I am on the internet, I know best.
I am a 12+ yr old male with a very similar upbringing to all the 12+ yr old males on the internet, therefore everyone I meet has a similar view to me. And because all the other 12+ yr old males I meet online think religion is stupid therefore we must be the majority IRL and everyone knows that my particular outlook on life is the correct one, therefore i'll continue to cram it down your throats like an arrogant 18th Century Pastor.
Is something 'mainstream' if only a small section of the population thinks it?
It's about as revolutionary to say 'religion sux' on an online computer game forum as it is to say 'God is good' in a church.
Same, and i'm an atheist, but what's the point in trying to cram your own religious views down other people's throats 'by force of education', or more to the point what is the academic benefit in trying to make your noble 'religion sux' stand on a forum where 99% of people reading and posting here are atheists?When I say "eradicate through sheer force of education" I simply mean that nobody should be able to avoid getting taught a clear atheist worldview, something which my upbringing still managed to do.
First one to hate on the Hindus or/and Vedas texts wins 20k
First one to hate on the Hindus or/and Vedas texts wins 20kMan, fucking Hindus. There are a few Hindu cults over here, run by various shady people. I read a few articles of people attending events in these cults - they basically get drugged up by drinking some spiked alcohol thing, then "rave" to eastern religious music, etc, all the while being brainwashed. Afterwards, they believe that this cult is somehow saving their lives and become addicts, shelling out big cash to remain in those cults. Fucked up shit.
As for Vibe's opening salvo
Since atheists are still very much a minority I suppose a 'normal' person does not think religion is horseshit. You fucking hipster, trying to avoid the mainstream by being a cool atheist? Wear a fedora and share your half-baked musings about the cosmos?
I like how in the 21st century we disregard the scientific discoveries and advancements and acts of intellectual preservation that came directly out of monasteries because they aren't relevant *now*. But give an internet-intellectual an opportunity to dwell in the past about the shitty period in western history where religion and science found themselves at odds for some reason and all of a sudden the historic interaction of religion/science is current and relevant and super-important! (But *not* any of the occasions where scientific advancement came from monasteries, it's only relevant now if that interaction was negative, cos fedora).I don't think we disregard advancements that came directly form monasteries (at least not in science). Mendel for exemple vibe (well not a concerted effort by the church, but I remember some muslim scientisct that have done things to find where the Mecca is placed everywhere in the world, and yeah that must be the only exemple...).
But I don't think religion was the cause of those advecement, monasteries were just the only place where you could find people that were litterate.
Go google me what kind of scientific advancements came fromreligionatheism as a concerted effort, and not some poor agnostic scientist that was forced to be there out of fear else he'd bebaked on the stake or cast out of the villageridiculed for holding religious beliefs in the year of our lord 2015, 'internet-intellectual'. Now compare this to the harm caused by the church.
But I don't think religion was the cause of those advecement, monasteries were just the only place where you could find people that were litterate.
Is the word 'Monk' really that difficult to type? Or would it offend your concept of the universe to imagine someone wearing an itchy habit, waking up at a ludicrous hour for morning prayers every day and still theorise about the physical state on the universe in a scientific way?
I'll leave the googling to you if that's the only source you can imagine.
If you're so obsessed with the 'harm' caused by the church, perhaps we can put that in the time-honoured tradition of people being intolerant and angry of views that don't match their own perfect world-order. You fit neatly in that category, what were you gonna do again, 'fucking slap' me cos I don't agree? Ahahaha, real progressive. Whilst you're at it maybe you could threaten to crucify me or burn me at the stake, does it make you *angry* when people don't do or believe what you tell them? Welcome to religious fanaticism.
But as a serious rebuttal, a lot of scientists both Christian and Islamic through many centuries have done research and praised a higher power for letting them exist, something something so that they may know such beauty in the truth of our Natural World, something blah blah.
Heskey might troll a lot but that is a valid point.
Man, fucking Hindus. There are a few Hindu cults over here, run by various shady people. I read a few articles of people attending events in these cults - they basically get drugged up by drinking some spiked alcohol thing, then "rave" to eastern religious music, etc, all the while being brainwashed. Afterwards, they believe that this cult is somehow saving their lives and become addicts, shelling out big cash to remain in those cults. Fucked up shit.
Also, i know that the whole eastern thing was trendy like a decade or two ago, all that hindu/buddhist shit. One of the festivals i used to attend had a small Hindu corner near the chillout zones (ya know, because somehow Hindu shit is somehow related to psy electronic music and such). Went there out of curiosity... was the exact same religious nonsense as you would expect from some hardcore christian nuts.
