God say the same about Biblical God as you do about theirs!
Did the Christian God Do It?
Given the inaccuracies of the Bible, the Christian God certainly did not do it!
@Live4Him,
You said,
Is God Necessary?
a) Given the need for a supernatural action to create matter, energy and time,
b) Given the need for a supernatural action to create life,
Therefore, this implies some God is necessary, but not necessariuly the Biblical God.
As I've said previously, you have not show any basis for points a) and b). I.e. you say there is a "need", but have not shown such a "need".
Wonder if l4h understands we are made out of carbon
@SImran
You don't seem to understand how philiosophical debates work. Asking questions without answers reveal that you're clueless. Providing answers based upon conjectures show that you base your answers upon emotions, rather than facts. When I provide a postulate, it stands as fact unless one of the supporting premises is shown to be false – much like the way science works. You didn't show any empirical evidence that any of my premises were false.
@ME II : you have not show any basis for points a) and b). I.e. you say there is a "need", but have not shown such a "need".
In a philiosophical debate, a postulate stands unless one or more of the supporting premises is shown to be false. If a natural explaination for the creation of matter, energy and time could be found, then that premise (i.e. premise a) would be falsified. However, there is no natural explaination for the creation of matter, energy and time. The same is true of the creation of life.
@ L4H
My questions bother you too much! I just suggested that there are non-Abrahamic religions describing origin of universe much better that Abrahamic religions (actually closer to what scientists describe today). SO you want evidence, read on....
Rigveda:
Nasadiya Sukta of Rig Veda is the theory of origin of the universe. Here is the Sukta and its translation:
नास॑दासी॒न्नो सदा॑सीत्त॒दानीं॒ नासी॒द्रजो॒ नो व्यो॑मा प॒रो यत्।
किमाव॑रीव॒ कुह॒ कस्य॒ शर्म॒न्नम्भ॒ किमा॑सी॒द्गह॑नं गभी॒रम्॥
Then there was neither existence nor non-existence.
There was no space(air?) nor sky beyond.
What covered everything? Where? In whose protection?
Was there water, deep and bottomless?
न मृ॒त्युरा॑सीद॒मृतं॒ न तर्हि॒ न रात्र्या॒ अह्न॑ आसीत्प्रके॒तः।
आनी॑दव ा॒तं स्व॒धया॒ तदेकं॒ तस्मा॑द्धा॒न्यन्न प॒रः किं च॒नास॑॥
There was neither death nor immortality then,
There was no sign of night or day.
That One breathed all by self without any outside support,
Other than that there was nothing else beyond.
तम॑ आसी॒त्तम॑सा गू॒ळ्हमग्रे॑ऽप्रके॒त ं स॑लि॒लं सर्व॑मा इ॒दम्।
तु॒च्छ्येना॒भ् वपि॑हितं॒ यदासी॒त्तप॑स॒स्तन्म॑ हि॒नाजा॑य॒तैक॑म्॥
There was darkness all wrapped around by darkness,
and all was water then.
The life force which was covered with void arose through
the power of heat(Tapas).
काम॒स्तदग्रे॒ सम॑वर्त॒ताधि॒ मन॑सो॒ रेत॑ प्रथ॒मं यदासी॑त्।
स॒तो बन्धु॒मस॑ति॒ निर॑विन्दन्हृ॒दि प्र॒तीष्या॑ क॒वयो॑ मनी॒षा॥
Then arose desire (Love?) which was the primal seed of mind,
Seers searching for knowledge in their heart
found existence in non-existence.
ति॒र॒श्चीनो॒ वित॑तो र॒श्मिरे॑षाम॒धः स्वि॑दा॒सी३दु॒परि॑ स्विदासी३त्।
रे॒तो॒धा आ॑सन्महि॒मान॑ आसन्स्व॒धा अ॒वस्ता॒त्प्रय॑तिः प॒रस्ता॑त्॥
A ray of light energy cut across the dark and gloomy abyss.
Was it beneath? Was it above? who can answer this?
There were bearers of seed and mighty forces,
Pushed from below and forward move above.
को अ॒द्धा वे॑द॒ क इ॒ह प्र वो॑च॒त्कुत॒ आजा॑ता॒ कुत॑ इ॒यं विसृ॑ष्टिः।
अ॒र्वाग्द े॒वा अ॒स्य वि॒सर्ज॑ने॒नाथा॒ को वे॑द॒ यत॑ आब॒भूव॑॥
Who really knows? Who can confidently declare it?
From which was it born? Who gave raise to this creation?
Even the Gods came subsequent to creation,
Then who can reveal from whence it arose?
इ॒यं विसृ॑ष्टि॒र्यत॑ आब॒भूव॒ यदि॑ वा द॒धे यदि॑ वा॒ न।
यो अ॒स्याध्य॑क्षः पर॒मे व्यो॑म॒न्सो अ॒ङ्ग वे॑द॒ यदि॑ वा॒ न वेद॑॥
That out of which creation arose,
whether it formed by itself or it did not,
He who oversees it from the highest heaven,
only he knows or maybe He does not.
Further reading – http://www.hitxp.com/articles/veda/veda-age-universe-bigbang/
"a postulate stands unless one or more of the supporting premises is shown to be false"
I disagree. You are definitely not correct unless proven wrong.
