God is at it again, folks! Last week, He flooded many places in the US. Those close to God (evangelicals) say that The Almighty sent the natural disaster as punishment for our immoral society. According to the Right Reverend Graham Dow, a Bishop of the Church of England and leading evangelical, “This is a strong and definite judgment because the world has been arrogant in going its own way”.
Critics are quick to point out that the floods occurred in America and, this may come as a surprise to some, America is not the world, though Dow seems to think so.
But the Right Reverend Dow is undeterred by his detractors. He blames the God-sent disaster on three things: God’s pissed that we are ruining the environment, God’s upset with our wide-spread greed, and of course, God hates gays.
Uhg.
There are so many problems with the belief that God uses natural disasters to judge society, it’s tough to know where to begin. First, natural disasters kill and injure indiscriminately. Everyone was affected whether or not they were believers or non-believers, moral or immoral, straight or gay. An all-powerful and righteous God would be more targeted in his wrath.
Secondly, any natural disaster can be interpreted as judgment from God. Just yesterday, lighting struck a Baptist Church in Baltimore. The resulting fire utterly demolished the building. Apparently God hates baptists as much as he hates gays (thank God I converted!).
Thirdly, if God punishes behavior He disapproves of, it is reasonable to suppose that He rewards behavior He approves of. In the Western World, our life-expectancy and quality of life have undergone enormous improvements over the last few centuries. This must be a reward from God! What else happened in those last few centuries? Let’s see, Western society has become much less religious and more rational. That’s it! God is rewarding us for using rationality. What other explanation can there be for our prosperity and comfort?
–Sidfaiwu
Related posts:
- Swedish Pastor On The Defense
- FYI: Rep. Steven Cohen Hates Jesus!
- Pat Robertson Is Proof Against Intelligent Design
- Emperor Benedict Declares Life Should End Naturally
- Bible Predicts Unusually Warm Weather In NYC
July 11th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Uhhm, isn’t it kind of blasphemous to speak for God or even try to understand his intentions given our limited human minds. Who does this guy really think he is, the pope, God’s PR man, or just schizophrenic?
July 11th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Let me play!!
Seems to me that an all-powerful God could be more targeted, but whether or not he would, who can say (maybe the Right Reverend)? Mass destruction is all part of His glorious plan, you know?
I’m pretty sure the lightning strike on the Baptist church was just God’s way of agreeing with the Pope. Once He starts striking down cathedrals we should get concerned.
As to the reward issue, its quite an assumption to say that prolonged life on earth is a good thing. It just so happens that many of us can’t wait till it’s over so we can join Him.
/sarcasm
July 11th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
I dunno Sid,
I’ve played a LOT of video games from the position of the creator, and if your God’s anything like me, I’m sure (s)he has his/her off days. Sure you COULD kill only the people screwing up your well planned, took-me-over-a-week-to-create society. But then there are the days when prosperity and happiness has dropped to all new lowsin game; you’re out of grass, and the internet seems boring and small.
THOSE DAYS, and I think it’s safe for me to generalize that *all* cognizant beings have them. Well those days you’ll usually resort to random acts of violence, in an effort to balance out peace and mind. And besides, didn’t you hear? The almighty Pope himself said all other religions under him don’t deserve/need churches; it’s true, I read it somewheres on the interweb!
July 11th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
I think this is just the baptists version of the catholic “marys face in a pizza pan”. They are seeing god in something just because they want to. The more rational minded of us just wonder what is wrong with them.
July 11th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
That’s an interesting comparison, Michael. I never thought of it that way. There is one major difference though. The Catholics will go, “Look! It’s Mary! Isn’t that great?!?” whereas the evangelicals will say, “Look what God did because of you! Bad things happen to everyone because of your behavior. You need to change. Don’t want to? We’ll make you change then.” I kinda like the Catholics better on this one.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Hmm, well we’ve had beautiful weather in California, as always. I’m so happy god chooses to spare some of us progressives; he certainly works in mysterious ways. LOL
July 11th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
‘The Catholics will go, “Look! It’s Mary! Isn’t that great?!?†whereas the evangelicals will say, “Look what God did because of you! Bad things happen to everyone because of your behavior. You need to change. Don’t want to? We’ll make you change then.‒
That’s those zany Protestants for ya!
So a few days ago I brought some really good food with me to work and teased my boss because she rarely has time to eat good food (I can do this since we’re good friends). However, the next day lightning struck less than 1/4 mile away from me.
So guys, does God hate me and my delicious food-eating ways? Should I start eating cardboard as penance? (The above story is true, by the way. I was jumpy for the next few hours.)
July 11th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/science/11cnd-warm.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Just found this. The title is all that really needs to be seen. Science v. God, round unknown: FIGHT!!!1!
July 11th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
I love it. That’s a gold mine of argument right there :)
I’m going to start collecting good luck stories involving non-protestants just for fun!
July 11th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
“Just found this. The title is all that really needs to be seen. Science v. God, round unknown: FIGHT!!!1!”
Science is a servent of God, nothing fight with God, evrything in this universe is obedient to God to server human-being.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
The science that I do is not done in the service of your god, nor of any god.
July 12th, 2007 at 7:54 am
If god is punishing people by flooding their homes, does this mean that god likes the people living on hill tops?
July 12th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Utter bullshit. Two can play at this game.
God created everything right? So then God created:
Polio
Cancer
Coronary Disease
Mononucleosis (had this as a kid, very unpleasant)
Bronchitis (also had this as a kid)
Tuberculosis
Aids
Ebola
Those little fish in the amazon that swim up your tubesteak and get all spiney.
Those spiders that lay their eggs inside your inner ear.
Tapeworms
Mosquitos
Great White Sharks
Gangrene
Salmonela
Celine Dion
All of which have done nothing but provide indiscriminant misery and death from day one. Loving god you say? The list speaks for itself. If he’s real, he’s a gigantic asshole and is unworthy of worship. Fuck your god.
July 12th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Blasphemaster,
I like Celine Dion part, but if you think about it, why God create those things, is just to show human-being that if you think you knowledge reach the top, you just have to little to proud of, but off course for the people how is reasonable.
July 12th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
The other thing, as you know most of the Athiest are really good about science, do you think Sharks is a bad thing? Shark helps the enviorment to be balanced.
July 12th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Mohamed, I think Blasphemaster is trying to show how silly it is to believe there is a god like a father.
Would you create snakes and sharks for YOUR children to play with?
Someone who says there is a god that loves you who also created all these bad things shows that they are not thinking about it. Probably because they don’t want to think about what they don’t like.
July 12th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
I Will tell how they think, everything is good came from science and everything bad is coming from God.
For the people who says I make science, you don’t make anything, this scientific facts that you are bragging about exist before scientist found out about, they just found it.
July 12th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Well, I have no problem with god creating all the bad things and well most religious books even acknowledge that.
The problem I generally have is that the same book claims the god is good, merciful or something else meaning benevolent. If they would have just said that god made all the bad things and god is all powerful, period, then there would not be any discord.