Is the word 'Monk' really that difficult to type? Or would it offend your concept of the universe to imagine someone wearing an itchy habit, waking up at a ludicrous hour for morning prayers every day and still theorise about the physical state on the universe in a scientific way?Monasteries did teach litteracy to their own workers because that's what you want, intelligent workers. I mean it's still the same in modern sect, the enlightened are at the top and the bottom only needs the top to enlight themselves. The more the top is enlightened, the best they can manipulate the bottom.
I suppose monks just copied old texts and manuscripts so that future generations could read texts that would otherwise decay and become unreadable simply cos it was fun. And preserved stone and glassworking after the collapse of the western Roman Empire by accident.
I'll leave the googling to you if that's the only source you can imagine.
If you're so obsessed with the 'harm' caused by the church, perhaps we can put that in the time-honoured tradition of people being intolerant and angry of views that don't match their own perfect world-order. You fit neatly in that category, what were you gonna do again, 'fucking slap' me cos I don't agree? Ahahaha, real progressive. Whilst you're at it maybe you could threaten to crucify me or burn me at the stake, does it make you *angry* when people don't do or believe what you tell them? Welcome to religious fanaticism.
Literate people just spawned there? They didn't learn literacy in monasteries whilst being taught by monks/priests?
Yeah no biggie just holding the frail candle of knowledge as it burns alone in a vast sea of ignorance for several hundred years. Now that everyone's literate we can just bulldoze churches/mosques because they are no longer relevant.I think religions should evovle to let people and society improve themselves but I'm not sure if every religion is able to...
They're your words, so who went full mad? You cant make me subscribe to your view of the universe so i'm a 'stupid person' therefore I deserve to be attacked physically. And yet you cannot comprehend how a religious person can cause so much evil in trying to impose their religious beliefs on others? You're the perfect example of that kind of behaviour, and the perfect example that retardation is not limited to religious fanatics (or at least that even atheists can be religious fanatics).
You cannot find a way to stop me posting/saying ideas that you disagree with and your knee-jerk reaction is violent action xD why don't you behead some Syrians whilst you're at it. Extremists are dumb fucks.
I don't disagree, and I don't disagree that the role of monasteries in this century is not sustaining an educated class in the same way that it was. But if your argument is based on an obsession over the negatives of religious/intellectual interaction in the past you need to be aware of the positives in the past as well, the medieval intellectuals wouldn't have had the time or resources to study if they were just shit-farmers who had to work in the fields all day.I have to disagree, as I said I don't think they were ever a positiv interaction just a cohabitation in the mind of some people. And why shit-farmers had to work in the field all day and were not educated? Because they had to pay the tax to the church who owned the land and forbid them to instruct themselves.
Clearly you give enough of a fuck to get good and mad XD XDXD
You hate religious people. Religious people are dumb. Religious people get angry over their beliefs and want to hurt people who disagree.
On an unrelated note you want to try and slap me (lol, who slaps?), because you got angry and defensive over your beliefs and have lost your shit to the point where you only want to try and attack me because you cannot find the words to stop me or to cope with my counterargument. You're a walking talking hypocrisy, you have more in common with a religious extremist than anyone else here, theist or atheist.
Thank you for continuing to argue, if I ever wanted to prove that it isn't religion that makes people angry, but intolerant bigoted individuals who cannot accept that there are views out there that do not match their own, or cant *stand* having their own arguments applied against themselves, I can show them this thread.
us, again, what's the point here you're trying to make? If it wasn't for that particular religion, they'd fill the knowledge void with some other belief, either made up by other people, or their own and in the end, reach the same scientific conclusions.
Yeah no biggie just holding the frail candle of knowledge as it burns alone in a vast sea of ignorance for several hundred years. Now that everyone's literate we can just bulldoze churches/mosques because they are no longer relevant.You say this sarcastically, but yes, exactly. They served their purpose. Why keep them around now when they're unnecessary?
You say this sarcastically, but yes, exactly. They served their purpose. Why keep them around now when they're unnecessary?
I should start by saying I must have been drunk because I don't remember posting this thread.
I don't even know what I could have been expecting with this thread, but it's interesting nonetheless.
Can we just end the thread here? This is perfect.░░░░░░░░▄▀░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▄░░░░░░░░░
I grew up normally
are you sure
As Daniel Dennett once said, "I listen to all these complaints about rudeness and intemperateness, and the opinion that I come to is that there is no polite way of asking somebody: have you considered the possibility that your entire life has been devoted to a delusion?"
like everyone else :PDon't ask stupid fucking questions. Of course I'm the master.
Perhaps one day, we shall invite you Xant!
Someday is coming.
Your legacy is defined.
Are you a master?
Don't ask stupid fucking questions. Of course I'm the master.The question is not mine. The haiku was meant to be an inner question for the one reading, in selfreflecting purposes. Do not let your mind be clouded by profanity Xant, swearing is for the plebs, your above that.