The person making the claim has the burden to show their claim is true, a.k.a. the 'burden of proof'. In science, I think this is known a a null hypothesis.
@ L4H,
Now speaking of Sikhism:
Guru Granth Sahib states that, “There are planets, solar systems and galaxies. If one speaks of them, there is no limit, no end. There are worlds upon worlds of His Creation. As He commands, so they exist. He watches over all, and contemplating the creation, He rejoices. Nanak says, to describe this is as hard as steel!”
The holy text continues to state: "The limits of the created universe cannot be perceived. Its limits here and beyond cannot be perceived. Many struggle to know His limits, but His limits cannot be found. No one can know these limits. The more you say about them, the more there still remains to be said."
According to Guru Nanak, there was darkness and chaos for millions of years. There was only God and nothing else – no mists, no clouds, no vapours, nothing. None existed except God. Guru Nanak says:
"There was darkness for countless years.
There was neither earth nor sky; there was only His Will.
There was neither day nor night, neither sun nor moon.
He (God) was in deep meditation.
There was nothing except Himself." (SGGS p1035)
Guru Amar Das, the third Nanak further clarifies and reinforces this concept in the following lines found in the Guru Granth Sahib:
He created Himself – at that time, there was no other.
He consulted Himself for advice, and what He did came to pass.
At that time, there were no Akaashic Ethers, no nether regions, nor the three worlds.
At that time, only the Formless Lord Himself existed – there was no creation.
As it pleased Him, so did He act; without Him, there was no other. ||1||" (SGGS p509)
Then God willed the creation of the universe. He became manifest: Sargun. He diffused Himself in nature. Guru Nanak says:
"Thou created all Thy Universe to please Thyself, to enjoy the spectacle, the reality, which is the light of Thy own Reality-self."
Now did I talk of failed Bible prophecies that u quote as evidence for the truth of Biblical God? Yeah, I like asking questions, you dont seem to like answering them!
Do you want me to paste the entire wiki article here, or would the link suffice for your reference? (Another question!)
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Failed_biblical_prophecies
Begin at the beginning.
Is God Necessary?
a) Given the need for a supernatural action to create matter, energy and time,
b) Given the need for a supernatural action to create life,
Therefore, this implies some God is necessary, but not necessarily the Biblical God.
Stop with a first. Why is a supernatural action required for a natural process? You make the assumption first that there is a "beginning" that matter and energy have not always existed. Time is a human construct used to help us understand our world. Because we have created time we assume it must have a beginning.
Establish first that a beginning is required, that matter and energy are not simply existent, without external action.
@Live4Him,
ps
in Logic, even if your form is correct, i.e. logically valid, it still does not mean that your conclusion is true. The conclusion is only true, if the logic is valid and all premises are true.
You have not shown that your premises are true.
Additionally, I don't think your logic is correct either.
e.g.
Socrates is a man.
All men are gods.
Therefore Socrates is a god.
Logically valid, yet untrue because the second premise is not true.
@SImran : My questions bother you too much!
Of course not. I just thought we were in a philiosophical setting, not a classroom setting where one party does all the asking and the other party does all the answering. I've got the answers and you obviously do not.
@ L4H,
"When I provide a postulate, it stands as fact unless one of the supporting premises is shown to be false – much like the way science works."
Dear L4H, I may not be a philosopher, but I am a science person. In science, when you provide a postulate, unless it is proven, it remains just that – a postulate! It doesnot become a fact. The proof of burden really is on the one postulating!!!
And of course, you were blind to see that while I was asking those questions, I was actually providing evidence of how your postulates were incorrect!
@ME II : The conclusion is only true, if the logic is valid and all premises are true. You have not shown that your premises are true.
In logic, it is YOUR responsibility to falsify my premise(s). If you fail to do so, they are assumed to be true (since the stated premises are generally accepted by all).
"Of course not. I just thought we were in a philiosophical setting, not a classroom setting where one party does all the asking and the other party does all the answering. I've got the answers and you obviously do not."
And what are the questions to which you have the answers? You simply state that there is a NEED FOR SUPERNATURAL (based on what premise?), that the supernatural has to be the Abrahamic God (in which case you show obvious bias for the same without looking into the claims of other religions of the world)!
So, as per you a twisted story of Adam created from mud and Eve from his rib is more reliable than the accounts I provided above. Well, you do seem to have all the answers, don't you?
"In logic, it is YOUR responsibility to falsify my premise(s). If you fail to do so, they are assumed to be true (since the stated premises are generally accepted by all)."
Let me get this straight. You suggest that your premises are to be considered true bcoz they are generally accepted by all!
Point number one – you are sadly mistaken by the idea that generally all accept your premise. Well, 2/3rd of this world's population doesnot accept your premise! They do not accept the Biblical God!
Point number 2 – Your premises have already been shown to be untrue. You base your argument on the prohecies and creation stories, both of which have been shown to be untrue!
"In logic, it is YOUR responsibility to falsify my premise(s). If you fail to do so, they are assumed to be true (since the stated premises are generally accepted by all)."
First, logic is just a set of rules, like mathematics. There are no "responsibilities" assigned. Perhaps what you meant is in formal debate or something? Either way, do you really want to argue that anything generally accepted by "all" is true? If something were accepted by "all" who would be arguing on the other side? Or do you have a lower threshold (didn't reall mean all)? In this truth by democracy is 50% good enough? 2/3? 90%?