Greek gods are good example of a believable gods. All powerful but no one really claimed them to be humanitarian. They were whimsical and humans best hope was to pray that they would just ignore you.
July 12th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Firs of all, did you read the Quran to see what God said of what the good things he did?, he gave you vision and he gives you brain to think with, you just take these things for granted.
Second if I told you God did A and B and C would you believe it, you just want to hear what people claim that God did bad, which the truth is God don’t do any thing bad, anything bad is from human-being.
Like the brother who mentioned cancer, do you think that God create cancer out of nothing, look at the air we breath with the cars exhaust, look at the food we eat everyday full for artificial enzymes , who did all of this? is not your perfect science?
God create you, aren’t you perfect, can science produce a human-being like us, the answer no, even when the science create something good,people turn it to deadly weapons…
July 12th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Mohamed, I have 2 areas of questions for you, considering your post 19:
1. If as you say “anything bad is from human-being”, and as you also say, “God create you”, i.e. created you or humans generally, then, are not humans at least partially bad? And then, from considering these two statements of yours, is god not then responsible for creating something at least partially bad (humans)? Then, is your god imperfect by having done so?
2. While I agree with your statement to the effect that science cannot produce a human being, at least at present, science is getting closer to being able to do so. Do you think, then, that we are approaching being gods ourselves?
July 12th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
It actually does not matter how many good things a god makes in the box with humans if he claims to be good and merciful and then throws in the knives and shakes it vigorously.
The issue is not whether god made only bad things or all the things but claiming a god which created all the evil is a good god.
Also your claim of god creating me perfect could not be further from the truth but that claim really makes god to be a genuine tosser if you come to see where I do volunteer work, cerebral palsy proves to me that god is not good.
It may be god but good it ain’t!
July 12th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Korgan,
Again, God create the human-being with the choice to be good or bad, so if you did good in the test, you pass if not, it’s God call then.
Second, God challenged the human-being by just creating an ant, not human-being, so when you see that the science create one ant, I will admit, you win the argument, and you know what, human-being will not be able to do so, because simply we can’t create Soul, which we didn’t see soul yet, so how can human being create something he didn’t see first.
As I promised, I will make it easier for human-being, if you science create an ant, not human-being you won the argument.
July 12th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Jagannth,
Who is better than you in all the creature on the face on the earth, nobody, you have the brain to think, you have everything to function and be civilized.
How do you want to be perfect, you want to be superman, God has to see who is good or who is not through tough time, if you want to talk about perfection, that will be in heaven, in eternity where is no suffering for who is going to be in heaven, and it’s going to eternity in suffering for those who is in hell.
So this live is not the real deal my friend, it’s just test, your test end when you die, and then there is no turning back.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:28 am
I know, you have to try to believe and repeat those lines to all comers as if you would doubt it, then you would be apostate, sad is it not? You have a free will but no right to use it. Quran 35:7
According to you I have a brain to think, and I do think. I just cannot turn my brain off and believe. It must be the work of allah, eh? Quran 6:25
I hope you believe that war is not good and thus a good god should not force people to inflict pain upon others with wars but guess what, it happens in religious texts. Quran 2:216
July 13th, 2007 at 8:11 am
“when you see that the science create one ant, I will admit, you win the argument”
Careful there, mohamed. Korgan is right, science is getting close. We have long been able to create synthetic chromosomes, but this new research done by Dr Craig Venter proves that it is now possible ‘within months’ to transplant those chromosomes and create a synthetic life form. It may be only a matter of time before they start creating artificial insects.
It will be a bacteria, so not as complex as an ant, but the previously impossible has become possible: humans creating new lifeforms. It may be only a matter of time before they start creating insects.
July 13th, 2007 at 9:35 am
Mohamed,
All ants were and still are created by science. They evolved by the scientific laws of nature, they reproduce by the scientific laws of nature.
Show me one ant that God has created from nothing — without reproduction — and then I’ll start believing.
July 13th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
So who created science then?
Sid
I don’t think human being will be able to create an ant, that was God challenge, so there is no way it will happen and you will see.
Human being will never create any thing has a soul. Only God knows what the soul is?
July 13th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Mohamed, why do you think it is necessary for science to have had a creator (in the past tense), and how do you define science?
So that you know where I am coming from, my view is that science is both a (hopefully) accumulating body of knowledge about our universe, and a method of improving and adding to this body of knowledge through progressively refined or rejected hypotheses in light of observations. In my opinion, giving credit to a god (as is often done according to common religious doctrine) for this growing body of work does a disservice to the many scientists who have worked very hard at what they do.
July 13th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Why everybody think that I’m against science, I’m not, I like science, but I know it has limit, and it’s limited to what God will let you know.
God says in Quran, that the universe is expanding, search it you will find it scientific fact, so there is not limit for knowledge, my problem is that people use science to deny god existence, and being arrogant, and at the end scientist will never go over what God limit them to.
Every thing my friend has to have creator, who do you think put the sun where it is now, I’m sure you have knowledge too, the sun in position where it allow life for human being, if it closer inches everything on the earth will burn, if it’s further inches it will be all icy, do you think science did that too?
July 13th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
I have this video, it’s off topic, but it has some answers for some questions about Islam, the video is just 5 minutes.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2728290308716633679
July 13th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
“Human being will never create any thing has a soul.”
On this, Mohamed, we completely agree, though for different reasons. Humans will never create a soul, not due to any lack of creative power, but because there is no such thing as a soul.
July 13th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Sidfaiwu,
We are going to disagree on this, but you have a soul, and igonring it, it’s just because sicience has no explanation for it, that’s why you denying, if you accept there is soul, you accepting there is God.
God guides you to the truth Sid, I mean this pray for you, I’m not trying to make fun of you, and God will be my wittness.
Sid, watch this link, it about a guy converted to Islam, the purpose showing the video is not the converting, it’s about how people lives in Egypt and his opinion about them. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=865780556982303976
July 14th, 2007 at 9:22 am
Hey Mohamed,
Thanks for the videos. It’s nice to be exposed to moderate Muslims.
One of the main reason I don’t accept that there is a soul is that it seems to be so ill-defined. I’ve yet to hear a satisfactory definition ’soul’. What is your definition?
July 14th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Sidf,
I can’t give you defintion for it, because God says, that he is only one who knows its secret, so I can’t make up answer.
Be honest with me, don’t you think that human-being carry souls inside of them, ans what the difference between alive person and dead one.
There are a lot of people die without any dieases, what happend to them? It’s just their time, and the soul went up to her creator, doctors gave reason that blood pressure went down and blah blah, but only explanation, it was his time and his soul is out.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Do ants have a soul? IF they do then the challenge of creating one is impossible to fulfill because the challenge is unfair.
You say only god knows the secret of soul, therefore creating a living being can never fill the requirements of your gods challenge as no one knows what is the soul.
July 14th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
The challange, that will never know what the soul is? And that’s why you will never create an ant.