I tl;dr Jambi's posts. But I feel I may be missing out. Can someone who read them tell me if it's a waste of time?
I tl;dr Jambi's posts. But I feel I may be missing out. Can someone who read them tell me if it's a waste of time?
http://www.subgenius.com/
Most of the people in this thread will be feeling a bit warm after they take their final breath on Earth.
The temperature of heaven can be rather accurately computed. Our authority is the Bible, Isaiah 30:26 reads,
Moreover, the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold as the light of seven days.
Thus, heaven receives from the moon as much radiation as the earth does from the sun, and in addition seven times seven (forty nine) times as much as the earth does from the sun, or fifty times in all. The light we receive from the moon is one ten-thousandth of the light we receive from the sun, so we can ignore that. With these data we can compute the temperature of heaven: The radiation falling on heaven will heat it to the point where the heat lost by radiation is just equal to the heat received by radiation. In other words, heaven loses fifty times as much heat as the earth by radiation. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann fourth power law for radiation
(H/E)4 = 50
where E is the absolute temperature of the earth, 300°K (273+27). This gives H the absolute temperature of heaven, as 798° absolute (525°C).
The exact temperature of hell cannot be computed but it must be less than 444.6°C, the temperature at which brimstone or sulfur changes from a liquid to a gas. Revelations 21:8: But the fearful and unbelieving... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." A lake of molten brimstone [sulfur] means that its temperature must be at or below the boiling point, which is 444.6°C. (Above that point, it would be a vapor, not a lake.)
We have then, temperature of heaven, 525°C. Temperature of hell, less than 445°C. Therefore heaven is hotter than hell.
A REFUTATION OF THE PROOF THAT HEAVEN IS HOTTER THAN HELL
In Applied Optics (1972, 11 A14) there appeared a calculation of the respective temperatures of Heaven and Hell. That of Heaven was computed by substituting the values given in Isaiah 30 26 [1] in the Stefan-Boltzman radiation law, so that (H/E)4 = 50, where E, the absolute temperature of the Earth, is 300ºK, whence the temperature of Heaven, H, is 798ºK or 525ºC. This is hard to find fault with.
The assessment of the temperature of Hell stands, I suggest, on less firm ground. As authority we use the data provided in Revelations 21 8 [2], so that the temperature of Hell seems to be 444.6ºC–the temperature at which liquid sulfur is in equilibrium with its vapour–a temperature indeed which is sufficiently reliable to be used in the secondary calibration of pyrometers.
Now this last reckoning fails to follow the argument through. 444.6ºC is the temperature at which liquid sulfur is in equilibrium with its vapour at normal atmospheric pressure. Have we any data as to the pressure likely to be found in Hell?
The answer is "Yes". A nineteenth century mathematician has already provided the groundwork for us [3] and we may feel confident that by the year 2000 the total number of the damned will be at least 29,422,641,251,519,917,000 souls. Yet the area of the valley of Gehinnom [4] is only 7,000,000 square meters.
We can now apply these figures in the Ideal Gas Equation to calculate what the pressure will be in the valley of Gehinnom. Since surely some souls must have been damned since 1877 [5], the pressure can only have increased since these calculations were made and the equilibrium point on the phase diagram of sulfur must have shifted still further, so that if we can show that at a temperature of 525ºC sulfur would still be liquid at the pressure calculated (which is a minimum value, remember), Hell (Gehinnom) is now cooler than Heaven.
Certain corrections must be applied first, however.
1. Neiht based his calculation on a date of creation of 1658 + 2326 - 1877 = 2107 BC (minimum). Counting generations in the Bible gives a date for the Creation of 4004 BC. However, atomic dating has shown that Olduvai man is at least 2 × 106 years old [6].
2. We should use a Fibonacci series for the expansion, not a simple doubling series. [7] The ancient Jewish laws against inbreeding also act in the same direction. [8]
3. By a fortunate coincidence, the effects of 1 and 2 cancel each other exactly. [9]
4. The human body is not an ideal gas, but
5. A good deal of it is gaseous at 525ºC, and in any case,
6. It could well be that at very great pressures the external pressure may well exceed the pressure of electromagnetic repulsion, when different "gas" laws would apply. This merely explains how the Lord works in fitting so large a number of damned souls into so small a space [10] and it need not be quantitative.
In the calculation the following assumptions are made:
1. The average height can be taken as one meter. This seems a fair figure between the newborn babe and the fullgrown man.
2. The average space needed is about 30 cm × 20 cm. It seems unlikely that any closer packing could be achieved. Neiht uses a figure of 1/20 cubic meters per person, which is nearly identical with my independent assessment. Mine allows a neat cancellation, later.