Thank you all. Intersting.
@Live4Him,
"since the stated premises are generally accepted by all"
This is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad populum.
@Live4Him,
"In logic, it is YOUR responsibility to falsify my premise(s). If you fail to do so, they are assumed to be true "
Sorry, but where did you get that idea?
@Live4Him,
– Nothing exists which is not natural
– a god would not be natural
Therefore, no god exists.
@l4h
Really does not agree with this statement either
Science
Stephen Hawking: 'There is no heaven' – Under God – The .(..Accoording to expert it's not needed) in debate
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...god/.../stephen-hawking.../AF6...
by Elizabeth Tenety – in 624 Google+ circles – More by Elizabeth Tenety
May 16, 2011 – There is no heaven... that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark,” Hawking told the Guardian.
@science
You DO realize that this is HIS conclusion, don't you? What is the empirical evidence that he bases this upon? MIA.
@Science,
I find your posting a bit hard to read. Here is the full link, that I think you meant to reference: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/under-god/post/stephen-hawking-there-is-no-heaven/2011/05/16/AF6hNs4G_blog.html
In which Hawking is quoted as saying, "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists," and ""Science predicts that many different kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing."
To be fair, however, I think that this is somewhat speculation. His models and hypotheses may predict spontaneous creation, but I'm not certain he has enough evidence to make that a conclusive statement.
I will also admit that I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to know one way or the other.
@Live4Him,
What empirical evidence do you have for your conclusion?
It is better than the RCC or any explaination provided by any go-d in the clouds.
Live4Him wrote:
@Anu : "f) No consequences after death means acts that end in death are only positive" This is false.
From a self-centered perspective, the only measurement is from the self.
a) A person is living the good life. Do they want to die? No. Then the consequence is negative.
b) A person is living in torment daily. Do they want to die? Yes. Then the consequence is positive.
Ok, you made a statement (f), to which I replied with an example proving your statement false.
You come back with two new statements (a & b) with a new set of rules. To which I say:
You assume that a person without belief is living a life of torment. I do not believe in any of the man-made gods, yet I find joy in life with a satisfying career, raising my chiidren, financial security, martial arts, weight lifting, etc.... For some reason you seem unable to accept that as being an alternative.
@Anu : You assume that a person without belief is living a life of torment.
You seem to be having trouble following the logical path. Not everyone will attempt mass-murder, so my premises are targeted to those individuals who would be so inclined. Yesterday's study (comparing religious to SBNR and atheists) showed that religious people tend to be more stable socially. So, an unstable person is more likely to want to die, rather than keep on living.
@Live4Him,
"Yesterday's study (comparing religious to SBNR and atheists) showed that religious people tend to be more stable socially."
Incorrect. Yesterday's article was about a study that said that the SBNR are more likely to have mental health issues than are the religious or the atheists/agnostics. The atheists and the religious both were less likely.
"So, an unstable person is more likely to want to die, rather than keep on living."
That is an assumption about "unstable" people. Define "unstable", then show that they are more likely to "want to die".
l4h
Have family members like you have a blast with them too. So do the adult children they have. I think there is around
80 total in family
You make ridiculous leaps in your "logic" without fully defining terms or proving the path of your "logic".
The study does not prove causation only correlation. One likely "scenario" is that people with mental illness gravitate toward spiritual paths that are less rule driven (not to mention less likely to treat them as outcasts due to the societal stigma of mental illness) in order to feel supported.
@myweightinwords : One likely "scenario" is that people with mental illness gravitate toward spiritual paths
This is a possibility. However, have you questioned why there has been a recent significant increase in these type of people?
This is a possibility. However, have you questioned why there has been a recent significant increase in these type of people?
Which types? Those with mental illnesses or those who are spiritual but not religious?
If the first, well, multiple reasons really.
1) Slowly decreasing stigma against seeking help for common mental ailments such as depression and bipolar disorder encourage those who suffer to report and seek treatment.
2) An increase in the effectiveness of pharmaceutical aid for those with mental illness, encouraging more to seek treatment.
3) Improvement in the reporting mechanisms that allow nationwide numbers to be gathered, weighed and measured.
4) Improvement in our understanding of the brain and the functions and disfunctions therein.
5) Increased stress on individuals in a society that demands constant improvement, coupled with increased financial burden and the 24/7 barrage of violence, violent images, news and other stimuli
If you mean the latter, well:
1) Ethical and moral scandals within organized/traditional religions
2) Growing access to material and information outside of the "given" religious models of the traditional Christianity they were likely born to.
3) Knowledge of the actual history of the traditional religions
4) Failure of the faith to which they were born and in which they were raised to answer the fundamental questions regarding morality and ethics to the satisfaction of the seeker.
5) Continual improvements and advances in the sciences which contradict the traditional religious texts, thereby forcing people to re-evaluate what they believe and why...
I could go on,...but that gives you an idea. It isn't a cut and dry: this happened and because of it, this happened, type of causation. Like life itself, it's complicated and messy.
@Live4Him,
No one took prayer out of schools. The decision made was that the STATE could not sponsor prayer, which meant that teachers could not lead prayer (or bible study, etc) during the school hours.
There is a world of difference.
When I was a junior and senior in high school, I was a born again, evangelical Christian. I lived in a very Catholic area. The prayers that would have been offered by my very Catholic teachers would have incensed me, because I was taught that Catholics were pagans, unsaved, idol worshiping sinners.