I hope I’m not offending anybody, I’m trying to make everybody think by challenging you, and it’s the same for me, everytime you challenge me I know more.
July 14th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Hello Mohamed,
Nah, you’re not offending me at all. I like to be challenged. Now on to your question:
“Be honest with me, don’t you think that human-being carry souls inside of them, ans what the difference between alive person and dead one.”
The honest answer really is ‘no’. I do not believe any aspect of my consciousness will survive my death. And I’ve come to this conclusion despite a deep hope that I do have a soul. Surprisingly, this conclusion lead me to value my own life and others much more than I did as a believer.
July 14th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Scietifically it’s known that human-being is slightly less in weight after they die, why do you think that is?
The other thing let me ask you this question, let’s assume one of us is right and one of us is wrong.
what if I’m wrong and there is no judgement day after death what have I lost?
What if you are wrong and I’m right and there is judgement day, what will you lose?
July 15th, 2007 at 1:48 am
Scietifically it’s known that human-being is slightly less in weight after they die, why do you think that is?
Couple of problems here. “Scientifically it’s known” translates as “some physician did some poorly controlled measurements and they made a movie of the whole affair”. Great stuff for a movie. No independent replication, though. See also:
http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp
And apart from the shaky empirical evidence, there’s the obvious logical problem of something immaterial supposedly having mass.
What if you are wrong and I’m right and there is judgement day, what will you lose?
Google for “Pascal’s wager”. That should answer your question. I love it when theists try to use this argument. The philosophical problems aside (which Google will tell you about), it’s a strikingly opportunistic way of thinking. To hell with virtue for virtue’s sake, ultimate truth, and all that — just bet on the right horse so you won’t end up in hell. Yeah, right.
July 15th, 2007 at 2:28 am
Couple of problems here. “Scientifically it’s known†translates as “some physician did some poorly controlled measurements and they made a movie of the whole affairâ€. Great stuff for a movie. No independent replication, though
Why don’t you apply the same thing on Evolution, and it will be correct too, it’s some theroies has no truth in it, and you trying to covince the whole world of it.
I want personel opinion for my question, I could Google the question before I ask the question, I need your way of thinking not others way of thinking.
July 15th, 2007 at 4:51 am
Why don’t you apply the same thing on Evolution
Actually, we do apply exactly these criteria (logical consistency, testable predictions, independent verifications) to evolution. That’s what science is all about — it’s first and foremost a method of acquiring knowledge, rather than simply a body of wisdom. The soul weight experiment didn’t meet any of these criteria, and is therefore not scientific at all.
Also, did you actually visit the snopes.com page? They really go out of their way to treat their subjects fairly, and return no verdict about the validity of religious belief in general. Nothing to fear there, really.
I want personel opinion for my question, I could Google the question before I ask the question, I need your way of thinking not others way of thinking.
Well, I actually told you how I feel about this question, and only referred you to Google for the cold and hard logic, which doesn’t leave much room for “personal opinion”. Pascal’s Wager is one of the classic arguments in favor of theism and thus widely known. I simply saw no reason for lengthy replications since you can just look it up.
You know, maybe you should make a habit of googling stuff before asking in a forum or comment section. Maybe you think I’m just parroting some web page to get you bogged down? Well, for the sake of making a point, I’ll try to paraphrase some major arguments against Pascal’s Wager from the top of my head (you’ll just have to trust me on this):
First, even if you buy the opportunistic betting strategy, you run into the basic problem that there’s more than one religion. You have to pick one, but which? Maybe it’s really just believing in god? Or maybe Christianity and Islam are wrong, and Judaism is right? Or perhaps a specific branch of a religion? Or even a tiny sub-sect with just a handful of adherents? A lot of religious groups deem other groups heretic. Unless you buy extreme Postmodernist-style relativism, they can’t all be right if they’re contradicting each other. Suddenly, the odds don’t look that bright anymore.
Second, we’re talking here about believing in god, not just pretending to do so. At least that’s what most religions say officially: You’re supposed to really believe in god, and not just pay lip service in order to stay out of trouble. Pascal’s Wager is a pretty silly argument to use if your aim is to convince someone of the truth of god’s existence. Do you really believe your god would approve if I only followed your religion’s teachings because of an egoistic bet? Theists advocating that line of thinking deconstruct themselves, really.
These two major points should be enough for now. There is likely much more to say about this which didn’t come to my mind — Google is your friend.
Oh, and to actually answer your question, taken literally: If I’m wrong, then I’m wrong. That’s it. But I’m not willing to sacrifice my ideals “just in case”. Not to mention that most likely it won’t work anyway; see the second point above.
July 15th, 2007 at 8:29 am
Wow, looking at Pascal’s Wager, that’s a horrible argument. That does nothing in the way of proving anything, if Wikipedia has the proper quote to describe it. Believing in God because it pays? That’s one of my major beefs with religion. I didn’t think somebody actually turned it into an argument.
July 15th, 2007 at 10:44 am
A further problem with Pascal’s Wager is that it cuts all ways. No religion can use it. I’ll demonstrate:
The question becomes “wrong about what”? What if you are wrong about Jesus on judgment day? You are taking the same risk with respect to Christianity as we are with respect to Islam. This can be applied to just about any other religion.
July 15th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Daniel,
I’m not saying I don’t believe, I said it’s assumption, ok the whole ides is assumption, you said you should believe, I don’t just believe I know it for fact.
What I was trying to do is agreeing with you and you agreeing with me, and it’s known kind of argument.
I will tell you the result of it, which you trying to escape, If I’m wrong I didn’t lose anything, if you lost, you are losing big deal, because it will eternity, but what I would win or not, I still don’t know, it’s up to God to decide if I did good or bad.
I think the answer is so simple, doesn’t need scientfic facts or reading books.
Snurp,
I don’t believe in God because it pays, I was arguing one point to let people think what will happen after they die, will they be nothing like they claim, or there is after life and they will lose everything.
And one thing about Islam you have to know, you have to believe in heaven and hell to be a Muslim, because it’s the real deal, it’s not like this life(illusion).
July 15th, 2007 at 11:59 am
I will tell you the result of it, which you trying to escape
I emphatically did not try to escape the conclusion, as that’s obvious. As I said, if I’m wrong, then I’m wrong. Did you actually understand the argument I put forward? Please read again what I wrote, as you don’t seem to have got it yet.
It’s impossible to decide to believe in something! At least not consciously.
What’s so hard to understand about that?
July 15th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
I’m not saying I don’t believe, I said it’s assumption, ok the whole ides is assumption, you said you should believe, I don’t just believe I know it for fact.
Did I read that straight… are you actually telling us you are agnostic? Maybe you could re-phrase your sentence as it’s quite hard to dissect.
July 15th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Science is methodology, and thus cannot be created.
Creation is a scientific impossibility in that it implies bringing something out of nothing. What most people term ‘creation’ is simply the construction of something from lesser parts.
July 15th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
I’m sorry for confusion, I mean I believ and I’m more than believer, you can say I know it as fact.