3. I have assumed that not more than two layers of damned persons can be accommodated, since otherwise those in the middle layers would escape the full rigours of Hell.
So that,
The volume available in Gehenna is 60 × 106 × 2 m3 and
The original volume of the damned is 0.06 × 29.422641 × 1018m3
Then, at constant temperature (which we assume, taking equilibrium)
P1V1 = P2V2 or P2 = P1V1/V2
Substituting,
(1)
P2 = [29 × 6 × 1016] / [2 × 6 × 107] = 14.5 × 109 atmospheres
Now let us see what pressure is needed to liquefy sulfur vapour at 525ºC.
We have, using the Clausius-Cleypeyron equation in its integrated form,
Log P = 7.43287 - 3268.2 / T
where P = pressure in mm Hg
and T = the elevated boiling point in ºK,
so that
Log P = 7.43287 - (3268.2/798) = 3.3373813
whence,
(2)
P = 2174.607 mm Hg = 2.86 atmospheres
(1) is so much greater than (2) that Revelations 21 8 indicates a temperature very considerably higher than 525ºC.
Thus, Hell is hotter than Heaven (which remains deucedly hot).
REFERENCES
1. "The light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold as the light of seven days..." The light of the moon is negligible in comparison with that of the sun.
2. "...the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death".
3. A Mathematical Proof of the Non-Existence of Hell from the writings of the free-thinker Neiht, born in Brussels, 1877. "The area of the valley of Jehoshaphat is 60,000,000 sq. ms. ... Supposing that each race originated with one couple only, one has five couples or ten people, and applying to them the principle of compound interest, up to the Flood there were 9,289,000 births in 1,658 years. Since the Flood up to our epoch 2,326 years have passed, during which, if only five couples survived, they would have produced 2,213,867,610,000 children. If these calculations are extended up to the year 2000, the resulting number is 34,326,414,259,675,172,000 which, together with the 9,289,000, makes 34,326,414,259,684,461,000 offspring. If one concedes, charitably, that all papists are saved, their number today being 1/7th of the population of the earth, that of the damned would be made up of those born before the Flood plus those born since the Flood up to the year 2000 minus the 1/7th of those born since the year 44, that of the birth of Christ: this number is 4,903,773,008,164,544,000, and the total of damned would be 29,422,641,251,519,917,000.
"The mean cubic area between a new-born infant and an adult is about 1/20th metre; the bulk of the damned above is equal to the mass of a sphere of radius 705,504 metres; that of the earth is 6,366,200 metres.
"If one puts back the origin of man, following certain German naturalists, to 80,000 years, the number of damned would form a cube three times the size of the earth.
"Now, how does one assemble the 34,326,414,260 millions risen on a surface of 60,000,000 sq. metres to judge them and how does one sink this mass of damned, through all manner of rock, to a depth of 5,660,660 metres?"
[4] The valley of Jehoshaphat is the Gehenna of the Jews (Jehennam in the Koran)–the place of eternal torment. The word is derived from Gehinnom = the valley of Hinnom where sacrifices were offered to Moloch (2 Corinthians 33 6) (= Adremmelech–the God of Sepharvaim). In later times, all manner of refuse was dumped there and fires were constantly maintained to consume it. The sulfurous stench and the fire was the original of the Christian concept of Hell. (The estimate of Nieht of Gehenna's area 60 × 106 sq. m. is wrong, according to measurements taken on the spot by the Editors).
[5] e.g. Dzhugashvili, Losif and DeSalvo, Albert H.
[6] Curtis G. H. and Evemden, J. F. in Nuclear Clocks USAEC Pp 40-41.
[7] Leonardo da Pisa Liber Abaci 1202 (Out of print).
[8] Leviticus 18 6 et seq.
[9] Westfall, R. S. Newton and the Fudge Factor. Science 1973 751 -758.
[10] "In my father's house are many mansions: If it were not so I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you." John 14 2. Also, "Those things which are impossible with men, are possible with God" - Luke 18 27, and "...with God all things are possible." Matthew 19 26.
In fact, probably everyone will!
The temperature of heaven can be rather accurately computed. Our authority is the Bible, Isaiah 30:26 reads,
Moreover, the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold as the light of seven days.
Thus, heaven receives from the moon as much radiation as the earth does from the sun, and in addition seven times seven (forty nine) times as much as the earth does from the sun, or fifty times in all. The light we receive from the moon is one ten-thousandth of the light we receive from the sun, so we can ignore that. With these data we can compute the temperature of heaven: The radiation falling on heaven will heat it to the point where the heat lost by radiation is just equal to the heat received by radiation. In other words, heaven loses fifty times as much heat as the earth by radiation. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann fourth power law for radiation
(H/E)4 = 50
where E is the absolute temperature of the earth, 300°K (273+27). This gives H the absolute temperature of heaven, as 798° absolute (525°C).