Imagine then that your child had a Jewish teacher or and Islamic teacher or a Hindu teacher. How much would you want school led prayers if your child's teacher was Wiccan?
This decision didn't remove prayer from schools, it merely protects your right to pray as you see fit, as opposed to forcing you to pray as the government dictates or the teacher in the front of the room does.
you say that but I know schools right now that if you are caught with a bible at school praying in school or blessing your food in school you get suspended I know students who have had that happen so if that doesn't show that it was taken out of schools nothing does
That is up to each student (and their parents) to address. If they are on their own time (i.e., lunch), and it is not a disruption to anyone, then the state has no say in the matter.
Now, if they insist on making a big display of it and flail about and shout out their prayer, that's a whole different story.
I carried a bible every day when I was in school. I prayed over every test, every meal. We even had an after school bible study that was student led.
So, if what you say is true, that school is in violation of the law and needs to be educated. Their violation of the law does not mean that prayer has been removed from schools anymore than your neighbor running a red light means that light has been removed.
doe, nice story. Got a news reference to cite, or any other proof?
"you say that but I know schools right now that if you are caught with a bible at school praying in school or blessing your food in school you get suspended"
That's against the law, so what schools are they?
I will not give specific school names but they are in the bible belt region in Alabama and Georgia and one of the youth I taught before God showed me that I needed to be in a different church she takes her bible to school anyway at the risk of getting in trouble
I may be Pagan now, but I would stand and fight for any student who wants to carry their bible or pray over their lunch, or any other action that is not in violation of the law.
If you want change to happen, you have to stand up and demand it. If what you have said is true, I would stand with you. So, the ball is in your court.
Take a stand. Call out the law breaker.
@johndoe,
Please tell us where that is, because that is illegal. At least the way you describe it.
Contact the ACLU and they will fight for the student's right to pray.
MeII I doubt john joe has the courage to do that based on his previous cowardly response.
Of course, you also have to understand that a student can't involve others without consent, meaning that they can not pray out loud, can not read their bible out loud, can not proselytize on school grounds, etc.
Also, if the action disrupts class time, or the student spends class time doing something not class related, they can also get in trouble. Carry your bible all you want, but remember that reading it is reserved for free periods/study halls, and lunch time.
@myweightinwords : No one took prayer out of schools.
Of course not, but everyone still refers to that act as "banning school prayer". And often, school systems will go beyond the court rulings and try to ban permitted activities that are Christian in nature.
And sometimes they go beyond the court rulings and ban permitted activities that are Pagan or Buddhist or Islamic or Jewish in nature.
That still doesn't mean prayer has been removed from schools.
And, just because some people refer to it that way doesn't make it so, and using it that way when you know the difference is lazy at best.
On the other hand...
If the student's "prayer" or carrying of a Bible is causing a disruption in the classroom or disturbing the educational process unduly, then the school is correct to reduce said disruptions.
In other words, if a student stands up in the middle of class waves a Bible in the air and starts the "Lord's prayer", then yeah they might be due a suspension.
@myweightinwords,
oops, you beat me to it. good points.
@Live4Him
You said, "Of course not, but everyone still refers to that act as "banning school prayer"."
No, only the dimwits with an agenda to force their delusion on the sane part of society do.
Someone like Does made a claim like this a couple years back. There was even a link to a cell phone video. Turns out it was a fundiot kid standing in the cafeteria waving his bible and yelling that all the kids were going to hell.
Live4Him – well that's not true universally. I live in the Southeast. The public school my children attend is one of the most desired in the area. Imagine my suprise when I hear my 5 year old singing the purely Christian song "Thank you God for Everything"....guess where it came from? Music class at school.
john doe, that's nonsense. I live in a blue state and we had kids that came in to high school before classes started every day to meet up as a group for bible study. There was no official school support and no one hassled them.That happens all over. You're trying to drum up false sympathy for a false emergency.
@Anu: well that's not true universally.
That's why I stated "often". Doesn't mean always, but too frequently.
@johndoe "I know schools right now that if you are caught with a bible at school praying in school or blessing your food in school you get suspended I know students who have had that happen"
Bullshit! You are totally lying. That is hysterical invented bullshit. You are lying through your teeth, bearing false witness (9th commandment broken).
@Look at the Christian so.domize the Ninth Commandment
So your calling me a liar and say I'm breaking the 9th commandment but how do you know this how can you prove I am lying you cant as far as I know you don't live where I do and where I live it is has become widely known our area about this happening and the kids that got in trouble for blessing their meal and praying the one blessing the meal her head was bowed and she was quietly praying and the one praying he was in the bathroom. So if you ask me prayer has been taken out of school
Give us names of the schools so we can verify and contact them to demand that they follow the law.
It's a pretty simple concept. We want to help you help the students in your area. We want the law followed.
So our VP and his gun counsel meets with faith leaders good but if their thinking about taking away guns good luck and while you are at it remember murderers are gonna murder with or without guns so it would be a little crazy to take away guns
Who exactly is talking about banning all guns?
didnt say talking I said if they are THINKING about it make sure you fully read before you post
Considering the true power of the US government, it shows great restraint. In reality, no matter how many firearms you collect, and how often you and your buddies go play war in the woods, if the Fed decided to inact martial law and confiscate your firearms, they could do it; with or without your cooperation.