The reason why I assume the whole thing, because when I talk with non-believer, you have to go down to how they thinking, and that’s why I put this assumption, you always measure any thing in material way, so that’s how I have to talk to you.
So far you didn’t give me the answer for the assumption, I’m not forcing you to accept it as fact, it’s just way of thinking.
July 16th, 2007 at 6:34 am
I cant help but wonder, Florida supposedly gets more lightning strikes than anywhere else. Does that mean that God hate Florida?
July 16th, 2007 at 7:28 am
Thor and Zeus just check which one is more accurate with their bolts and there is so much metal in form of pacemakers in florida that it is just natural target.
July 16th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Mohamed:
“The reason why I assume the whole thing, because when I talk with non-believer, you have to go down to how they thinking, and that’s why I put this assumption, you always measure any thing in material way, so that’s how I have to talk to you.”
So you have to ‘go down’ to how we’re thinking in order to understand the position of non-believer? Why is this? What makes your position of faith superior to our atheism?
Tell me Mohamed, why do you worship the god that you do? Why do you not accept any of the other countless deities which have been worshiped by all of the world’s cultures?
July 16th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
It just makes sense to me.
July 16th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Slightly of topic. This Link got something interesting about temperature of haven and hell.
July 17th, 2007 at 5:42 am
mohamed, I think blasphemaster (cool name btw) is asking WHYi t makae sense.
July 17th, 2007 at 5:43 am
uhh… that is supposed to read:
“Asking WHY is makes sense”
July 17th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Well, it is obvious that Mohamed was simply raised to believe that what he does, and that his faith is the one and only true faith. Thus, he cannot justify his faith and dodges the question.
July 17th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Mr Blasphemaster,
Do not predict what you don’t know, I started to pray when I was 25 years old, I started to know my religion better since I moved to USA, my dad never asked me to pray or do certain things, I don’t even good in Quran memorizing, which it’s going to be my focus in shaa Allah.
Nobody forced me to believe in any thing more than I want to.
It makes sense because I thought about it by my mind, the same like you think that you are right.
July 17th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Mohammed, you said in post 29,
“the sun in position where it allow life for human being, if it closer inches everything on the earth will burn, if it’s further inches it will be all icy, do you think science did that too?”
In fact, what you have said is pretty much an example of the fallacy of circular argument (google on that if you need to per Daniel Elstner’s comments), in that it is tantamount to saying that “if the situation were different, it would be different.” No requirement for a creator that continues as an active or sporadically intervening agent (such as Islam or Christianity, or many other religions describe) has been presented in what you have said.
Furthermore, science according to accepted definitions is not responsible for doing anything, in the sense of your “do you think science did that too”. Other posts have already addressed what science is, but I’m not sure that you have digested those posts. I’d guess that you still have the notion that science is somehow like belief. It is not. So I hope you don’t mind if I ask again: how do you define science?
July 17th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Korgan,
If you see what the other people posted, you will understand why I asked the question” did science do that too?”
Giving sun as example, just one example of millinons example you can put it together and you will get one answer, it has to be God and one God only.
July 17th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Mohamed, thanks for your response. As far as I understand what you are saying, you still have not answered my questions.
However, I can respond to your statement ending in “it has to be God and one God only”. In that statement, you are approaching a conclusion that I think Sid has reached in his deism. However, I have a different take on things. In my view, our universe as it is understood today can be described to an excellent degree by what is now well-established science, and that understanding continues to improve. That understanding is at odds with most religions on many fronts (even to the extremely limited degree that any religious text dares to venture into the territory of substantial and detailed statements.) The more one looks at the universe and considers the “millions of examples”, the more religion falls short. This is just one aspect of why I reject religion.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Actualy, if you read the Quran, you will find facts, the science just dicoverded now a days, one of them that this universe is expanding, and I think it scientific fact, but the thing that I will tell you that Quran is not science book, it’s signs book for people look at the universe and see how organized every thing to serve Human being, stars served man to get direction, also the sun, the moon, every thing is in man service.
Science can tell what is thing like what is the water? H2O, but science can’t asnwer why?
Can you answer me why the water is H2O, not H2C for example.
No contridiction between science and religion, other wise God wouldn’t tell human-being to look at the skies and the seas, he motivated people to search and think, and that’s why they will reach God.
Both of us use the same way, but we reach different conclusion.
July 17th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
I think that if I try to comprehend any more of Mohamed’s posts my brain will implode from trying to comprehend the sheer idiocy that he uses to try and prove his religion’s validity.
“Both of us use the same way, but we reach different conclusion.”
No, you do not. What you are doing is creating a conclusion and trying, with an incredible rate of failure, to prove that conclusion. You may as well try to prove that the ocean is dry by enclosing yourself in deep-sea diving gear and dipping yourself into the Atlantic. When you emerge from the ocean and take off the suit, you are dry. TADA! The ocean is dry!
Science is a METHOD! It is not a being. Science is the process of utilizing gradually observation and experimentation to not what is and is not fact. There are no pre-existing notions, such as GOD to be proved. Science simply takes what can be perceived and from there draws fact.
Water is a molecule. That molecule consists of 2 Hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom. Thus, Dihydroxide. H2O. Water. Neutral in many aspects, thus allowing life to develop using it as a base, rather than the molecule reacting according to the laws of chemistry and thus not being the basis for life on earth.
H2C is Dihydrachloride.
Mohamed, if you are going to try to use science to try and explain your religion’s validity (an impossibility, since science is absolutely contrary to the existence of a god), try to have a BASIC UNDERSTANDING of it.
Trying to use science to prove god is perhaps the most basic of fallacies. Science is the business of determining facts based on observation. Religion is the business of making declarations.
July 17th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
I certainly agree with your statement that the Quran is not a science book.
On the size of the universe, there are rather few choices on that one, those being that the universe either is expanding, stable in size, or contracting, and hence the often-stated claim that the Quran actually says that the universe is expanding is unimpressive (in fact, specious, particularly when no specifics can be given). For example, what red shift does the Quran say should exist for the distant galaxies? Does the Quran even speak to that point? How about basic atomic theory or the energy levels of the hydrogen atom? Vague statements about matter don’t suffice there.
One would expect that a book that is claimed to be a faithful explanation of a purported god’s creation, the universe, would have to be a complete explanation of the general case, and hence reducible to our best understanding and observables, however limited. That would mean that from the Quran, one would be able to deduce basic observables such as the charge/mass ratio of the electron, or work out a value for Planck’s constant. That is just not the case.
As Dawkins essentially put it, in cases such as “why”, or the ultimate theory of everything, where science and reason may not currently have an explanation, why would you expect religion, which fails miserably in explaining ready observables (where science succeeds marvelously), to do a better job?
July 17th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Sorry, all; my post 63 is a reply to Mohamed’s post 61, not post 62.
Blasphemaster got in there before I did :-), and I neglected to say what I was replying to.