The exact temperature of hell cannot be computed but it must be less than 444.6°C, the temperature at which brimstone or sulfur changes from a liquid to a gas. Revelations 21:8: But the fearful and unbelieving... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." A lake of molten brimstone [sulfur] means that its temperature must be at or below the boiling point, which is 444.6°C. (Above that point, it would be a vapor, not a lake.)
We have then, temperature of heaven, 525°C. Temperature of hell, less than 445°C. Therefore heaven is hotter than hell.
A REFUTATION OF THE PROOF THAT HEAVEN IS HOTTER THAN HELL
In Applied Optics (1972, 11 A14) there appeared a calculation of the respective temperatures of Heaven and Hell. That of Heaven was computed by substituting the values given in Isaiah 30 26 [1] in the Stefan-Boltzman radiation law, so that (H/E)4 = 50, where E, the absolute temperature of the Earth, is 300ºK, whence the temperature of Heaven, H, is 798ºK or 525ºC. This is hard to find fault with.
The assessment of the temperature of Hell stands, I suggest, on less firm ground. As authority we use the data provided in Revelations 21 8 [2], so that the temperature of Hell seems to be 444.6ºC–the temperature at which liquid sulfur is in equilibrium with its vapour–a temperature indeed which is sufficiently reliable to be used in the secondary calibration of pyrometers.
Now this last reckoning fails to follow the argument through. 444.6ºC is the temperature at which liquid sulfur is in equilibrium with its vapour at normal atmospheric pressure. Have we any data as to the pressure likely to be found in Hell?
The answer is "Yes". A nineteenth century mathematician has already provided the groundwork for us [3] and we may feel confident that by the year 2000 the total number of the damned will be at least 29,422,641,251,519,917,000 souls. Yet the area of the valley of Gehinnom [4] is only 7,000,000 square meters.
We can now apply these figures in the Ideal Gas Equation to calculate what the pressure will be in the valley of Gehinnom. Since surely some souls must have been damned since 1877 [5], the pressure can only have increased since these calculations were made and the equilibrium point on the phase diagram of sulfur must have shifted still further, so that if we can show that at a temperature of 525ºC sulfur would still be liquid at the pressure calculated (which is a minimum value, remember), Hell (Gehinnom) is now cooler than Heaven.
Certain corrections must be applied first, however.
1. Neiht based his calculation on a date of creation of 1658 + 2326 - 1877 = 2107 BC (minimum). Counting generations in the Bible gives a date for the Creation of 4004 BC. However, atomic dating has shown that Olduvai man is at least 2 × 106 years old [6].
2. We should use a Fibonacci series for the expansion, not a simple doubling series. [7] The ancient Jewish laws against inbreeding also act in the same direction. [8]
3. By a fortunate coincidence, the effects of 1 and 2 cancel each other exactly. [9]
4. The human body is not an ideal gas, but
5. A good deal of it is gaseous at 525ºC, and in any case,
6. It could well be that at very great pressures the external pressure may well exceed the pressure of electromagnetic repulsion, when different "gas" laws would apply. This merely explains how the Lord works in fitting so large a number of damned souls into so small a space [10] and it need not be quantitative.
In the calculation the following assumptions are made:
1. The average height can be taken as one meter. This seems a fair figure between the newborn babe and the fullgrown man.
2. The average space needed is about 30 cm × 20 cm. It seems unlikely that any closer packing could be achieved. Neiht uses a figure of 1/20 cubic meters per person, which is nearly identical with my independent assessment. Mine allows a neat cancellation, later.
3. I have assumed that not more than two layers of damned persons can be accommodated, since otherwise those in the middle layers would escape the full rigours of Hell.
So that,
The volume available in Gehenna is 60 × 106 × 2 m3 and
The original volume of the damned is 0.06 × 29.422641 × 1018m3
Then, at constant temperature (which we assume, taking equilibrium)
P1V1 = P2V2 or P2 = P1V1/V2
Substituting,
(1)
P2 = [29 × 6 × 1016] / [2 × 6 × 107] = 14.5 × 109 atmospheres
Now let us see what pressure is needed to liquefy sulfur vapour at 525ºC.
We have, using the Clausius-Cleypeyron equation in its integrated form,
Log P = 7.43287 - 3268.2 / T
where P = pressure in mm Hg
and T = the elevated boiling point in ºK,
so that
Log P = 7.43287 - (3268.2/798) = 3.3373813
whence,
(2)
P = 2174.607 mm Hg = 2.86 atmospheres
(1) is so much greater than (2) that Revelations 21 8 indicates a temperature very considerably higher than 525ºC.