If they're thinking without talking and you know about it you must have some mighty fine psychic powers...kudos on that.
They could do that your right but in the time it took to do that do yo know how many people that own guns would kill those who try to take their guns
john doe, you're in the wrong bucket with your statement of yore. Then was a time to use 'than'. Whose who's are you hewing into hues? There are two tu's to your tutu too. It's time for its correct usage.
You're seriously the Chicken Little of this blog today, aren't you. You're a borderline illiterate troll.
@Pete : It's not about prayer ... but ... the mentally ill.
You should have seen the study posted yesterday that links spirituality without religion to mental illness.
l4h
Trying to change the subject you brought up below are you
Why are faith leaders considered the voice of morality? Why weren't atheist community leaders invited? Where are the humanists? Actions like this by our government are what pushed me beyond simple disbelief and into actively pushing back against religions. The presumption that one cannot possess moral bearing without some religious creed is not only naive but insulting.
Faith leaders would include a leader from any faith – including humanism and atheism. These are both recognized by the courts as a religion.
It makes sense to invite a Humanist rep, or a rep from any other group with an ethical perspective. Atheism is just a statement on gods, and so does not have a group of people sharing an ethical perspective. As such, it would make sense to invite them to a conference on,say, religion in the schools, but not one that gathers moral perspectives. For that they would be variously represented by ethical groups to which they might be members, such as humanist or Unitarian organizations.
Live4Him – I can admit I did not know that a US court had deemed atheism a religion back in '05 – thanks. But that doesn't change my issue – none were included in this meeting of "faith" leaders......
Sara – you are generalizing atheists as one-dimensional. In my experience that is far from true, and most that I know are extremely concerned with morality and ethics. I could turn what you say around and claim that, for example claiming to be Christian is simply a statement about which god one believes to be "the" god. But that would be reducing a Christian down to one dimension, as you have done with atheists.
@Anu, actually I am doing exactly the opposite. I think that ethically atheists are such a diverse group that it is meaningless to have a single representative. Atheism simply has nothing to say about gods. Most of the people I know don't believe in gods, but our ethics have little in common. Religions like Christianity, in contrast to generic atheism, provide rules for living which atheism does not.
You seem to be doing the same thing again. You refer to atheists as diverse group ethically; and religious are not? Even within one denomination of Christianity you have a radically diverse mix of ethics. And to your other point "religions provide rules for living" – well that's fine for each individual flock, but not for a government governing a secular culture. So I would argue on that basis that the government has zero business involving religious leaders in policy.
@Anu : none were included in this meeting of "faith" leaders
Well, I don't see a reason to exclude them.
@Anu,
why is this important to you?
There are no atheist 'leaders' anyway – there is no atheist creed to represent.
The purpose of engaging the faith leaders is because to effect meaningful measures that will reduce deaths by guns it is necessary to engage the moral outrage of religious voters in this country. It is pragmatic and necessary.
@Fallacy Spotting 101 : an instance of the Non Causa Pro Causa fallacy
So, you cannot see the connection between the following:
a) Prayer implies a God
b) God implies a final Judgment
c) Eliminating prayer breaks the connection to a God
d) Elimination of God eliminates the Final Judgment
e) Elimination of the Final Judgment means no consequences after death
f) No consequences after death means acts that end in death are only positive
Therefore, eliminating school prayer increases the likelihood of murder-suicides.
If you cannot see this connection, then I cannot help you with your limitations.
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
A peek in the mind of lgoical fallices.
"f) No consequences after death means acts that end in death are only positive"
This is false. An act that ends in death – say for example I fall off a ladder and die. My children lose a parent. What is positive about that?
To try and pair "no prayer in school" to increases in mass shootings is to ignore a number of other, more relevant variables.
@LMAO!
I see that the discussion has exceeded your capacity for intellectual discourse. Sorry about that!
a) Prayer implies a God
Perhaps it does, but it does not imply any specific god, only that the person engaging in prayer considers something greater than themselves.
b) God implies a final Judgment
Not necesarrily. There are many who believe in god without there needing to be a final judgment.
c) Eliminating prayer breaks the connection to a God
No. It doesn't. Many believe god dwells within, how then can one break a connection that lives within oneself?
d) Elimination of God eliminates the Final Judgment
e) Elimination of the Final Judgment means no consequences after death
f) No consequences after death means acts that end in death are only positive
I would posit that those who refrain from evil merely to avoid an unpleasant afterlife are not moral individuals, but opportunistic, greedy and liars to themselves. While those who do good with the belief that it awards them nothing are in fact moral and decent human beings.
Besides, there are many more beliefs in an afterlife than your falsely devised heaven/hell vs nothing scenario.
@Anu : "f) No consequences after death means acts that end in death are only positive" This is false.
From a self-centered perspective, the only measurement is from the self.
a) A person is living the good life. Do they want to die? No. Then the consequence is negative.
b) A person is living in torment daily. Do they want to die? Yes. Then the consequence is positive.
Root post by Live4Him contains the Plurium Interrogationum fallacy and the Ad Hominem fallacy.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html
" A person is living in torment daily. Do they want to die? Yes."
All they need to do is seek professional help. The majority of people don't live in daily torment.