July 18th, 2007 at 12:31 am
Blash,
Understand me or not, it doesn’t really matter to me, I know how I think and I know for fact it’s right, you might feel the same for your self, good for you, I didn’t protest, you can think what ever you want. I will tell you why we end to different conclusion, because I try to reach the end of every thing, I try to find explanation for why certain things created this way, and how it is created, you just bragging about this things being created and give it a thoery doesn’t even explain any thing.
Evoluation is nothing, evoluation is to enhance species life to survive, and it doesn’t qualify for creation, and I went on this so many time, try to reach to the end where is human-being came from, it has to be creation.
H2O, I’m not expery in chemistry, my question was and I’m sure you know what I mean, science discoverd that water is H2O, why it was H2O and nothing else, do you have explanation for it, or either the science, do you know the secret of it, I don’t think so.
Religion is the business of making declaration, I think I said that Quran is a book of signs not science, it just gives you signs.
I’m sure you expert in iron, where is the iron get it soldity, is it from the earth or from outside space, Quran mentioned that iron get it’s soldity from above which is from outside, do you think it’s not sign?
Iron was the last element to be forged in the interior of a massive star before it exploded.
It among other elements was ejected outward in all directions forming thousands of solar systems ours being one of them.
Quran says that “I sent down Iron for it has many uses for mankind”
Can you deny this fact, it 1400 years ago. they didn’t take the iron to lab because it’s not the religion bussines, he just gave you the sign, because God knows that somebody like you at this time will come and say this claims.
July 18th, 2007 at 11:21 am
Again, your arguments have no validity, Mohamed. (BTW, It’s BLASPH, not BLASH, though I’m not going chastise you for that).
“I will tell you why we end to different conclusion, because I try to reach the end of every thing, I try to find explanation for why certain things created this way, and how it is created, you just bragging about this things being created and give it a thoery doesn’t even explain any thing.”
You seem to be extremely confused here.
I do not brag about anything, especially creation which I make a point of debunking. YOU are the one who is arguing creation.
MY whole point is that creation is an impossibility, and I think we should steer away from other arguments for a while and focus on this, since it is a central, key point in religious thinking. If creation is proven, religion can be given some validity. If it is disproved, religion can have no validity.
So, Mohamed. Obviously you have a belief that the universe was created by some supreme being. Why does existence necessitate creation? I am eager to hear your explention. Please, try and explain how creation is necessary rather than declaring that it is so because your faith tells you it is.
July 18th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Mo says “why it was H2O and nothing else”
H2O = 2 atoms of Hydrogen and 1 atom of Oxygen. Shaken not
stired. A pefect mixer for whisky. LOL
July 18th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Long post coming up.
“”H2O, I’m not expery in chemistry, my question was and I’m sure you know what I mean, science discoverd that water is H2O, why it was H2O and nothing else, do you have explanation for it, or either the science, do you know the secret of it, I don’t think so.”"
The question cannot be answered because the question itself is flawed. Water is water because it is water. You might as well ask why an apple is apple and not, for instance, the Eifeltower. Not every sentance starting with “why” is a valid question, yours is about the same as ‘why does a circle smell pink’
You say that science and religion match, but they are nearly anethema to eachother. Science teaches to dig deeper, to prove the other is wrong with the reason to further our collective understanding. Scientific knowledge comes from the need to understand how thing work, why they are the way the are, and from creating models that can predict finding.
Religion on the other says “God did it” Do not question what is written, for it is truth and to question is blasphemous. The ‘facts’ are usually wrong to, For instance, the stars were not made to launch djinns at us.
Further, you say that the universe was made especially for us. Why is it so inhospitable then? Why is outer space a vacuum? why is there so much pressure in the deep sea and why do violent hurricanes kill hundreds of people? Why are the artic and tundra so cold and the Gobi so hot? Why is mercury several hundreds of degrees to hot, and mars to cold? Why does earth gravitywell extend so far and makes spacetravel so hard? Why can’t things go faster then light? Why do falling coconuts kill people and are fish so damn hard to catch? I can go on and on.
If the universe was specially made for us, it seems god screwed up bigtime. Your model fits if you happen to live and die between the euphrates and tirgis rivers, but outside of it, it’s flawed.
“” I try to reach the end of every thing, I try to find explanation for why certain things created this way, and how it is created”"
No you do not. Because your answer is that god created everything, but of course, that leaves open the age old question
July 18th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Alcari,
So the same question will be direct to you, why evolution worked on the earth and it didn’t work on any other planet, and please don’t metnitin the Oxygen doesn’t exist. If evolution worked on the earth, it should work every where else.
Who create God, when it comes to this question, you will not get anywhere, because there is nothing like God, you can’t even imagine how he looks like, because your brain is limited to this far, but it’s easy to see where human-being coming from.
Can you deny that outer space affect our life, so all the universe is made for us, not to use all of it, but to serve us, and to look at it and see how there is god.
If you can’t explain why the water came as in H2O, how do you expect to find the answer where is God came from, science only limited to observation, and find the rules and tha law of this earth.
July 18th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
When it comes to God, the problem is this: you say we can’t describe God. This I agree on. So then, if we can’t really understand God, can’t explain Him, and generally can’t do anything as regards Him, having no indication of His existence besides that which is subjective in nature, why should we believe in Him? God offers an explanation, but that doesn’t mean it’s right. Science is willing to go only so far as it can back up its answers. God isn’t at that point, and may very well never be. Also,
“Can you deny that outer space affect our life, so all the universe is made for us, not to use all of it, but to serve us, and to look at it and see how there is god.”
A cause isn’t necessarily intentional in nature. If a car hits me, that doesn’t mean the car was made to affect my life. It may simply have a stupid driver. Also, I don’t see God in the universe. I don’t see much besides planets, hydrogen, and empty space. Most indications of “God’s presence” seem subjective, which doesn’t cut it.
“If evolution worked on the earth, it should work every where else.”
No. Evolution will happen where there is life. There will be life where the circumstances allow for it. As it happens, that doesn’t happen often. Most planets are barren chunks of rock. Thus, evolution doesn’t get the chance to occur in too many places, since few can support life in the first place.
July 18th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Sorry Alcari, I get the first part for you. Mohamed, we do not know that there is no life on other planets. I would add that it is highly improbable that we are lonely in this universe; I’ll go farther by saying in this galaxy. So you gain no points here.
Why H2O is H2O, is because we named it so. Geez, I named my dog Atos, and now he is Atos.
From this quote I can deduct that your brain is so big, that you managed to grasp what is god is. Cause you are so bravely discussing it, as you know everything there to know about god. Well, at least you made impression as you are his personal secretary.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:34 am
I Are, my brain is not that big, you might be way smarter than me, but my answer came from Quran, and here is the Quran
In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful
1. say ( O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم ) : ” He is Allah , (the) One .
2 . Allah-us-Samad ( السيد الذي يصمد إليه ÙÙŠ الØاجات ) [ Allah __ the Self – Sufficient Master , Whom all creatures need, ( He neither eats nor drinks ) ].