Thus, Hell is hotter than Heaven (which remains deucedly hot).
REFERENCES
1. "The light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold as the light of seven days..." The light of the moon is negligible in comparison with that of the sun.
2. "...the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death".
3. A Mathematical Proof of the Non-Existence of Hell from the writings of the free-thinker Neiht, born in Brussels, 1877. "The area of the valley of Jehoshaphat is 60,000,000 sq. ms. ... Supposing that each race originated with one couple only, one has five couples or ten people, and applying to them the principle of compound interest, up to the Flood there were 9,289,000 births in 1,658 years. Since the Flood up to our epoch 2,326 years have passed, during which, if only five couples survived, they would have produced 2,213,867,610,000 children. If these calculations are extended up to the year 2000, the resulting number is 34,326,414,259,675,172,000 which, together with the 9,289,000, makes 34,326,414,259,684,461,000 offspring. If one concedes, charitably, that all papists are saved, their number today being 1/7th of the population of the earth, that of the damned would be made up of those born before the Flood plus those born since the Flood up to the year 2000 minus the 1/7th of those born since the year 44, that of the birth of Christ: this number is 4,903,773,008,164,544,000, and the total of damned would be 29,422,641,251,519,917,000.
"The mean cubic area between a new-born infant and an adult is about 1/20th metre; the bulk of the damned above is equal to the mass of a sphere of radius 705,504 metres; that of the earth is 6,366,200 metres.
"If one puts back the origin of man, following certain German naturalists, to 80,000 years, the number of damned would form a cube three times the size of the earth.
"Now, how does one assemble the 34,326,414,260 millions risen on a surface of 60,000,000 sq. metres to judge them and how does one sink this mass of damned, through all manner of rock, to a depth of 5,660,660 metres?"
[4] The valley of Jehoshaphat is the Gehenna of the Jews (Jehennam in the Koran)–the place of eternal torment. The word is derived from Gehinnom = the valley of Hinnom where sacrifices were offered to Moloch (2 Corinthians 33 6) (= Adremmelech–the God of Sepharvaim). In later times, all manner of refuse was dumped there and fires were constantly maintained to consume it. The sulfurous stench and the fire was the original of the Christian concept of Hell. (The estimate of Nieht of Gehenna's area 60 × 106 sq. m. is wrong, according to measurements taken on the spot by the Editors).
[5] e.g. Dzhugashvili, Losif and DeSalvo, Albert H.
[6] Curtis G. H. and Evemden, J. F. in Nuclear Clocks USAEC Pp 40-41.
[7] Leonardo da Pisa Liber Abaci 1202 (Out of print).
[8] Leviticus 18 6 et seq.
[9] Westfall, R. S. Newton and the Fudge Factor. Science 1973 751 -758.
[10] "In my father's house are many mansions: If it were not so I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you." John 14 2. Also, "Those things which are impossible with men, are possible with God" - Luke 18 27, and "...with God all things are possible." Matthew 19 26.
why can't you just leave people who believe alone as long as they dont force their beliefs upon you? why do they have to be eradicated?Because they force those beliefs on their children. And they want to influence policy.
Because being outraged online is far easier than actually doing anything, especially on a forum full of atheists. You have to applaud the courage and conviction it takes for a man to stand up for what he believes... online... anonymously... in a forum full of people with identical or similar views... YEAH! Change the world!
It's a nice outlet though, as long as the people who really *hate* religion have the internet, they will absolutely not take action on any of their ideals or 'eradicate' anyone or accomplish any of their ideals.
Similar to how closet racists online be like ''Hurrr, durrr, wut? You callin' me a Nazi or somethin'?'', when actually no that's a pretty shitty comparison, since the Nazi's actually went and did shit. If the worst thing Hitler ever did was be a pissed-off internet intellectual talking about how he knew the key to making Germany strong, then nobody would really hate him (or have ever heard his name). Shout out to my man Godwin, but you know it's vaguely relevant, keep telling us internet atheists how dumb religion is, fight the power man!
If what you like to talk about is how religion is evil and backwards, but don't do anything about it, that perfectly explains the weakness of your stance. You have these really strong intolerant views but you don't have the balls to do anything about it, so you'll never get what you want, and that suits most of the world just fine since only you internet intellectuals have an issue with religion.
What's next? You're going to 'fucking slap' me cos you're so badass? :lol: :lol: :lol:
It's an internet forum, even your IRL threat of violence sounds pussy
The reason I think you are socially retarded is because when you talk about 'everyone' or your presumed public opinion it is only based on the kinds of opinions you find online, and nothing to do with genuine demographics in terms of who's a majority IRL.
"since only you internet intellectuals have an issue with religion" ok great, I didn't know most of the people around me were internet intellectuals, good to know. Some of those never use internet to debate but I guess they qualify.