Hey 101, don't forget the "too dumb um to um use um the reply um button" fallacy. Live4Nonsense committed that one too.
@myweightinwords : "There are many who believe in god without there needing to be a final judgment."
Why did the court rule against school prayer in 1962? Because it implied a specific God, the Biblical God. Does the Biblical God have a Final Judgment? Yes.
"I would posit that those who refrain from evil merely to avoid an unpleasant afterlife are not moral"
No one of us is moral – Christians, Atheist, and everyone in between. All of us have selfish tendencies. Often we mask our actions by pretending that "it awards them nothing".
The "heaven/hell scenario" will at least cause a deranged individual to consider before acting.
@Bob : All they need to do is seek professional help.
Some have committed these actions while they were in professional counseling. So, this is not a magic-bullet answer.
L4H
the court did not rule against school prayer for the reason you cited. It was ruled against because governmetn funded programs like schools need to represent all beliefs, not just ones that include man-made gods.
@Live4Him,
"Why did the court rule against school prayer in 1962? Because it implied a specific God, the Biblical God."
Incorrect. The court's decision was based on a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
LOL – oh my are people really as stupid as this "Live4Him" or is this a poe??
Let met just look at one of these items:
"c) Eliminating prayer breaks the connection to a God"
So if a child has to concentrate on studies common to all children (math, science, English, etc.) for their school day and is not allowed to openly pray, they lose their connection to God? Are you serious??
If parents are not instilling morals into their children themselves and overseeing it personally (religious or not), no amount of inappropriate activity in public school away from the parents will ever cure that problem.
If parents can't find the time, then plan for fewer children. It's ludicrous that many fundamentalists want to bring children into the world at record pace (and some, without the option of contraception), and then cry for the rest of the public sector to raise their kids for them.
Mama k, I can answer that, but I won't...it's kinda fun to watch someone break one of the commandments (the 8th) she swears by and ponder what name she'll use in her next reincarnation on the BB.
Why did the court rule against school prayer in 1962? Because it implied a specific God, the Biblical God. Does the Biblical God have a Final Judgment? Yes.
Wrong. The court ruled against SCHOOL SPONSORED PRAYER because it violated the rights of children in the classroom who believed differently than the SCHOOL SPONSORED PRAYER. Prayer itself was not removed. Only the leading of prayer by the school itself. Stop being lazy, stop sensationalizing, stop intentionally misleading. You do yourself a disservice when you do.
"I would posit that those who refrain from evil merely to avoid an unpleasant afterlife are not moral"
No one of us is moral – Christians, Atheist, and everyone in between. All of us have selfish tendencies. Often we mask our actions by pretending that "it awards them nothing".
Wrong. You can have selfish tendencies and over come them without a god. You can do good for your fellow man without a god. You can be a moral, upstanding individual without god. In fact, I am much, much more that person after walking away from Christianity than I ever was as a Christian.
The "heaven/hell scenario" will at least cause a deranged individual to consider before acting.
No. A truly deranged individual is not going to care one way or the other. They are deranged. There is a mental defect inside of them causing them to hurt others. No amount of fear mongering with the threat of hell will change that.
@myweightinwords : it violated the rights of children in the classroom who believed differently
Sigh. The ONLY way you can claim that it was different from the children who believed differently is if an implied target was specific. If it was generic, then it wouldn't conflict with their views.
Sigh. The ONLY way you can claim that it was different from the children who believed differently is if an implied target was specific. If it was generic, then it wouldn't conflict with their views.
If there is a SINGLE atheist in the room, any prayer violates their views. If there is a single Muslim in the room and the prayer is not Muslim in any way it violates their views. If there is a single Jew in the room and the prayer mentions Jesus it violates their views. If there is a single Pagan in the room and the prayer isn't to their specific god, it could violate their views.
And because belief is an evolving, changing, living thing (or should be), you would have to poll the class at the beginning of ever single class to find out if the prayer you are about to offer is objectionable. Why, when if you feel the need to pray you can take a few moments as everyone else is taking their seats to quietly bow your head, speak to your god and be done with it?
Better still, why not pray for the day before you even leave the house? Why does prayer have to be a public spectacle? Didn't Jesus speak out about those who pray in public to be seen praying? Didn't HE instruct you that prayer was better done in private, in your prayer closet?
You forgot to mention all the non sequiturs as well, Spotter.
Since all so called atheists are known to be an extreme minority and liars, it is much preferred to go with the numbers and morally decent peoples when seeking honest answers to Americas problems. The Vice President shows common sense and intelligent dignity in convening a council of clergy.
"Since all so called atheists are known to be an extreme minority and liars"
Another lie from the xtians – 23!
Truth be told is a typical hateful Christian. Best ignored.
TBT is a lying POS troll...he goes by several names. ignore him
@tbt,
so this is your new strawman? "atheists are liars". Did preacher tell you that too?
'Mao killed 800 million' getting old for you? It's equally unfounded.
Seperation of Church and State.
Also courts have ruled ID/creationism can't be taught in public schools in US.
Lets not forget that fact.
This Supreme Court also ruled against school prayer. As a result, a five-fold increase in the number of mass shootings has occurred, when comparing the 30 years of impact of school prayer (i.e. 1949-1981) against the impact of no school prayer (i.e. 1982 – 2012). No matter how you look at it, school prayer protected our children.