3. He begets not , nor was He begotten .
4. And there is none co-equal or comparable to him .”
So don’t give me credit( which I know you meant to make fun of me), my answer was from Quran, and I know that I’m limited as you.
So how can you say evolution is a theory of human creation, and it doesn’t work where is no life, see you contrdict your self, Evolution should create life as it creats life here.
H2O is H2O, like the you dog blah blah, but you have the choice to name your dog, but you didn’t have the choice to make the water consist of 2 carbons instead of Hydrogyn, science just found it this way.
So I found science and Evolution is not qualifying to justify any thing. I know most of you are mad of me now, but remember I will challange you as you challange Muslims, and I thank God, that Muslims always has the answer, if you see other religons, people can’t even argue with you, because they know they have nothing to go back too, Bible has a lot of mistakes and a lot of things against it, and the same with Torah, but thank God that he gave the Muslims perfection in their religion.
Guys, you really made believe in God more than ever, and I’m not saying that to aggrevate any body, but I really saying because every time you challange me, you make me think more, and know more.
July 19th, 2007 at 4:11 am
Couple of things;
First, Evolution is a retrograde science, it explains what has happened, it does not do anything on itself, it is not predictive form of science. Evolution does not create anything, for that there is whole different concept called abiogenesis. Evolution does not equate creation and never has even claimed that, those claims came from religious circles.
Secondly, the difference between science and religion can be summed nicely in the following; Science seeks to prove its claims to be false whereupon religion seeks to prove its claims to be true.
Thirdly, the H2O is merely the chemical form of a one molecule of a particular form of water. D2O is also water as is T2O, all three are water with different qualities.
July 19th, 2007 at 9:53 am
“Guys, you really made believe in God more than ever, and I’m not saying that to aggrevate any body, but I really saying because every time you challange me, you make me think more, and know more.”
If by KNOW you mean ‘reinforce a system of religious belief which you have been indoctrinated in since birth and therefore have no experience thinking in a logical manner, as your faith beat it into your skull at an early age that questioning god results in a severe beating if not execution,’, then yeah, we’ve made you KNOW more.
I’m done arguing with you, Mohamed. You offer no evidence for anything whatsoever. The statements you make are devoid of intelligent thought and rational discource, instead being filled with declarations that your faith is valid because it says it is.
I am truly saddened that you cannot have the rational state of mind that made Islamic science so prolific and advanced above its contemporaries in the distant past.
As it is, I will offer you a bit of advice: Don’t believe in rewards you earn only when you die.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
“” Evolution should create life as it creats life here.”"
Evolution does not create life. Abiogenesis creates life, and the two are nothing alike.
I belive your asumption that the universe was created for humanity is inverted. You say that there is oxygen to breathe because we need oxygen, but it’s exactly the other way around.
We breathe oxygen because there is plenty of oxygen available. It’s not that the sun was made because we need light to see. We can see because there is so much light and it’s a usefull ability.
“” H2O is H2O, like the you dog blah blah, but you have the choice to name your dog, but you didn’t have the choice to make the water consist of 2 carbons instead of Hydrogyn, science just found it this way.”"
Yes, and if things had been different, things had been different. I fail to see your point. It has nothing to do with choice. The universe is made out of quarks, which form together in protons, neutron and electrons (and a whole host of non-baryonic matter).
One assortment of subatomic particles is hydrogen, another is oxygen. One way to fit those together is in water.
And if things had been different, things would have been different. This has nothing to do with god at all.
“”Who create God, when it comes to this question, you will not get anywhere, because there is nothing like God, you can’t even imagine how he looks like, because your brain is limited to this far.”"
Our brain is limited in a lot of ways. I’m fully sure you have no true grasp of subatomic scale, of the size of our planet or of multidimensional mechanics. Neither do I, because the brain evolved around stuff we see daily. It’s not suited for long timescales, very big or small things or very high speeds. I think this is why you fail to grasp the big bang, there’s no shame in that, quantum theory is to wierd to understand anyway.
I also know I won’t get anywhere, but that’s merely because of your inability to see logic and reasoning.
There’s a logical fallacy you keep using. God does not need a creator because he is god. So, why does the universe need a creator?
July 19th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Wow this thread is a HOOT! Watching Muhammed fumble around blindly trying to make his faith appear even remotely believable, though failing miserably, is pure comedic gold. It is painfully obvious the poor guy has not a single grasp of anything outside of his dogma. He uses his faith to prove his faith.
God had a creator, and it is man. The Quran says iron was sent down from above, but they did NOT mean the sun you imbecile, they meant HEAVEN, the seat of god, who gifted to mankind the iron. And they were as ridiculous as you are.
Religion has been, is, and will be the bane of humanity until we can stamp the garbage out. Or at the very least put it where it belongs, in the realm of myth.
Muhammed, I really do pity you. You need your crutch to deal with reality. Sad. So very sad.
July 19th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Michael,
Don’t feel sorry for me, I’m fumbling, alot of people here said that science explain everything, and I’m discussing that, I’m just challanging people, and I have no intention to win argument, becuase I know I won’t, every body has his mind set, all I’m doing is make people think.
Iron came down from outspace, and you know how to Google, so go ahead do your part.
I know what I’m talking about, our Quran is full of signs that show God exist.
July 19th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Someone said that ’science explains everything’? I’d check the comments again, Mohamed, I doubt anyone here would say that. Science Will Never Explain Everything: That is Why it is So Useful!
“I know what I’m talking about, our Quran is full of signs that show God exist.”
But you are assuming the Qur’an is factually correct to begin with and you rely on others’ interpretations of the highly vague book. From a skeptics point of view, the text may have a very different meaning, if any at all. For instance, could you please explain this verse from the Qur’an to me?
Surah 18:86
The sun sets in a muddy spring? It reads like nonsense.
July 19th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
“he found it setting in a “, it’s he, it’s not God he think, that what people thought at this time. God is talking about what was people thinking, and he was talking about Zul-quranin, you got the idea now.
Does it make sense to you now?
July 19th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Sidfu,
The last post was explanation, here is better and deeper explanation I copied from somewhere, so you know that.
“Until, when he reached the setting of the sun…”: The translation of this part of the verse does not say that Zul-Qarnain reached the place where the sun sets LITERALLY, rather it means here that Zul-Qarnain was facing the direction in which the sun is setting. The “setting of the sun,” is an Arabic idiom meaning ‘the western-most point’ of his expedition. However, in general, idioms should not be literally translated.
“…he found it set in a spring of murky water”: The Qur’ân is obviously describing what Dhul-Qarnain saw. What Dhul-Qarnain saw was the image of the sun setting in a dark body of water. Since the Qur’ân is clearly describing this from Dhul-Qarnain’s direct point of view (the Qur’ân is quite explicit here in doing that), there is in fact no problem with the description of what Dhul-Qarnain saw. Of course the Critic is right when he says that “the sun does not set in a spring of murky water”, but try standing at a beach during the time when the sun is about to set and the Critic would be able to see the sun “entering” the sea far in the horizon. This therefore gives us the conclusion that Dhul-Qarnain was somewhere west and by a large body of water, possibly the sea.