Last time I looked out the window, diversity and tolerance was winning just fine without my efforts. Now if that situation was different or I encounter situations where people are being shit on for their religious believes IRL, that absolutely demands action.
If that's the kinda 'winning' attitude your views engender, then wow, with commitment like that from people like you how are there even still religions in the world? :lol: :lol: :lol:
You didn't like what I was saying online, you couldn't handle it, so you threatened to 'slap' me xD what kinda pussy slaps? If that's the best you can offer when my mean little words make you incapable of coping then I honestly wouldn't mind giving you the opportunity to come over and deliver. Especially now I've seen above how 'committed' you are to your beliefs.
Maybe you should just do now what you do regarding that despicable and hated religion IRL, and give up.
Especially now I've seen above how 'committed' you are to your beliefs.
What more can we discuss about this.
Whether it was based on my opinions or the way I threw your own words back at you, either way you still couldn't cope with my mean disagreeable words so started talking about wanting to 'fucking slap' me IRL. Now, aside from the obvious retardation of the idea of being slapped by a man that isn't a football player, that shows the limit of your capacity for argument before you revert to 'DO NOT LIKE, SLAP', you were talking about retardation weren't you? What would you say of a person who can't argue long without getting physically exasperated to that point?
Also you seemed to say:
From a guy trying to act badass online, 'Stupid people deserve to be slapped by smart people like me'.
Are you from some sort of retarded hillbilly settlement where your parents and sister/gf share the same retarded fedora-wearing half-baked views as yourself? 'Religion is dumb, hurr durr'. By all means have your intelligent 'discussion' about religion with your fedora-wearing family ('religin so stuped hyuk hyyuk') or in one of the dark corners of the internet that can be a haven for your kind, but if you try it here i'm using your own retarded words and arguments against you - ref. see first pages of thread.
And relax internet tough-guy, i'm fully aware that you wouldn't actually come over and slap me, that would require you to actually get out of bed and do something. But hey, if you want to use the word 'retardation' some more maybe you'll become right lol :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
You could speak for my country by posting the findings of the most recent census, it's readily available information
I wouldn't like to live in a country with such an extreme majority one way or the other, but that's just me
I would rather call atheism a lack of theism than an active belief. I have never been a fan of placing "agnosticism" as some moderate third way in-between atheism and theism.It's not a matter of opinion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Positive_vs._negative
It's not a matter of opinion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Positive_vs._negativeIndeed, by definition atheism and theism cover all options.
I would rather call atheism a lack of theism than an active belief.as you contrasting atheism vs an active belief. Nevermind.
I'll tell a religious nut off if they're being ridiculous with it.
Most atheists make such a big deal out of the god not existing thing, and try to bring it up whenever.... you would almost say they are obsessed with him. :P
If you just say "I have my own faith and I'm not interested in converting" they usually freeze up because everyone usually just nods and listens to be polite until the religious nut leaves them alone. :lol:
I still don't think atheism = a faith
Since we're so into categorization atm, i have a genuine question that i'm sure someone will know the answer to (possibly even several troll answers if i'm lucky).This someone does not believe in any god, spiritual being, or whatever, thus he is an atheist. This person is not an agnostic as he does not claim that the truth about the matter is unknown or perhaps unknowable.
How would you categorise it if someone is open to the possibility that there may or may not be a God, but that it doesn't really matter one way or the other since the existence of a God would not logically mean that any single religion is correct. And that a need to 'love', worship or even acknowledge said God would not logically follow, even in the scenario of there being a master creator.
Not 'they cannot prove or disprove the existence of a God', but 'it doesnt make a difference one way or the other'. Or is that still under the umbrella of agnosticism?
Since we're so into categorization atm, i have a genuine question that i'm sure someone will know the answer to (possibly even several troll answers if i'm lucky).
How would you categorise it if someone is open to the possibility that there may or may not be a God, but that it doesn't really matter one way or the other since the existence of a God would not logically mean that any single religion is correct. And that a need to 'love', worship or even acknowledge said God would not logically follow, even in the scenario of there being a master creator.
Not 'they cannot prove or disprove the existence of a God', but 'it doesnt make a difference one way or the other'. Or is that still under the umbrella of agnosticism?
If you just flat out don't care, that doesn't make you one or the other.Yes, it does, you are an atheist. If you do not care about football, you are a non-football fan, not something in-between a non-football fan and a football fan. It doesn't matter on what basis, you lack the belief in a god, thus you are an atheist. I don't see how people can put something in-between being something, and being not something. Everyone is a carpenter or not a carpenter.