9/5/1949 13
1962 School Prayer ended
8/1/1966 16
------- End of impact of school prayer
9/25/1982 13
7/18/1984 21
10/16/1991 23
4/20/1999 13
4/16/2007 32
3/10/2009 10
4/3/2009 13
11/5/2009 13
7/20/2012 12
12/14/2012 29
This same court also ruled that blacks are not "persons".
Go talk the the courts/congress if you want to change it
@It is Called : Go talk the the courts/congress if you want to change it
So, you don't have a problem with mass shootings, children being killed, etc? You ARE cold.
l4h
If not mistaken majority are catholic judges on the Supreme Court, go figure.
.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr..................................Roman Catholic
Justice Antonin Scalia................................................Roman Catholic
Justice Anthony Kennedy............................................Roman Catholic
Justice Clarence Thomas............................................Roman Catholic
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.......................................Jewish
Justice Stephen Breyer...............................................Jewish
Justice Samuel Alito..................................................Roman Catholic
Justice Sonia Sotomayor............................................Roman Catholic
Justice Elena Kagan...................................................Jewish
l4h
I DON"T make the laws or PASS them.
You better have a ton of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
if you want to change the laws.
@It is Called : If not mistaken majority are catholic judges on the Supreme Court, go figure.
School Prayer didn't pass this year.
Post by 'Live4Him' is an instance of the Non Causa Pro Causa fallacy.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html
@l4h
Not cold know how $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ works.
In fact just fixed my nieghbors furnace for FREE..
Believe it or not.
@It is Called : I DON"T make the laws or PASS them.
Neither does the Supreme Court.
"This Supreme Court also ruled against school prayer. As a result, a five-fold increase in the number of mass shootings has occurred"
Your wrong and you obviously didn't look at the recent data. Their data shows a total of 62 mass shootings in 31 years – an average of 2 mass shootings per year. However, 2012 was the most violent year on record, clocking in 7 mass shootings.
It's not about prayer being taken out of schools but more that we don't have help for the mentally ill. Plus I would wager the increase in violence in games, TV and movies.
Another lie from the xtians – 28!
@Live4Him – you have no understanding of cause and effect. You attribute the deaths of school kids to the removal of prayer from schools. I can just as easily turn it around and claim that everything went to hell in our schools when they added "under god" to the Pledge.
It went to hell when it was added to the money in 1948 !!
Congress needs to correct that error.
@Pete In the past four years, across 37 states, the NRA and its political allies have pushed through 99 laws making guns easier to own, easier to carry in public, and harder for the government to track. If we want to blame something it should be the NRA.
Live4Him, so your sky fairy is a vindictive, unfairly punishing jerk. No thanks.
Live, you don't suppose that the sophisticated weaponry that has been designed in the last 50 years may have more to do with it than your assertion that each and every one of these shootings were caused by prayer being taken of schools?
Stephen Hawking: 'There is no heaven' – Under God – The .(..Accoording to expert it's not needed) in debate
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...god/.../stephen-hawking.../AF6...
by Elizabeth Tenety – in 624 Google+ circles – More by Elizabeth Tenety
May 16, 2011 – There is no heaven... that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark,” Hawking told the Guardian.
I see you're letting your scientist (i.e. priest) do you thinking for you.
whereas Live4Him is unable to think correctly at all.
l4h
Is the RCC yours ?
Moral tragedies indeed but they pale in regards to the following moral failures:
The Twenty (or so) Worst Things People Have Done to Each Other:
M. White, http://necrometrics.com/warstatz.htm#u (required reading)
The Muslim Conquest of India
"The likely death toll is somewhere between 2 million and 80 million. The geometric mean of those two limits is 12.7 million. "
Rank …..Death Toll ..Cause …..Centuries……..(Religions/Groups involved)*
1. 63 million Second World War 20C (Christians et al and Communists/atheists vs. Christians et al, Nazi-Pagan and "Shintoists")
2. 40 million Mao Zedong (mostly famine) 20C (Communism)
3. 40 million Genghis Khan 13C (Shamanism or Tengriism)
4. 27 million British India (mostly famine) 19C (Anglican)
5. 25 million Fall of the Ming Dynasty 17C (Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Chinese folk religion)
6. 20 million Taiping Rebellion 19C ( Confucianism, Buddhism and Chinese folk religion vs. a form of Christianity)
7. 20 million Joseph Stalin 20C (Communism)
8. 19 million Mideast Slave Trade 7C-19C (Islam)
9. 17 million Timur Lenk 14C-15C
10. 16 million Atlantic Slave Trade 15C-19C (Christianity)
11. 15 million First World War 20C (Christians vs. Christians)
12. 15 million Conquest of the Americas 15C-19C (Christians vs. Pagans)
13. 13 million Muslim Conquest of India 11C-18C
14. 10 million An Lushan Revolt 8C
15. 10 million Xin Dynasty 1C
16. 9 million Russian Civil War 20C (Christians vs Communists)
17. 8 million Fall of Rome 5C (Pagans vs. Christians)
18. 8 million Congo Free State 19C-20C (Christians)
19. 7½ million Thirty Years War 17C (Christians vs Christians)
20. 7½ million Fall of the Yuan Dynasty 14C
Interesting....in that the only relevant thing here is that humans kill humans.
