Re: Daphne du Maurier was right!
Qur'an Chapter 5, Verse 31: Then Allah sent a raven scratching up the ground, to show him how to hide his brother's naked corpse. He said: Woe unto me! Am I not able to be as this raven and so hide my brother's naked corpse? And he became repentant. (Translator: Pickthal) http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=5translator=4#31 Samiya On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 8:17 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060606-crows_2.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Daphne du Maurier was right!
Whether we consider intelligent beings as ' being intelligent in their own right' or intelligence as being God-gifted is a matter of faith and perspective. The subject of your email is Daphne du Maurier was right! Perhaps the scriptures were also right? Perhaps its time to also consider the scriptures as a source of plausible knowledge, and study it along with scientific inquiry to gain a clearer understanding of everything? Samiya On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 8:59 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not sure what that quote is supposed to mean, but the article was about birds being intelligent in their own right, not acting intelligently because they're under the control of God. On 4 April 2014 16:55, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Qur'an Chapter 5, Verse 31: Then Allah sent a raven scratching up the ground, to show him how to hide his brother's naked corpse. He said: Woe unto me! Am I not able to be as this raven and so hide my brother's naked corpse? And he became repentant. (Translator: Pickthal) http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=5translator=4#31 Samiya On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 8:17 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060606-crows_2.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Daphne du Maurier was right!
I suggest we study and evaluate it for its literal merit, rather than 'what it might mean' thus removing all constructs and myths surrounding it. Dr. Maurice Bucaille did something similar when he examined the scriptures in the light of scientific knowledge. Online translation: https://ia700504.us.archive.org/18/items/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille.pdf Samiya On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:41 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/3/2014 9:16 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: Whether we consider intelligent beings as ' being intelligent in their own right' or intelligence as being God-gifted is a matter of faith and perspective. The subject of your email is Daphne du Maurier was right! Perhaps the scriptures were also right? Perhaps its time to also consider the scriptures as a source of plausible knowledge, and study it along with scientific inquiry to gain a clearer understanding of everything? We may consider it plausible, but before it gives clearer understanding we need an operational definition of what it means and how we might test whether it is true or false. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Daphne du Maurier was right!
What is more important? Faith or Honest Faith? How can we honestly believe in God when we think God doesn't know what He created? I think its a disservice to God, to religion and to ourselves when we choose to not to question Faith, and not to examine it. Its not 'to test God', rather its to test what we accept as from God. If we believe in Life After Death, then the quality of our life in the Hereafter is dependent on the version of scripture that we took on faith. If Judgement is inevitable, then it is of utmost importance that we base our beliefs and actions upon critical inquiry and honest understanding. Samiya On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote: On 4 April 2014 15:59, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: I suggest we study and evaluate it for its literal merit, rather than 'what it might mean' thus removing all constructs and myths surrounding it. Dr. Maurice Bucaille did something similar when he examined the scriptures in the light of scientific knowledge. Online translation: https://ia700504.us.archive.org/18/items/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille.pdf To be fair, you have to allow that if there is a scientific inaccuracy in a holy book which is considered the word of God then, unless God got the science wrong, that would be evidence against the holy book being the word of God. The problem is that even if a believer says they are open-minded in this way they don't really mean it because that would be an admission that they are willing to test God, which is contrary to faith and therefore bad. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Daphne du Maurier was right!
To see what I mean, please read the book by Dr Maurice Bucaille https://ia700504.us.archive.org/18/items/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille.pdf Samiya On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:30 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/3/2014 9:59 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: I suggest we study and evaluate it for its literal merit, You mean whether or not it is true when taken literally? Literally it would mean that there was crow and someone name God gave it intelligence. But that crow would be dead by now, so we can't evaluate whether it is intelligent. Were there any witnesses who saw this gift? And how was it given? Did God operate on the brain of the crow? How would be make it more intelligent and still fit the brain back in the crow's skull? I'd say taken literally, the story is almost certainly false. Brent rather than 'what it might mean' thus removing all constructs and myths surrounding it. Dr. Maurice Bucaille did something similar when he examined the scriptures in the light of scientific knowledge. Online translation: https://ia700504.us.archive.org/18/items/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille.pdf Samiya On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:41 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/3/2014 9:16 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: Whether we consider intelligent beings as ' being intelligent in their own right' or intelligence as being God-gifted is a matter of faith and perspective. The subject of your email is Daphne du Maurier was right! Perhaps the scriptures were also right? Perhaps its time to also consider the scriptures as a source of plausible knowledge, and study it along with scientific inquiry to gain a clearer understanding of everything? We may consider it plausible, but before it gives clearer understanding we need an operational definition of what it means and how we might test whether it is true or false. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Daphne du Maurier was right!
Stathis Papaioannou asks: So are you saying that if a scientific error is pointed out to you in the Bible or the Quran you will accept that they are not the word of God? Honest answer: I don't know. To quote from the last paragraph of General Conclusions from Dr Maurice Bucaille's book: 'In view of the level of knowledge in Muhammad's day, it is inconceivable that many of the statements In the Qur'an which are connected with science could have been the work of a man. It is, moreover, perfectly legitimate, not only to regard the Qur'an as the expression of a Revelation, but also to award it a very special place, on account of the guarantee of authenticity it provides and *the presence in it of scientific statements which, when studied today, appear as a challenge to explanation in human terms. *' All I ask that scientists evaluate these in the light of today's discoveries. I think we all stand to benefit from it. Samiya On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote: On 4 April 2014 16:41, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: What is more important? Faith or Honest Faith? How can we honestly believe in God when we think God doesn't know what He created? I think its a disservice to God, to religion and to ourselves when we choose to not to question Faith, and not to examine it. Its not 'to test God', rather its to test what we accept as from God. If we believe in Life After Death, then the quality of our life in the Hereafter is dependent on the version of scripture that we took on faith. If Judgement is inevitable, then it is of utmost importance that we base our beliefs and actions upon critical inquiry and honest understanding. So are you saying that if a scientific error is pointed out to you in the Bible or the Quran you will accept that they are not the word of God? -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Daphne du Maurier was right!