Therefore, it is clear the verse says that Dhul-Qarnain went west and saw the sun setting over the horizon so that it looked to him as though it was setting into the sea, which is murky-looking. Probably the Critic have never stood by on the beach and observe the sun set.
For further clarification of our explanation, we reproduce two other translations of the same verse by M. M. Pickthall and Shakir.
Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, and found a people thereabout. We said: O Dhu’l-Qarneyn! Either punish or show them kindness. (Qur’ân, 18:86)
Translation by Shakir:
Until when he reached the place where the sun set, he found it going down into a black sea, and found by it a people. We said: ‘O Zulqarnain! either give them a chastisement or do them a benefit.’ (Qur’ân, 18:86)
Thus, it is clear to us that the above-mentioned verse is only considered “unscientific” if we would also consider that similar emphatically-used phrases such as “Japan, the land of the rising sun” or “Sabah, the land beneath the wind” to be “unscientific” as well.
July 20th, 2007 at 8:56 am
Mohamed Says:
“Don’t feel sorry for me, I’m fumbling, alot of people here said that science explain everything, and I’m discussing that, I’m just challanging people, and I have no intention to win argument, becuase I know I won’t, every body has his mind set, all I’m doing is make people think.”
I can’t help but pity you. You are living under an ridiculous belief in this “god” of yours, thinking you are going to go to this “heaven”. Whenever I see delusional people, I feel bad for them.
As for challenging anyone, the only challenge is figuring out how you could possibly believe the stuff you say.
“Iron came down from outspace, and you know how to Google, so go ahead do your part.”
I don’t believe you are being intentionally obtuse, but you completely and utterly missed my point. Maybe it it was a communication breakdown. Let me try again. Obviously I know that heavier elements are formed inside the more massive stars. The more massive the heavier elements can form. What I was saying is the book you quote does not SAY that iron came from stars, that is your interpretation. I guarantee you they had no knowledge of this. When they said it came from the sky for man to use, they were referring to heaven, not the stars. From the domain of god, not the stars in the sky. Surely I don’t have to explain to you the difference?
“I know what I’m talking about, our Quran is full of signs that show God exist.”
No, the quran is full of vague stuff that YOU interpret, in your weakness as signs that this mythological god of yours exists. This most assuredly does NOT make it so. Any more than me reading lord of the rings and seeing some vague connection to something and deciding that Gandolf exists.
July 20th, 2007 at 9:46 am
Thanks Mohamed,
It is as I thought. It is a matter of interpretation. The ’setting-place of the sun’ is not taken literally. But, then, why not? “murky water” is taken literally when it could be interpreted metaphorically. Has it always been taken non-literally, or is this a reinterpretation based on scientific advancement? If so, why hasn’t the interpretations adapted to biological scientific advances? How do you know that other portions of the Qur’an are not also mistakenly taken literally now?
My point is that highly poetic books, such as the Qur’an are subject to such diverse interpretations that no single interpretation can be trusted. If I’m not mistaken, some Muslims are killing each other over differing interpretations, are they not? As such, religious leaders can cherry-pick which sections of the Qur’an to take literally and which to take metaphorically as suites their own, and not Allah’s interests.
Let’s try another example. Mohamed, can you give me the Qur’anic verse that commands Muslims to pray towards Mecca five times a day? I’ll pick up the discussion from there. Thanks.
July 20th, 2007 at 11:37 am
I’d like to hear Mohamed’s explanation of the whole ‘72 virgins for you if you blow yourself up along with a bunch of non-combatants.’ Granted, it’s an offshoot of mainstream Islam, but it’s a very prevalent thought these days.
I for one think that, if real, the virgins come from all the dead baby girls from China.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Blasphemaster,
No Mo. today. Remember is Friday, but I’m sure he’ll oblige
tomorrow.
July 21st, 2007 at 2:22 am
Sidfu,
Thanks for the question, I think I would rather answer your question than asnwering a spread wide media question(72 virgins), and I think I answered this question before like 1000 times, and I think it’s not question, it’s a statment from balshph.
Here when God ordered Muslims to take Mecca as Qablah.
141. This is a people that have passed away; they shall have what they earned and you shall have what you earn, and you shall not be called upon to answer for what they did.
142. The fools among the people will say: What has turned them from their qiblah which they had? Say: The East and the West belong only to Allah; He guides whom He likes to the right path.
143. And thus We have made you a medium (just) nation that you may be the bearers of witness to the people and (that) the Apostle may be a bearer of witness to you; and We did not make that which you would have to be the qiblah but that We might distinguish him who follows the Apostle from him who turns back upon his heels, and this was surely hard except for those whom Allah has guided aright; and Allah was not going to make your faith to be fruitless; most surely Allah is Affectionate, Merciful to the people.
144. Indeed We see the turning of your face to heaven, so We shall surely turn you to a qiblah which you shall like; turn then your face towards the Sacred Mosque, and wherever you are, turn your face towards it, and those who have been given the Book most surely know that it is the truth from their Lord; and Allah is not at all heedless of what they do.
145. And even if you bring to those who have been given the Book every sign they would not follow your qiblah, nor can you be a follower of their qiblah, neither are they the followers of each other’s qiblah, and if you follow their desires after the knowledge that has come to you, then you shall most surely be among the unjust.
There is no such vesre to say whay you exactly asked for, we know that the Qiblah is Mecca, and praying five times that our prophet order for us, and he got it from God when he went to the sky, but Quran is full with vesres which order the believer to pary.
July 21st, 2007 at 3:00 pm
The content of post 85 seems to me to be fairly typical of religious texts, or rather, translations of religious texts. In my opinion, it is vague, and open to multiple interpretations. It just reminded me to share with you a list that I call Korgan’s Recipe For A Successful Religion:
1. Promise the most outrageous and wonderful things in an afterlife. The wilder the promises, the better, since no one will ever be able to call you on them. Heck, offer eternal bliss, health, wealth, whatever you can think of. Offer hundreds of virgins if you have to to be competitive with that other religion; you’ll be out of Dodge before anyone can prove you wrong anyway.
2. Invoke an all-powerful all-knowing all-etc. Deity. Give it a short name. If your imagination isn’t too inspired, don’t let that stop you; generic “God” seems to work fine although it’s been taken more than a few times. “Bob” might be a little too common, though.
3. Prey on people’s guilt: propose an arbitrary set of moral standards. Guilt is incredibly powerful. Put some obviously acceptable stuff in, like being nice to others, just so that you don’t seem too wacky, but put some weird rules in like not eating cheese in December, or praying while doing a handstand. This is important so you can laugh at your gullible followers when they actually follow these ridiculous rules.
4. Make all kinds of vague predictions and promises about the future. They must be vague; never commit to anything that can be empirically tested. Especially do not specify dates in the future. Avoid any questions about specifics; it is essential to your success that you don’t get pinned down by observable reality.