Some recent moral failures of Islam:
As the koranic/mosque driven acts of terror and horror continue:
1a) 179 killed in Mumbai/Bombay, 290 injured
1b) Assassination of Benazir Bhutto and Theo Van Gogh
2) 9/11, 3000 mostly US citizens, 1000’s injured
3) The 24/7 Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, US troops killed in action, 3,480 and 928 in non combat roles. 102,522 – 112,049 Iraqi civilians killed as of 9/16/2011/, mostly due to suicide bombers, land mines and bombs of various types, http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ and http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf
4) Kenya- In Nairobi, about 212 people were killed and an estimated 4000 injured; in Dar es Salaam, the attack killed at least 11 and wounded 85.[2]
5) Bali-in 2002-killing 202 people, 164 of whom were foreign nationals, and 38 Indonesian citizens. A further 209 people were injured.
6) Bali in 2005- Twenty people were killed, and 129 people were injured by three bombers who killed themselves in the attacks.
7) Spain in 2004- killing 191 people and wounding 2,050.
8. UK in 2005- The bombings killed 52 commuters and the four radical Islamic suicide bombers, injured 700.
9) The execution of an eloping couple in Afghanistan on 04/15/2009 by the Taliban.
10) – Afghanistan: US troops 1,385 killed in action, 273 killed in non-combat situations as of 09/15/2011. Over 40,000 Afghan civilians killed due to the dark-age, koranic-driven Taliban acts of horror
11) The killing of 13 citizen soldiers at Ft. Hood by a follower of the koran.
12) 38 Russian citizens killed on March 29, 2010 by Muslim women suicide bombers.
13) The May 28, 2010 attack on a Islamic religious minority in Pakistan, which have left 98 dead,
14) Lockerbie is known internationally as the site where, on 21 December 1988, the wreckage of Pan Am Flight 103 crashed as a result of a terrorist bomb. In the United Kingdom the event is referred to as the Lockerbie disaster, the Lockerbie bombing, or simply Lockerbie. Eleven townspeople were killed in Sherwood Crescent, where the plane's wings and fuel tanks plummeted in a fiery explosion, destroying several houses and leaving a huge crater, with debris causing damage to a number of buildings nearby. The 270 fatalities (259 on the plane, 11 in Lockerbie) were citizens of 21 nations.
15 The daily suicide and/or roadside and/or mosque bombings in the terror world of Islam.
16) Bombs sent from Yemen by followers of the koran which fortunately were discovered before the bombs were detonated.
17) The killing of 58 Christians in a Catholic church in one of the latest acts of horror and terror in Iraq.
18) Moscow airport suicide bombing: 35 dead, 130 injured. January 25, 2011.
19) A Pakistani minister, who had said he was getting death threats because of his stance against the country's controversial blasphemy law, was shot and killed Wednesday, 3/2/2011
20) two American troops killed in Germany by a recently radicalized Muslim, 3/3/2011
21) the kidnapping and apparent killing of a follower of Zoraster in the dark world of Islamic Pakistan.
22) Shariatpur, Bangladesh (CNN 3/30/2011) - Hena Akhter's last words to her mother proclaimed her innocence. But it was too late to save the 14-year-old girl. Her fellow villagers in Bangladesh's Shariatpur district had already passed harsh judgment on her. Guilty, they said, of having an affair with a married man. The imam from the local mosque ordered the fatwa, or religious ruling, and the punishment: 101 lashes delivered swiftly, deliberately in public. Hena dropped after 70 and died a week later.
23) "October 4, 2011, 100 die as a truck loaded with drums of fuel exploded Tuesday at the gate of compound housing several government ministries on a busy Mogadishu street. It was the deadliest single bombing carried out by the al Qaeda-linked al-Shabab group in Somalia since their insurgency began. "
o 24) Mon Jun 4, 2012 10:18am EDT
o
BAGHDAD (Reuters) – A suicide bomber detonated an explosive-packed car outside a Shi'ite Muslim office in central Baghdad on Monday, killing at least 26 people and wounding more than 190 in an attack bearing the hallmarks of Iraq's al Qaeda affiliate.
The bombing on a Shi'ite religious office comes at a sensitive time, with the country's fractious Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurdish blocs locked in a crisis that threatens to unravel their power-sharing deal and spill into sectarian tensions."
25) BURGAS, Bulgaria | Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:27am EDT
(Reuters) – A suicide bomber carried out an attack that killed seven people in a bus transporting Israeli tourists in Bulgaria, the interior minister said on Thursday, and Israel said Iranian-backed Hezbollah militants were to blame.
26 ) September 12, 2012
U.S. AMBASSADOR KILLED
Envoy to Libya dies in rocket blast
One assumes that Biden noted the recent moral failures of Islam to the Muslim representatives at the meeting.
Wouldn't you just love to run across Jesus, just back on Earth, and take him to an NRA meeting so he can see his followers?
Jesus: "I think you made a mistake."
cant wait to run into him on earth because that will be during his 1000 year reign
Which, as he swore was true, would happen in the lifetime of some of his listeners. So his thousand year reign was over 950 years ago. Quite invisible. He's vewy vewy sneaky, slip in the apocalypse and nobody noticed. Very stealthy in his destruction of the world.
Gods cannot be wrong. Jesus was wrong. Therefore, Jesus was not god, and Christianity is false.
Want to do it again with his promise that prayer works absolutely as you ask, including having a mountain throw itself into the sea?