Bruno, Is French your first language? If so, you can download the original French book by Dr Maurice Bucaille from the following link: http://www.islamic-invitation.com/downloads/Bible-Quran-Science_fr.pdf This study was made many years ago. If this inspires you, perhaps you can give a fresh look at the scripture with modern scientific knowledge. I'm sure that would explain many more verses in terms we can comprehend in this day and age. Regards, Samiya On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Apr 2014, at 19:05, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Apr 2014, at 11:44, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 4 April 2014 20:33, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote: On 4 April 2014 15:59, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: I suggest we study and evaluate it for its literal merit, rather than 'what it might mean' thus removing all constructs and myths surrounding it. Dr. Maurice Bucaille did something similar when he examined the scriptures in the light of scientific knowledge. Online translation: https://ia700504.us.archive.org/18/items/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille.pdf To be fair, you have to allow that if there is a scientific inaccuracy in a holy book which is considered the word of God then, unless God got the science wrong, that would be evidence against the holy book being the word of God. The problem is that even if a believer says they are open-minded in this way they don't really mean it because that would be an admission that they are willing to test God, which is contrary to faith and therefore bad. What are you called if you are willing to test god? A believer? Rational. Yes. And as long the test does not contradict his theory, he can develop a rational belief, which is basically a positive attitude about some assumption. In the case of God, there is one more difficulty, which is the difficulty to agree on some non trivial definition which should be precise enough to make a test meaningful and interesting. With some definition, God can also been disproved, or proved, in mathematical theories. Gödel's formalization of St-Anselmus' notion of God makes its existence provable in the modal logic S5 (the Leibnizian theory). About Bucaille I will take a second look, but from I read quickly, it seems to me to take for granted Aristotle's God (the creation, the universe), and well, I have some doubt. It is very hard to interpret such texts. It is too much easy to reinterpret favorably some paragraph, and for a neoplatonist, this would mean that the author of the sacred text did just have some insight/intuition, which for a neoplatonist is always divine. In that case, both the existence of the work of ramanujan, but also the existence of arithmetic in high school are evidence for some God. Alice in Wonderland too. Why Alice in Wonderland? You might read the annotated Alice by Martin Gardner. Lewis Carroll perturbed classical logic, and found everything: relativity, the quantum, Gödel, He is better than Plotinus. Unfortunately, he was completely rejected by Charles Ludwig Dodgson, who was quite reactionary---an aspect made quasi explicit in his longer Sylvie Bruno. Is Mr Dodgson equal to Lewis Carroll? The rabbit hole in Wonderland is very deep. For example, it illustrates the hardness to reason with a relativist nitpicker. From memory: Alice: I explore the garden ... The queen: Oh! you can call that a garden, if you want, but I know garden in comparison with which this one is more like a desert. Alice: ... and want to see that hill. The queen: Oh! you can call that a hill, if you want, but I know hills in comparison with which this one is more like a valley. Alice: That is not possible, a hill cannot be a valley, that would be a nonsense! The queen: Oh, you can call that a nonsense, if you want, but I know nonsense in comparison with which this one is as meaningful than a dictionary! :) Bruno I am uneasy with a priori sacralization of books, as it looks to me like an encouragement to authoritative arguments. Any one is free to feel some text divine, but to put divine on the front looks close to blasphemous to me (doubly so when true). Bruno -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You
Re: Daphne du Maurier was right!
Hey Liz, I was simply trying to point out that some truths that science is discovering now we have already known through our scripture since centuries. And that the scripture is also a credible source for taking hints and clues about the world and then using intelligence and research to explore and understand. Thought quoting directly from the scripture would be more credible than using a lot of my own words to explain. I'm sorry if it caused any offence. Samiya On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 7:33 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not sure what I did wrong that led to this thread being immediately hijacked by religion - surely the possibility of crows exhibiting a similar type of intelligence to humans (albeit in a lesser degree) is a more interesting subject than some ideas people made up millennia ago in an attempt to explain a universe they had no comprehension of? Just in case anyone's interested, this was the article. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060606-crows_2.html I'm sure my friend here likes it! [image: Inline images 1] On 7 April 2014 11:38, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/6/2014 3:18 PM, John Mikes wrote: Samiya Illias, you took up an honorable position and will be rewarded for it in the afterlife - if there is an afterlife. A friend (almost reaching the title of Catholic Priest) said in a similar discussion: It means so little mental investment to BELIVE and the reward is so great (eternal bliss) that it wood be foolish not to go it's way. Hmmm? Eternal bliss while singing hymns and worshipping a despotic egomanical superbeing, for eternity... Sounds like being drugged. I think I'll pass. Brent Now then in Earth these people cannot stand much church - an hour and a quarter is the limit and they draw the line at once a week. That is to say, Sunday. One day in seven; and even then they do not look forward to it with longing. And so - consider what their heaven provides for them: church that lasts forever, and Sabbath that has not end! They quickly weary of this brief hebdomadal Sabbath here, yet they long for that eternal one; they dream of it, they talk about it, they think they think they are going to enjoy it - with all their simple hearts they think they think they are going to be happy in it! It is because they do not think at all; they only think they think. --- Mark Twain, Letters from Earth -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Daphne du Maurier was right!
John, your friend's position sounds almost like Pascal's wager: personally I think its a poor reason to believe, if it can at all be considered belief. I know it would be 'the smart thing to do', 'playing it safe', etc, but I think faith and belief require a major mental investment: its requires an innermost conviction based upon all a person can draw upon. Choosing to be agnostic is also a personal decision... after all there is no compulsion in religion! Samiya - Samiya Illias, you took up an honorable position and will be rewarded for it in the afterlife - if there is an afterlife. A friend (almost reaching the title of Catholic Priest) said in a similar discussion: It means so little mental investment to BELIVE and the reward is so great (eternal bliss) that it wood be foolish not to go it's way. Unfortunately the list-arguments in this topic are very questionable: is the Script falsifiable by science? Well, science is DOUBT in everything until proven - by what? by science, of course. Which is unsure. So I would not ask for justification (or rejection) by science: an unsure basis. I would ask my agnosticism: where did God come from? (I mean: the idea and the concept (call it: 'Person'?) itself). A Pre-World with a 'Pre-God'? or is the same God and why must the believers believe? Why must they adore and praise a God who is in much higher standing than anything 'natural'? Why is an offense by a lowly mortal punishable eternally (in Hell?) and btw: who made Hell, and it's inhabitants? How did Inuits follow God's rules in a climate so different from the Sunny desert? Is their disobedience punished? Who are the slaves of the Scripture today? How should one handle the differences between the three consecutive Scripts in a changing world? It is good to be agnostic and keep away from such questions. Peace! John M On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 3:18 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Samiya Illias, you took up an honorable position and will be rewarded for it in the afterlife - if there is an afterlife. A friend (almost reaching the title of Catholic Priest) said in a similar discussion: It means so little mental investment to BELIVE and the reward is so great (eternal bliss) that it wood be foolish not to go it's way. Unfortunately the list-arguments in this topic are very questionable: is the Script falsifiable by science? Well, science is DOUBT in everything until proven - by what? by science, of course. Which is unsure. So I would not ask for justification (or rejection) by science: an unsure basis. I would ask my agnosticism: where did God come from? (I mean: the idea and the concept (call it: 'Person'?) itself). A Pre-World with a 'Pre-God'? or is the same God and why must the believers believe? Why must they adore and praise a God who is in much higher standing than anything 'natural'? Why is an offense by a lowly mortal punishable eternally (in Hell?) and btw: who made Hell, and it's inhabitants? How did Inuits follow God's rules in a climate so different from the Sunny desert? Is their disobedience punished? Who are the slaves of the Scripture today? How should one handle the differences between the three consecutive Scripts in a changing world? It is good to be agnostic and keep away from such questions. Peace! John M On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 11:55 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.comwrote: Qur'an Chapter 5, Verse 31: Then Allah sent a raven scratching up the ground, to show him how to hide his brother's naked corpse. He said: Woe unto me! Am I not able to be as this raven and so hide my brother's naked corpse? And he became repentant. (Translator: Pickthal) http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=5translator=4#31 Samiya On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 8:17 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060606-crows_2.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr
Re: Daphne du Maurier was right!