Yes, it does, you are an atheist. If you do not care about football, you are a non-football fan, not something in-between a non-football fan and a football fan. It doesn't matter on what basis, you lack the belief in a god, thus you are an atheist. I don't see how people can put something in-between being something, and being not something. Everyone is a carpenter or not a carpenter.It's more like claiming that everyone who doesn't believe pink butterflies eat dogs at 5 AM in the night also believes a religion about pink butterflies eating dogs at 5 AM, because they don't believe it. That both belief and non-belief are equally religion.
Mmm, see I could argue this either way, which is why I asked for opinions.
Since 'creator' and 'patriarch' are two totally different things, how about being fairly certain that there is no 'creator' but even if there is it doesn't matter since this does not in and of itself necessitate acts of worship or acknowledgment of a higher power. The sun comes up every morning whether you believe in it or not, if the universe exists due to some 'creator' then it's already been built and you can reap the benefits regardless of how you believe it came to be made.
This view works on the assumption that there is no benevolent patriarch or afterlife
Organized religions being present in every human collective doesn't mean they are, or were, an evolutionary advantage. All it means is that the capacity for religion is an evolutionary advantage.
Maybe organized religions are all encompassing because for the vast majority of human existence collectives not holding these sorts of beliefs inevitably got absorbed, driven off or destroyed by those that did?Yes... or maybe not?
Organized religions being present in every human collective doesn't mean they are, or were, an evolutionary advantage. All it means is that the capacity for religion is an evolutionary advantage.Or maybe religion is a parasite that has evolutionary advantage only to itself? Societies without religion may have existed and maybe they still exist, they just got also "parasited".
If organized religions were a "parasitical" meme, whatever that means, then "atheistic" societies would be the norm. As it is, the nature of the world means that a group of people fanatically convinced of their revealed "truths", no matter how patently retarded they are, will be more succesful at replicating itself than a group that is constantly second guessing itself and paralyzed by apathy, even if their "truths" are actually, well, true. It could well be that being a gullible idiot is actually a survival mechanism, perhaps not on the individual level, but on a collective one.
hahaha it sounds like as soon as you take out religion of someone's mind, he directly become apathetic, merely able to move, like a robot without battery.
I don't think they were ever societies without religion (maybe some in Asia were religion is very close to philosophy), it was just to show a different view. But the thing is that most of the time, aggressive religion replace easily pacific religion or philosophy. Like the various christian movement that appeared in Europe that were against war or against imposing religion at birth, that all ended badly for their believers. Or the Buddhist kingdom when they faced the rise of islam. And logically any non-proselytist movement is less likely to last.
As kafein said, it's not because smth has always been done in the past, we should continue, like slavery for exemple. But surely, it will not be an easy task to keep EU atheist (see refugee flooding europe, OMG everything is linked!!!!! :shock: :shock:)
Yes, it does, you are an atheist. If you do not care about football, you are a non-football fan, not something in-between a non-football fan and a football fan. It doesn't matter on what basis, you lack the belief in a god, thus you are an atheist. I don't see how people can put something in-between being something, and being not something. Everyone is a carpenter or not a carpenter.
even if there is [a creator] it doesn't matter since this does not in and of itself necessitate acts of worship or acknowledgment of a higher power.
Is willingness to even hypothesize 'if there is a god' sufficient to be agnostic?
That's why i have trouble categorizing it myself. If the existence of a god doesnt matter, and you're 99.99% certain there isnt one (but wouldnt be overly concerned if it turns out there was), is that 0.01% enough to make you a theist, or are you agnostic?
Is willingness to even hypothesize 'if there is a god' sufficient to be agnostic?
When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure that they had attained a certain "gnosis"--had more or less successfully solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion ...
-Huxley
Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into
a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion.
I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a
very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a
philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought
to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive
argument by which one prove that there is not a God.
On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the
street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove
that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the
Homeric gods.
None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really
exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera,
Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could
not get such proof.
Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I
would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say
in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I
think, take exactly the same line.
Theism at its simplest means only that there is some sort of god out there.Perhaps this is a linguistics issue, but isn't taking the stand that there is some sort of god out there the same as acknowledging the existence of some sort of god? I'd say theism thus does require acknowledgement, however uncertain or vague.
It doesn't demand praise or acknowledgement unless a religion is formed to demand it.
Perhaps this is a linguistics issue, but isn't taking the stand that there is some sort of god out there the same as acknowledging the existence of some sort of god? I'd say theism thus does require acknowledgement, however uncertain or vague.
Some passages in the bible sound very barbaric too the one's that value their flesh over their souls.
But people forget that Jesus died on the cross to save you're soul and not you're flesh. If in you're lifetime you become corrupt and start to sin again, you're flesh will be taken away to secure you're soul from getting corrupt. You will be forgiven in purgatory in time, depending how quickly you realise you're mistakes and repent.
Your*