5. Predict the past. Grab a history text and go wild: show how your religion accurately explains past events. Claim 100% accuracy -it’s yours for the taking.
6. Claim your religion as the one true religion. Denigrate all the others; no one likes to be in the wrong social group, so this can be a very effective tactic. (Seems to work for that Ratzinger guy that the Catholics hired recently.) This is very important in another way: exactly the gullible sort of fodder that you want to convert to your one true way are most likely to be found following competing religions.
7. If you are short of more ideas, steal from other religions. Those Christian guys did it repeatedly, so you won’t be the first. Steer away from modern sects like those Pastafarians though; those guys are just too smart and funny.
and so on…
?
?
10. Profit…or just laugh.
Cheers,
Korgan
July 21st, 2007 at 11:24 pm
@ Korgan - hey good one, just got directed here from the FSM site. I’ve been mulling around the idea of starting a religion for awhile. All I really need it for is the money. I’m wondering if I can be behind the scenes and let someone more flamboyant take the lead prophet role?
July 22nd, 2007 at 11:47 am
Gary Coleman is always looking for work.
July 22nd, 2007 at 12:52 pm
@ Lady Red Sonja
Sure. You’ll probably have to split the proceeds with the front person /lead prophet, but the benefits can be tremendous if you find the right salesperson. All religion is all a sales job after all, so definitely consider a salesperson. Lots of real estate sales folks are in the job market now -experience selling swamp land would be very appropriate to any religion.
Guys with beards and deep-set eyes tend to do well in the lead prophet role. (I actually had a close friend years ago who fitted that description to a T and we seriously discussed starting up a religion. Sadly, we both got real jobs and didn’t go ahead with the religion.) The beard look worked for geezus. The beard thing is also mandatory for muslims, and you so might find a disenchanted failed suicide there who needs a job.
Most of the experienced US xtian televangelists are in jail these days, so probably out of luck finding one of them, but they’re pretty good at the game if you can get one.
Good luck.
July 23rd, 2007 at 4:41 pm
I thought that it would be an easy way to make a ton of money legally to take advantage of the believer’s gullibility. Unfortunately, my conscience would never allow me to do it. That would be like mugging a quadriplegic. I couldn’t live with myself afterward.
July 24th, 2007 at 10:51 am
See, oh religious freaks? Ethics without religion! What now, bitches?
July 24th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Sid Faiwu Presents Canned Religious Answers!
1) Michael’s ethical conscious was created by a religious upbringing.
2) Michael’s secular humanism is a religion.
3) Michael’s ethical conscious is a product of his culture, which is steeped in religion.
4) Michael is faking his morality to avoid judgment and/or punishment from the community, which gets its morality from religion.
Who would like the honor of ripping these answers a new one?
July 25th, 2007 at 8:39 am
“Lady Red Sonja Says:
July 21st, 2007 at 11:24 pm
@ Korgan - hey good one, just got directed here from the FSM site. I’ve been mulling around the idea of starting a religion for awhile. All I really need it for is the money. I’m wondering if I can be behind the scenes and let someone more flamboyant take the lead prophet role?”
SORRY, you’re too late sonja!!!
I’M THE NEW PROPHET…………
I’ve already ordered mohamed to start worshipping me, but I don’t think he truly BELIEVES!!
I’m going to reserve a special place in hell for him, and pull his asshole over his head so everyone will think he’s wearing a burkah!!
July 25th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Sid, It’d be my pleasure.
1) While the key concepts of “Don’t Kill, Steal, Lie” etc. may have been initially instilled into Mike in his childhood by religion, these are not ethical concepts in that they are obtained via religion. As religion tries to force ‘morality’ on its membership via what is essentially bribes and strong-arming “Do this and you’ll get an afterlife that’s NOT a fiery burning pit of despair and torture.” Such ‘ethics’ or ‘morality’ are NOT ethics due to this methodology of intilling them via essentially greed and fear.
Thus, Religious ethics are not ethical at all. Atheist ethics, however, come from an individual’s sense of what is essentially ‘the golden rule’ of “Do unto other as you would have them do unto you.” There are no rewards, no threats, only an individual decision to be ethical, thus ethics are truly acquired in this sense.
I’ll leave the other 3 open to other posters. :D
July 25th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
That’s a good point, Blasphemaster. You are saying that religiously-motivated behavior is not moral because base motivations. They act out of a selfish interest in heaven and threats of Hell from the clergy. The motivation is what you find morally objectionable, and not the resultant, moral behavior. I’m I correct?
In a sense I agree. I think a true test of one’s morality is to observe how they’d behave if no one, including God, would ever learn what they do.
I’m sure the religious would respond by claiming that their behavior is motivated out of a love for God, not greed or fear. That response aside, I’m more interested in the implications your claim would have if it were true. Namely, religion would be necessary for a properly functioning society. If fear of Hell and love of Heaven and/or God are the only things keeping the religious behaving morally, taking these away would cause mass immorality. Trust would disappear and society would cease functioning.
My guess is that if somehow religion were eliminated from the world (oh, what dream), only a very small minority would revert to gross immorality. A vast majority of formally religious people would go right on being moral.
The reason is that much of morality is instinctual and largely emotional. As partly rational beings, we have a need to explain or rationalize all of our behaviors. Thus when we make a moral judgment that is not based on rationality, we naturally try to explain it to ourselves and others within a rational (or at least nominally rational) framework. For the religious, their reason is that it is “God’s Law”, for humanists, it’s usually a form of some philosophy, like The Golden Rule, Utilitarianism, or Kant’s Categorical Imperatives.
I believe in both cases, the religious and philosophical, the explanations are often wrong. They are convenient story’s we tell ourselves to make sense of our moral instincts. Considering this, it makes sense that both believers and non-believers have overlapping morality. The overlap represents their shared moral instinct. The difference is the ’story’ they use to explain it. I think of the ’stories’ as models of our moral instinct.
But some models are better than others. Religious models often go beyond the core instinctual morality and invent rules that are either completely unnecessary or only temporarily needed. These extra prohibitions on behavior result in unnecessary restrictions on freedom and vilification of people who do not share the same model.
July 26th, 2007 at 6:35 am
Kant puts it this way:
Take two mothers. One cares for her children because she loves them, and one does because it’s her duty, even though she doesn’t really even like them. In a moralistic sense, Kant said the second mother was more respectable because the motivation was purely ethical. The first mother is of course good, but you can’t know where the motivation to act good comes from.
Religion (at least the Christian one) has a relatively simple morality that is easy for people to follow. Most people don’t bother themselves to generate a more complicated morality, which is sad. But, as long as we can maintain a culture that keeps a decent moral standard for society (the specifics are of course debatable) those who want it simpler will generally just follow along. It’s about culture and about disposition. Religion is not necessary for that. However, in some cases it seems to be what works best. This also makes me sad. We shouldn’t need a proverbial father with a wagging finger to make us moral.