Yes, according to my understanding, the text is certainly inspired by higher intelligence (with Divine permission). The study of the Qur'an reveals many 1p and 3p statements. The 1p statements are also of two categories: the singular 1p which we understand largely to be God being quoted, whereas the plural 1p is of the higher intelligences deputed to compose and reveal the Qur'an to Muhammad. These higher intelligences or 'aliens' as you refer to them insist on the Unity, Majesty, Immanence and Transcendence of the Divine. They do not reveal themselves nor ask that they be thanked, praised or worshipped, they are just a part of the government, and are carrying out their duty. Another fascinating aspect of the Qur'an (the recitation) is the preservation of it as is since the time of its revelation, not only in written form, but also in the memory of millions of people since then till this day. That ensures that the arabic text of the Qur'an we are dealing with has not suffered human philosophy and interpretation, and can be examined in its pristine, original form. Bucaille put Quran to the test of science, not philosophy. That is the essential difference in approach. To quote some verses: Chapter 96: The Clot 1 Proclaim! (or read!) in the name of thy Lord and Cherisher, Who created- 2 Created human, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood: 3 Proclaim! And thy Lord is Most Bountiful,- 4 He Who taught (the use of) the pen,- 5 Taught human that which he knew not. 6 Nay, but human doth transgress all bounds, 7 In that he looketh upon himself as self-sufficient. 8 Verily, to thy Lord is the return (of all). Samiya Bruno wrote: Hi Samiya, On 06 Apr 2014, at 15:41, Samiya Illias wrote: Bruno, Is French your first language? Not really. (Born in Germany, german/polish nurse). If so, you can download the original French book by Dr Maurice Bucaille from the following link: http://www.islamic-invitation.com/downloads/Bible-Quran-Science_fr.pdf This study was made many years ago. If this inspires you, perhaps you can give a fresh look at the scripture with modern scientific knowledge. I know you are wise enough to not fear my frank attitude, but the more I look at it, the less I am convinced, even by the very enterprise. An Alien might suggests scientific knowledge, or some one just introspect itself correctly, for a change, and get the scientific insight, in which case the author was just quite well inspired, but that cannot be seen as an evidence for God r the divine. I am not sure there can be any 3p evidences, and certainly not a human text. This does not mean that some text are not very deep, and you know my respect for text like the Milinda, or the Theaetetus, or even Alice I'm sure that would explain many more verses in terms we can comprehend in this day and age. Modern scientific knowledge, despite Godel and QM, are still basically and in the mainstream deeply wrong about theology, so what does it mean to compare a text and reinterpret it with that non-modern-at-all respect? How would you compare Bucaille and the old (almost lost, except still present but obscured in the Sufi) neoplatonist muslims? In theology my best reference are still in the greeks, the indians, the chinese. In occident religion has been mixed to much with the terrestrial goals, and the use of authority and violence, which betrays the simplest modest conception I can access of the divine. Bruno On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 11:21 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Hi Samiya, On 06 Apr 2014, at 15:41, Samiya Illias wrote: Bruno, Is French your first language? Not really. (Born in Germany, german/polish nurse). If so, you can download the original French book by Dr Maurice Bucaille from the following link: http://www.islamic-invitation.com/downloads/Bible-Quran-Science_fr.pdf This study was made many years ago. If this inspires you, perhaps you can give a fresh look at the scripture with modern scientific knowledge. I know you are wise enough to not fear my frank attitude, but the more I look at it, the less I am convinced, even by the very enterprise. An Alien might suggests scientific knowledge, or some one just introspect itself correctly, for a change, and get the scientific insight, in which case the author was just quite well inspired, but that cannot be seen as an evidence for God r the divine. I am not sure there can be any 3p evidences, and certainly not a human text. This does not mean that some text are not very deep, and you know my respect for text like the Milinda, or the Theaetetus, or even Alice I'm sure that would explain many more verses in terms we can comprehend in this day and age. Modern scientific knowledge, despite Godel and QM, are still basically and in the mainstream deeply wrong about theology, so what does it mean to compare a text and reinterpret it with that non-modern-at-all respect? How would you compare Bucaille and the old (almost
Re: Daphne du Maurier was right!
I live in Pakistan. I've published my take on Blasphemy in my blog: http://islam-qna.blogspot.com/2011/01/blasphemy.html - Unless you live in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or some other fundamentalist muslim country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_blasphemy Brent On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 8:48 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/6/2014 8:34 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: John, your friend's position sounds almost like Pascal's wager: personally I think its a poor reason to believe, if it can at all be considered belief. I know it would be 'the smart thing to do', 'playing it safe', etc, but I think faith and belief require a major mental investment: its requires an innermost conviction based upon all a person can draw upon. Choosing to be agnostic is also a personal decision... after all there is no compulsion in religion! Unless you live in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or some other fundamentalist muslim country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_blasphemy Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
We exist, then why should we reject the idea of having been created, just because we are unable to comprehend or define our Creator? Is that not intellectual dishonesty? Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 01-Dec-2013, at 3:33 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/30/2013 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Brent, I hope you don't mind I re-answer this. On 28 Nov 2013, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. So the question is: do you see a reason to disbelieve all of them? I didn't say I disbelieved, I said I saw no reason to believe in them. I *fail* to believe in them. I think of belief as admitting degrees. I disbelieve in them FAPP, i.e. if I have to act I will act as if they didn't exist. But I cited the list to contradict your idea that conceiving of gods makes it harder to disbelieve in God. I think it is the other way around; it's harder to disbelieve in something undefined. Which makes me wonder how you can be so dogmatic that fundamental matter does not exist? What if the list just missed the one that exists? As far as I know, honestly, it seems to me that only Ganesh, or Ganesha, is incompatible with comp. I really love Ganesh, though, perhaps for that very reason. When kid, Ganesh made his father angry and the angry father cut Ganesh's head, and threw it away. Her mother was *very* angry, and ordered the father do find a new head quickly, and the father, in the hurry, cut the head of of the first elephant passing by, and that is why Ganesh has an elephant head (which reminds me of the cuttlefish which I love even more). I guess you see the problem with comp. It is a version of the brain-exchanged thought experience. But is it really contradictory with comp? That's needs the thought experiences with (degrees of) amnesia, and addressing the question who are we and how many person really exist. But how could I argue about Ohyamatsumi or RheaSabazius, Tlaloc? I would need to study their stories to conclude. Also, it looks that list misses the divinities that you can met by smoking some herb, like the four kanobo Gods, and Daunarani, ... with tobacco, or simply Maria, you know, the Mother of God, that you can meet with Salvia (according to the Christian Mazatecs). There is no algorithm capable of deciding of two machines computes or not the same function, so you can imagine the difficulties with the nameable non machines, or gods and goddesses. And the big one, cannot be in such a list, I guess. We might try to decide on a definition of atheism, as that notion is very unclear, and I have rarely obtain a definition on which atheists agreed. It's as clear as the negation of 'theist'. But theist is not clear. My point exactly. But if you agree that theist is not clear, you agree that atheist is not clear either. But theist is only unclear because you suppose that you can cite
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
Evolution is also a part of creation! The origin of creation, the perpetuation of creation, the process of procreation, and the selection of creation are all part of the continuous grand act of creation! Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 9:17 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/30/2013 11:45 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: We exist, then why should we reject the idea of having been created, Because we discovered that we evolved? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
This is strange! What 'theism' it is if it limits God? We believe that God is the Reality, the Prime Originator, the Sustainer, and the Final Goal. Everything is as God wills and allows it to be. Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 4:13 AM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the issue agree that God did not create the laws of math and logic, and does not have the power to alter them (or any other necessary truths, which for theists might include things like moral rules, or qualities of God such as omnipotence). Do you think the Mandelbrot set, or any other piece of pure mathematics, functions without a government, or are mathematical rules themselves a form of government even if God didn't create them? Certainly most atheists now think the universe follows mathematical laws, and one could even adopt Max Tegmark's idea and speculate that our universe is just another part of the uncreated Platonic realm of mathematical forms. On Sunday, December 1, 2013, Roger Clough wrote: How can a grown man be an atheist ? An atheist is a person who believes that the universe can function without some form of government. How silly. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
A good software has a robust exception handling system, and does not crash. Does evolution not come across as a good software for natural selection? Whose the programmer? Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 12:40 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Actually Crick designed the perfect means for DNA replication (I think that was it) without any errors long before it was established empirically. When experimenters finally discovered how nature did it, it turned out that nature's method produced occasional errors. So the system of evolution is not perfectly designed. Should not it follow that there is no god.? On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: That is simply because the system of evolution is perfectly designed by whoever designed it. I believe the 'whoever' to be God. Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 11:13 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Ok. But evolution works to 'create' without a creator. Brent On 12/1/2013 9:00 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: Evolution is also a part of creation! The origin of creation, the perpetuation of creation, the process of procreation, and the selection of creation are all part of the continuous grand act of creation! Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 9:17 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/30/2013 11:45 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: We exist, then why should we reject the idea of having been created, Because we discovered that we evolved? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
No reason at all. I'm just sharing my understanding on the topic, so that 1) if I'm wrong, someone will point out the flaw in my understanding 2) if my understanding is generally pointing towards the correct theory / belief, perhaps it'll be of use to someone. Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 12:18 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/1/2013 9:11 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: This is strange! What 'theism' it is if it limits God? We believe that God is the Reality, the Prime Originator, the Sustainer, and the Final Goal. Everything is as God wills and allows it to be. That's what you say you believe. But is there any reason I should believe it? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
I agree that God is consistent. In my understanding, God is perfect in every possible meaning of the word. I was objecting to the assertion below that 'Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the issue agree that God did not create the laws of math and logic, and does not have the power to alter them (or any other necessary truths, ...' Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 3:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Dec 2013, at 06:11, Samiya Illias wrote: This is strange! What 'theism' it is if it limits God? Making It consistent is not really limiting it. Accepting the idea that God can be inconsistent quickly leads to inconsistent theology, which is the fuel of atheism. (that is why atheists defends all the time the most inconsistent notion of God, and deter people to search by themselves in the field). We believe that God is the Reality, the Prime Originator, the Sustainer, and the Final Goal. OK. Everything is as God wills and allows it to be. I don't know. Bruno Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 4:13 AM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the issue agree that God did not create the laws of math and logic, and does not have the power to alter them (or any other necessary truths, which for theists might include things like moral rules, or qualities of God such as omnipotence). Do you think the Mandelbrot set, or any other piece of pure mathematics, functions without a government, or are mathematical rules themselves a form of government even if God didn't create them? Certainly most atheists now think the universe follows mathematical laws, and one could even adopt Max Tegmark's idea and speculate that our universe is just another part of the uncreated Platonic realm of mathematical forms. On Sunday, December 1, 2013, Roger Clough wrote: How can a grown man be an atheist ? An atheist is a person who believes that the universe can function without some form of government. How silly. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Maybe. I'm a Muslim and the more I learn of science, the more convinced I get of the authenticity of the Quran. Hence, when I read about the purpose of this life and the hereafter, I do take it very seriously. Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 4:54 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: We're just guessing on this Samiya, or our ancestors, really. What God may be, is may not exactly fit the Omni,characterizations. Moreover, being a practical, American, we have to know, in a self-interested way, what good/benefit does knowing about God do for us. A ridiculous statement, and yet, We the Who in Whoville, to quote Dr. Suess-Geisel, need to know. -Original Message- From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Dec 2, 2013 12:13 am Subject: Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ? This is strange! What 'theism' it is if it limits God? We believe that God is the Reality, the Prime Originator, the Sustainer, and the Final Goal. Everything is as God wills and allows it to be. Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 4:13 AM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the issue agree that God did not create the laws of math and logic, and does not have the power to alter them (or any other necessary truths, which for theists might include things like moral rules, or qualities of God such as omnipotence). Do you think the Mandelbrot set, or any other piece of pure mathematics, functions without a government, or are mathematical rules themselves a form of government even if God didn't create them? Certainly most atheists now think the universe follows mathematical laws, and one could even adopt Max Tegmark's idea and speculate that our universe is just another part of the uncreated Platonic realm of mathematical forms. On Sunday, December 1, 2013, Roger Clough wrote: How can a grown man be an atheist ? An atheist is a person who believes that the universe can function without some form of government. How silly. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
I agree that perfect knowledge and command of logic and math and et al are necessary attributes of God. When I say God is consistent, I mean that God is so perfect in His plan that He doesn't even have any need to change His decree or methods. However, God reserves the power and the right to do what He wills, when He wills, and that may appear imperfect to us mortals within our limited senses and knowledge. However, Jesse, I won't try to answer the following questions, as that would be pure speculation. I'm not even sure if I understand the first question properly. Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 6:38 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: But consistency is itself a logical notion. If you think God can change the laws of logic, can God make it so that he is both perfect and not-perfect, with perfect having exactly the same meaning in both cases? Note that believing God cannot change logic need not imply logic is independent of God for theists, they may say that logic is grounded in God's eternal understanding, to use the same word as Leibniz. So perfect understanding of logic and math can be seen as necessary attributes of God, along with other more specifically theistic attributes like perfection, omnipotence, omniscience etc. Do you believe that God has necessary attributes that God cannot change, so for example God cannot make a new being more powerful than Himself since this would violate omnipotence? On Monday, December 2, 2013, Samiya Illias wrote: I agree that God is consistent. In my understanding, God is perfect in every possible meaning of the word. I was objecting to the assertion below that 'Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the issue agree that God did not create the laws of math and logic, and does not have the power to alter them (or any other necessary truths, ...' Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 3:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Dec 2013, at 06:11, Samiya Illias wrote: This is strange! What 'theism' it is if it limits God? Making It consistent is not really limiting it. Accepting the idea that God can be inconsistent quickly leads to inconsistent theology, which is the fuel of atheism. (that is why atheists defends all the time the most inconsistent notion of God, and deter people to search by themselves in the field). We believe that God is the Reality, the Prime Originator, the Sustainer, and the Final Goal. OK. Everything is as God wills and allows it to be. I don't know. Bruno Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 4:13 AM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the issue agree that God did not create the laws of math and logic, and does not have the power to alter them (or any other necessary truths, which for theists might include things like moral rules, or qualities of God such as omnipotence). Do you think the Mandelbrot set, or any other piece of pure mathematics, functions without a government, or are mathematical rules themselves a form of government even if God didn't create them? Certainly most atheists now think the universe follows mathematical laws, and one could even adopt Max Tegmark's idea and speculate that our universe is just another part of the uncreated Platonic realm of mathematical forms. On Sunday, December 1, 2013, Roger Clough wrote: How can a grown man be an atheist ? An atheist is a person who believes that the universe can function without some form of government. How silly. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Below, I'm paraphrasing from memory a couple of passages: On the subject of the persecution of the 'Bani Israel' Children of Israel by Pharoah, such that the male children were being killed and females kept alive, It reads that it was a great trial from God. At another place, it reads that know that whatever happens to you, good or bad, it is all inscribed in a decree before we bring it into existence. This is so that you do not despair of whatever passes you by, nor exult over ... There is a lot going on all over the world that one would like to wish away, but it helps to understand that all things / events / circumstances are trials, temporary and transient. In this life, nothing is a reward or punishment, rather everything is a trial, and an opportunity to do good deeds through helping those in need. Reward and Punishment are concepts associated with the Hereafter, and are of a permanent nature. No, he didn't say Oops!, God exhorts us to reflect and ponder! Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 10:09 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Dec 2013, at 13:39, Samiya Illias wrote: I agree that God is consistent. In my understanding, God is perfect in every possible meaning of the word. Is God perfect for the children in Syria? (Easy question on an hard subject) Here, you might hope that God will succeed in consolating them and that everything is OK. But that state of mind might make us accept more easily the tragedies, and that fatalism ... might be fatal for the incarnation of the good. The question, put in a another way, who are you to judge God's perfection? You might, like Gödel, assume that God has all positive attributes and as such is perfect, and one day we will understand the tragedies, but I am not sure such a God makes sense for the universal machines. If it makes sense, then I am willing to bet it is a truth belonging to G*, and not G. That would mean that God was perfect ... until you said so. The theological truth must remain silent, or be justified from some shared assumptions. If you say God is perfect to those who lost people they care about, it might be impolite, and you will again fuel atheism. Hell is paved with the best intentions. God might also not be perfect, and you might have the right to be angry against She/Him/It. I was objecting to the assertion below that 'Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the issue agree that God did not create the laws of math and logic, and does not have the power to alter them (or any other necessary truths, God created logic and the integers, and arithmetic. Then he said Oops!. Analysis, Topology, Algebra, Physics, History, Geography, archeology and Theology are tools for the integers to understand themselves. Truth already warns the numbers: the path is infinite and there are surprises. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
You explained it yourself: ' so of course it is impossible for us to imagine what it might mean, '. Trying to answer it would be just pretending to be 'all-wise' and consequently making a fool of myself :) Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 10:13 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: The first question involves a logical contradiction--the statement God is perfect being simultaneously true and false--so of course it is impossible for us to imagine what it might mean, and since I think the laws of logic are unchangeable I think it's a completely meaningless description. But if you believe God can change the laws of logic, you should believe God can change the logical rule known as the law of noncontradiction ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction ) which says a proposition cannot be both true and false. On Monday, December 2, 2013, Samiya Illias wrote: I agree that perfect knowledge and command of logic and math and et al are necessary attributes of God. When I say God is consistent, I mean that God is so perfect in His plan that He doesn't even have any need to change His decree or methods. However, God reserves the power and the right to do what He wills, when He wills, and that may appear imperfect to us mortals within our limited senses and knowledge. However, Jesse, I won't try to answer the following questions, as that would be pure speculation. I'm not even sure if I understand the first question properly. Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 6:38 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: But consistency is itself a logical notion. If you think God can change the laws of logic, can God make it so that he is both perfect and not-perfect, with perfect having exactly the same meaning in both cases? Note that believing God cannot change logic need not imply logic is independent of God for theists, they may say that logic is grounded in God's eternal understanding, to use the same word as Leibniz. So perfect understanding of logic and math can be seen as necessary attributes of God, along with other more specifically theistic attributes like perfection, omnipotence, omniscience etc. Do you believe that God has necessary attributes that God cannot change, so for example God cannot make a new being more powerful than Himself since this would violate omnipotence? On Monday, December 2, 2013, Samiya Illias wrote: I agree that God is consistent. In my understanding, God is perfect in every possible meaning of the word. I was objecting to the assertion below that 'Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the issue agree that God did not create the laws of math and logic, and does not have the power to alter them (or any other necessary truths, ...' Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 3:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Dec 2013, at 06:11, Samiya Illias wrote: This is strange! What 'theism' it is if it limits God? Making It consistent is not really limiting it. Accepting the idea that God can be inconsistent quickly leads to inconsistent theology, which is the fuel of atheism. (that is why atheists defends all the time the most inconsistent notion of God, and deter people to search by themselves in the field). We believe that God is the Reality, the Prime Originator, the Sustainer, and the Final Goal. OK. Everything is as God wills and allows it to be. I don't know. Bruno Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 4:13 AM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the issue agree that God did not create the laws of math and logic, and does not have the power to alter them (or any other necessary truths, which for theists might include things like moral rules, or qualities of God such as omnipotence). Do you think the Mandelbrot set, or any other piece of pure mathematics, functions without a government, or are mathematical rules themselves a form of government even if God didn't create them? Certainly most atheists now think the universe follows mathematical laws, and one could even adopt Max Tegmark's idea and speculate that our universe is just another part of the uncreated Platonic realm of mathematical forms. On Sunday, December 1, 2013, Roger Clough wrote: How can a grown man be an atheist ? An atheist is a person who believes that the universe can function without some form of government. How silly. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Good question, and one which is repeatedly asked by many within and outside the faith. God, in His complete knowledge, knows each and every soul and who is worthy of eternal bliss and who not. However, according to a decree, humans have been granted respite and an opportunity to believe and do good. Something like an exam for a degree or a quality-check and sorting of manufactured goods. This necessarily requires a belief in an event no longer in conscious human memory, but which nevertheless is the cause of this life, and the belief in Accountability for beliefs and actions in a life after this life. Either one reasons that outcomes are already known to God hence there really is no need to 'do' anything, or one intensifies one's effort to search for 'truth' and do as much good as may be possible, so as to take full advantage of this temporal life, using it for eternal bliss. My understanding may be wrong, for all we know this may be the only life, nothing before or after, but what if there is? And how difficult is it to believe in this age of technology that all is being recorded and will be replayed? Reasons enough to bother... Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 10:51 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Below, I'm paraphrasing from memory a couple of passages: On the subject of the persecution of the 'Bani Israel' Children of Israel by Pharoah, such that the male children were being killed and females kept alive, It reads that it was a great trial from God. At another place, it reads that know that whatever happens to you, good or bad, it is all inscribed in a decree before we bring it into existence. This is so that you do not despair of whatever passes you by, nor exult over ... There is a lot going on all over the world that one would like to wish away, but it helps to understand that all things / events / circumstances are trials, temporary and transient. In this life, nothing is a reward or punishment, rather everything is a trial, and an opportunity to do good deeds through helping those in need. Reward and Punishment are concepts associated with the Hereafter, and are of a permanent nature. No, he didn't say Oops!, God exhorts us to reflect and ponder! Hi Samiya, If whatever happens is inscribed in a decree before we bring it into existence, so is the outcome of the trials. So why bother? Telmo. Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 10:09 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Dec 2013, at 13:39, Samiya Illias wrote: I agree that God is consistent. In my understanding, God is perfect in every possible meaning of the word. Is God perfect for the children in Syria? (Easy question on an hard subject) Here, you might hope that God will succeed in consolating them and that everything is OK. But that state of mind might make us accept more easily the tragedies, and that fatalism ... might be fatal for the incarnation of the good. The question, put in a another way, who are you to judge God's perfection? You might, like Gödel, assume that God has all positive attributes and as such is perfect, and one day we will understand the tragedies, but I am not sure such a God makes sense for the universal machines. If it makes sense, then I am willing to bet it is a truth belonging to G*, and not G. That would mean that God was perfect ... until you said so. The theological truth must remain silent, or be justified from some shared assumptions. If you say God is perfect to those who lost people they care about, it might be impolite, and you will again fuel atheism. Hell is paved with the best intentions. God might also not be perfect, and you might have the right to be angry against She/Him/It. I was objecting to the assertion below that 'Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the issue agree that God did not create the laws of math and logic, and does not have the power to alter them (or any other necessary truths, God created logic and the integers, and arithmetic. Then he said Oops!. Analysis, Topology, Algebra, Physics, History, Geography, archeology and Theology are tools for the integers to understand themselves. Truth already warns the numbers: the path is infinite and there are surprises. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 02-Dec-2013, at 11:45 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Dec 2013, at 18:46, Samiya Illias wrote: Below, I'm paraphrasing from memory a couple of passages: On the subject of the persecution of the 'Bani Israel' Children of Israel by Pharoah, such that the male children were being killed and females kept alive, It reads that it was a great trial from God. At another place, it reads that know that whatever happens to you, good or bad, it is all inscribed in a decree before we bring it into existence. This is so that you do not despair of whatever passes you by, nor exult over ... There is a lot going on all over the world that one would like to wish away, but it helps to understand that all things / events / circumstances are trials, temporary and transient. In this life, nothing is a reward or punishment, rather everything is a trial, and an opportunity to do good deeds through helping those in need. Reward and Punishment are concepts associated with the Hereafter, and are of a permanent nature. I can make sense, but in the machine's theory, some truth there need to remain silent, as they will look like nonsense for some people. It is of the type only going without saying. Okay No, he didn't say Oops!, God exhorts us to reflect and ponder! Are you open to doubt your theory? Or some points in your theory? There was a time when I doubted. I read and discussed with many theists of other faiths and atheists. I also studied the Quran more objectively, questioning the translations and my interpretations. I am still open to new ideas and do accept what convinces me. However, I find that I am more convinced now than before. If not it means you stay connected to the incommunicable part, and you take the risk of saying to much, and fuel disbelief, even and especially when not wrong. If I do not honestly give my input, its not fair to others. Choices come with consequences, and when seeking truth, one must take risks... I hope my honesty is of help to someone. And, btw, what is your position on computationalism, because this is an hypothesis shared by many here (if only for the sake of the argument). I believe we are all in a giant software and everything, including us, are computed. So, your deductions from your work do fascinate me. Would you accept that you or some friend get an artificial digital brain? Like Ganesh? :) Have you think about this question? Have you an idea of the consequence for consciousness and physical realities, and for the possible theologies? Or you're suggesting 'soulless' clones? I don't defend the idea that comp is true, but comp makes possible to use computer science and mathematics to formulate the questions, and put some light around. Sent from my iPhone Well, for the Mandelbrot sets zooms, I hope you can access a bigger computer with a larger screen. Thanks. Just am very busy and mostly away from my laptop these days, yet this is an interesting discussion, and I want to participate. I should go to my phone's setting and remove this msg. Samiya Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
No, I just do not want to speculate about something I really have not given much thought to or can contribute by 'thinking' on it. The little that I've read of philosophers and theologians, discourages me as they only seem to go round and round in their efforts to make sense of it. Samiya On 03-Dec-2013, at 12:28 AM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: But you do make the definite claim that God can change the laws of logic, which would include the power to get rid of the law of noncontradiction, no? Or has this discussion made you less certain about whether this would be within God's power or not? On Monday, December 2, 2013, Samiya Illias wrote: You explained it yourself: ' so of course it is impossible for us to imagine what it might mean, '. Trying to answer it would be just pretending to be 'all-wise' and consequently making a fool of myself :) Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 10:13 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: The first question involves a logical contradiction--the statement God is perfect being simultaneously true and false--so of course it is impossible for us to imagine what it might mean, and since I think the laws of logic are unchangeable I think it's a completely meaningless description. But if you believe God can change the laws of logic, you should believe God can change the logical rule known as the law of noncontradiction ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction ) which says a proposition cannot be both true and false. On Monday, December 2, 2013, Samiya Illias wrote: I agree that perfect knowledge and command of logic and math and et al are necessary attributes of God. When I say God is consistent, I mean that God is so perfect in His plan that He doesn't even have any need to change His decree or methods. However, God reserves the power and the right to do what He wills, when He wills, and that may appear imperfect to us mortals within our limited senses and knowledge. However, Jesse, I won't try to answer the following questions, as that would be pure speculation. I'm not even sure if I understand the first question properly. Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 6:38 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: But consistency is itself a logical notion. If you think God can change the laws of logic, can God make it so that he is both perfect and not-perfect, with perfect having exactly the same meaning in both cases? Note that believing God cannot change logic need not imply logic is independent of God for theists, they may say that logic is grounded in God's eternal understanding, to use the same word as Leibniz. So perfect understanding of logic and math can be seen as necessary attributes of God, along with other more specifically theistic attributes like perfection, omnipotence, omniscience etc. Do you believe that God has necessary attributes that God cannot change, so for example God cannot make a new being more powerful than Himself since this would violate omnipotence? On Monday, December 2, 2013, Samiya Illias wrote: I agree that God is consistent. In my understanding, God is perfect in every possible meaning of the word. I was objecting to the assertion below that 'Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the issue agree that God did not create the laws of math and logic, and does not have the power to alter them (or any other necessary truths, ...' Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 3:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Dec 2013, at 06:11, Samiya Illias wrote: This is strange! What 'theism' it is if it limits God? Making It consistent is not really limiting it. Accepting the idea that God can be inconsistent quickly leads to inconsistent theology, which is the fuel of atheism. (that is why atheists defends all the time the most inconsistent notion of God, and deter people to search by themselves in the field). We believe that God is the Reality, the Prime Originator, the Sustainer, and the Final Goal. OK. Everything is as God wills and allows it to be. I don't know. Bruno Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 4:13 AM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the issue agree that God did not create the laws of math and logic, and does not have the power -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
God, to me, means an All-Powerful, Able to Do All, deity. That is my belief. What I'm saying is that I do not have an answer to the question you pose, and if I try, I'll simply be speculating about what I really do not know or have a way of knowing. There may be a very good explanation for this contradiction, I do not know. Samiya On 03-Dec-2013, at 12:48 AM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: but priginally you responded to my comment about God and logic by saying This is strange! What 'theism' it is if it limits God? which I took to mean you were expressing a definite disagreement with the idea that God was limited to acts consistent with the laws of logic. Did I misunderstand, and you actually did not mean to suggest any speculations about whether God can change the laws of logic? On Monday, December 2, 2013, Samiya Illias wrote: No, I just do not want to speculate about something I really have not given much thought to or can contribute by 'thinking' on it. The little that I've read of philosophers and theologians, discourages me as they only seem to go round and round in their efforts to make sense of it. Samiya On 03-Dec-2013, at 12:28 AM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: But you do make the definite claim that God can change the laws of logic, which would include the power to get rid of the law of noncontradiction, no? Or has this discussion made you less certain about whether this would be within God's power or not? On Monday, December 2, 2013, Samiya Illias wrote: You explained it yourself: ' so of course it is impossible for us to imagine what it might mean, '. Trying to answer it would be just pretending to be 'all-wise' and consequently making a fool of myself :) Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 10:13 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: The first question involves a logical contradiction--the statement God is perfect being simultaneously true and false--so of course it is impossible for us to imagine what it might mean, and since I think the laws of logic are unchangeable I think it's a completely meaningless description. But if you believe God can change the laws of logic, you should believe God can change the logical rule known as the law of noncontradiction ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction ) which says a proposition cannot be both true and false. On Monday, December 2, 2013, Samiya Illias wrote: I agree that perfect knowledge and command of logic and math and et al are necessary attributes of God. When I say God is consistent, I mean that God is so perfect in His plan that He doesn't even have any need to change His decree or methods. However, God reserves the power and the right to do what He wills, when He wills, and that may appear imperfect to us mortals within our limited senses and knowledge. However, Jesse, I won't try to answer the following questions, as that would be pure speculation. I'm not even sure if I understand the first question properly. Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 6:38 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: But consistency is itself a logical notion. If you think God can change the laws of logic, can God make it so that he is both perfect and not-perfect, with perfect having exactly the same meaning in both cases? Note that believing God cannot change logic need not imply logic is independent of God for theists, they may say that logic is grounded in God's eternal understanding, to use the same word as Leibniz. So perfect understanding of logic and math can be seen as necessary attributes of God, along with other more specifically theistic attributes like perfection, omnipotence, omniscience etc. Do you believe that God has necessary attributes that God cannot change, so for example God cannot make a new being more powerful than Himself since this would violate omnipotence? On Monday, December 2, 2013, Samiya Illias wrote: I agree that God is consistent. In my understanding, God is perfect in every possible meaning of the word. I was objecting to the assertion below that 'Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the issue agree that God did not create the laws of math and logic, and does not have the power to alter them (or any other necessary truths, ...' Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 3:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Dec 2013, at 06:11, Samiya Illias wrote: This is strange! What 'theism' it is if it limits God? Making It consistent is not really limiting it. Accepting the idea that God can be inconsistent quickly leads to inconsistent theology, which is the fuel of atheism. (that is why atheists defends all the time the most inconsistent notion of God, and deter people to search by themselves in the field). We believe that God is the Reality
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 03-Dec-2013, at 5:42 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Good question, and one which is repeatedly asked by many within and outside the faith. God, in His complete knowledge, knows each and every soul and who is worthy of eternal bliss and who not. However, according to a decree, humans have been granted respite and an opportunity to believe and do good. Something like an exam for a degree or a quality-check and sorting of manufactured goods. This necessarily requires a belief in an event no longer in conscious human memory, but which nevertheless is the cause of this life, and the belief in Accountability for beliefs and actions in a life after this life. Either one reasons that outcomes are already known to God hence there really is no need to 'do' anything, or one intensifies one's effort to search for 'truth' and do as much good as may be possible, so as to take full advantage of this temporal life, using it for eternal bliss. But the problem is that either I reason that the outcome is already known or not, it is indeed already known, according to what you said before. So we're just watching as it unfolds. From our vantage point, one could argue that. Yet, all it does is paralyse action. There is a strong emphasis placed on hope and forgiveness. Believers are not allowed to be 'sit and watch it out'. Belief without good deeds is no good. My understanding may be wrong, for all we know this may be the only life, nothing before or after, but what if there is? If there is, and my life is predetermined and I'm still going to be punished or rewarded, then it's just a matter of waiting and seeing if I win the cosmic lottery no? You still didn't address the problem that you cannot have predetermination and free-will at the same time. It is attributed to Caliph Ali that when someone asked him about this, he asked the person to stand on one foot, with the other foot folded behind him. Next he asked the person to stand with both feet folded up. Obviously the latter is not humanly possible. That, he said, is the difference between what we can choose to do and what we have no choice about. And how difficult is it to believe in this age of technology that all is being recorded and will be replayed? Reasons enough to bother... What do you mean by replayed? If the same moment is perfectly replayed, then it's indistinguishable from all other instances of the same moment. There's still just one moment. Otherwise they are different moments, and it's not a replay. How about a 3D video playback? Well, it is said that our eyes, ears and skins will bear witness to what we used to do in this life, as God will give them the power of speech. So that will be different. Samiya Telmo. Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 10:51 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Below, I'm paraphrasing from memory a couple of passages: On the subject of the persecution of the 'Bani Israel' Children of Israel by Pharoah, such that the male children were being killed and females kept alive, It reads that it was a great trial from God. At another place, it reads that know that whatever happens to you, good or bad, it is all inscribed in a decree before we bring it into existence. This is so that you do not despair of whatever passes you by, nor exult over ... There is a lot going on all over the world that one would like to wish away, but it helps to understand that all things / events / circumstances are trials, temporary and transient. In this life, nothing is a reward or punishment, rather everything is a trial, and an opportunity to do good deeds through helping those in need. Reward and Punishment are concepts associated with the Hereafter, and are of a permanent nature. No, he didn't say Oops!, God exhorts us to reflect and ponder! Hi Samiya, If whatever happens is inscribed in a decree before we bring it into existence, so is the outcome of the trials. So why bother? Telmo. Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 10:09 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Dec 2013, at 13:39, Samiya Illias wrote: I agree that God is consistent. In my understanding, God is perfect in every possible meaning of the word. Is God perfect for the children in Syria? (Easy question on an hard subject) Here, you might hope that God will succeed in consolating them and that everything is OK. But that state of mind might make us accept more easily the tragedies, and that fatalism ... might be fatal for the incarnation of the good. The question, put in a another way, who are you to judge God's perfection? You might, like Gödel, assume that God has all positive attributes and as such is perfect
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Yes. Consider another example: when a software is designed which accepts user inputs, all possible inputs are considered and responses coded accordingly. So, when the software is bring used, the user provides whatever input he wills, but his possible choices are already known. And another example: a teacher teaches his students for a whole year, sets the paper and then the students take the exam. The teacher knows the students well enough to know what to expect from which student, yet they are given the opportunity to take the exam. It's not the teacher's fault if some students fail while others make it through and some excel. All are being graded according to the amount of effort and interest they put in throughout the year and in preparation of the exam, and how seriously they took the exam. The above are but human-human interactions. With God as the software designer and the teacher, how much more exact His estimation of the outcomes would be. Moreover, in the software example, the result of a user input is already pre-coded (predetermined), yet the user uses the software (actions / deeds), and the outcomes (judgement) reflect user-input. Samiya On 03-Dec-2013, at 3:50 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 2:18 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On 03-Dec-2013, at 5:42 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Good question, and one which is repeatedly asked by many within and outside the faith. God, in His complete knowledge, knows each and every soul and who is worthy of eternal bliss and who not. However, according to a decree, humans have been granted respite and an opportunity to believe and do good. Something like an exam for a degree or a quality-check and sorting of manufactured goods. This necessarily requires a belief in an event no longer in conscious human memory, but which nevertheless is the cause of this life, and the belief in Accountability for beliefs and actions in a life after this life. Either one reasons that outcomes are already known to God hence there really is no need to 'do' anything, or one intensifies one's effort to search for 'truth' and do as much good as may be possible, so as to take full advantage of this temporal life, using it for eternal bliss. But the problem is that either I reason that the outcome is already known or not, it is indeed already known, according to what you said before. So we're just watching as it unfolds. From our vantage point, one could argue that. Yet, all it does is paralyse action. There is a strong emphasis placed on hope and forgiveness. Believers are not allowed to be 'sit and watch it out'. Belief without good deeds is no good. My understanding may be wrong, for all we know this may be the only life, nothing before or after, but what if there is? If there is, and my life is predetermined and I'm still going to be punished or rewarded, then it's just a matter of waiting and seeing if I win the cosmic lottery no? You still didn't address the problem that you cannot have predetermination and free-will at the same time. It is attributed to Caliph Ali that when someone asked him about this, he asked the person to stand on one foot, with the other foot folded behind him. Next he asked the person to stand with both feet folded up. Obviously the latter is not humanly possible. That, he said, is the difference between what we can choose to do and what we have no choice about. If Caliph Ali told me to stand on one of my feet, I could choose left or right. But god already knows which one I'm going to choose right? So if god knows I'm going to choose to stand on my right foot, then I'm going to stand on my right foot. I might think that I could have chosen to stand on the left foot, but this would clearly be an illusion. And how difficult is it to believe in this age of technology that all is being recorded and will be replayed? Reasons enough to bother... What do you mean by replayed? If the same moment is perfectly replayed, then it's indistinguishable from all other instances of the same moment. There's still just one moment. Otherwise they are different moments, and it's not a replay. How about a 3D video playback? Suppose we take this moment we are in right now and replay it N times. In each one of these replays, we cannot be aware that it is a replay, otherwise it's not the same moment. The exact state of our must be repeated, so it cannot contain the information that we're in a replay. Then the concept of replay becomes absurd. It's like replacing one hydrogen atom with another hydrogen atom and claim that something changed. Replay implies time, and time is already inside our experiences. What would a replay mean from outside of our experience? Do you see my problem? Well
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Jason, please see: http://can-you-answer.com/ particularly: http://can-you-answer.com/CanBahaisAnswer/canBaAns.htm On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/6 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Dec 5, 2013, at 12:13 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comjasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com allco...@gmail.com wrote: A religion is based on dogma, science is not, hence science is not a religion. Some religions may be, that doesn't mean they all are, however. Could you give an example of a religion without dogma ? My own, for one. If you're alone, it's not a religion. A religion is not just a set of belief, but it comes with codification, and also those codifications /beliefs are shared between members of that religion. What you call religion are a just set of beliefs. As the usage of god for UR, dogma for hypothesis, using religion for that is bad... it's just to make a giant salad with word that lose their intended meanings. Quentin Also the founders of the bathai faith were quite clear that any true religion must respect the science of the day, otherwise they said, it falls into superstition. They also said without religion science falls into materialism. Jason Quentin How do you relate science to beliefs about the world and reality? Would you say science the collection of those beliefs, or the method for developing the beliefs? Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Simulations back up theory thst Universe is a hologram
Simulations back up *theory* that Universe is a hologramhttps://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.nature.com/news/simulations-back-up-theory-that-universe-is-a-hologram-1.14328ct=gacd=MTczMjg0OTQyMjEzNjkyMjczMDgcad=CAEYAAusg=AFQjCNFX7DsTVuX6awgQtZQ3vRNhuhyrZQ Nature.com At a black hole, Albert Einstein's theory of gravity apparently clashes with *...* its entropy and other properties based on the predictions of *string theory* as well as *...* -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: God or not?
Why not define God as the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe and Everything Else that is or may exist? On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 4:20 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Pantheism, Why didn't you just come out and say so? :-D -Original Message- From: Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: 24-Dec-2013 13:16:11 + Subject: God or not? All, The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. Otherwise everyone is talking about different things and nothing will go anywhere. If you need a God there is only one possible rational definition and that is to just define God as the universe itself. First there is now absolute certainty that God does exist (all the interminable meaningless arguments vanish), and second his attributes now become the proper subject matter of science and reason rather than ideology, faith or myth. But most certainly the dogmas of all the organized religions are all atavistic myths in the same category as Zeus and Odin which, like them, should have been discarded millennia ago Edgar -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: God or not?
Why and How does all exist? Samiya On 25-Dec-2013, at 8:21 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Bruno, and Samiya, Because there can be no creator sustainer God that stands outside the universe. Where would he/it stand? That's an irrational belief from millennia ago. The universe by definition is all that exists... Edgar On Sunday, December 22, 2013 3:10:30 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. Otherwise everyone is talking about different things and nothing will go anywhere. If you need a God there is only one possible rational definition and that is to just define God as the universe itself. First there is now absolute certainty that God does exist (all the interminable meaningless arguments vanish), and second his attributes now become the proper subject matter of science and reason rather than ideology, faith or myth. But most certainly the dogmas of all the organized religions are all atavistic myths in the same category as Zeus and Odin which, like them, should have been discarded millennia ago Edgar -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: A Theory of Consciousness
Interesting! Samiya On 31-Dec-2013, at 8:09 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: All, I'll present a brief overview of my theory of consciousness from my book on Reality here. If anyone is interested I can elaborate. To understand consciousness we first must clearly distinguish between consciousness ITSELF and the contents of consciousness that become conscious by appearing within consciousness itself. The nature of consciousness itself, why things seem conscious, is the subject of Chalmer's 'Hard Problem', whereas the various structures of the contents of consciousness are the so called 'Easy Problems', the subjects of the study of mind. Chalmer's formulation of the Hard Problem is 'How does consciousness arise from a physical brain?' Let's generalized this a little to 'How does consciousness arise from a physical world?' The key to the solution is understanding that the world is not 'physical' in the sense assumed. It is not a passive clockwork Newtonian world that just sits there waiting to be brought into consciousness by an observer. In fact the notion of observation is intrinsic to reality itself in a manner that reality actively manifests most of the defining attributes of reality on its own and all the conscious observer adds is participation in that process from a particular locus with a particular computational nformation structure. I'll explain how this works though the theory is subtle and requires some work, and there is a lot to it I don't cover here. In ancient times there was an extramission (emission) theory of vision, that objects were seen because the eyes shown light on them. Today we still have the functionally identical emission theory of consciousness, that things become conscious because mind somehow shines consciousness on them. Both theories are wrong. Things are conscious because reality continually SELF-MANIFESTS itself. It continually computes itself into existence, and existence self-manifests. It is immanent because it is actually real, and actually present, and has actual being. This is what I call Ontological Energy (OE). Things are really really real, they are really actually there, and consciousness just opens its 'eyes' and participates in this reality. Rather than the mind shining consciousness onto things, things manifest their actual reality, their actual real presence in reality, to whatever interacts with them, including human brains. The only thing an individual observer brings to consciousness is an interaction with reality from a particular location, and an interaction with the information contents of consciousness filtered through its own perceptual cognitive structure. Thus consciousness itself is simply the immanent actual real presence of reality, whereas the information structures of the contents of conscious are due to information computations of the brain interacting with information from external reality. This is the best, most convincing theory of consciousness of which I'm aware. But like most of my theories it requires a big paradigm shift in understanding since it's a completely new interpretation of reality. Best, Edgar -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: A theory of dark matter...
I always wonder why physicists insist on 'gravity' when 'space-time curvature' is the more scientific explanation. Isn't 'gravity' something that needs to be 'taken on faith'? Samiya On 24-Jan-2014, at 2:48 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 24 January 2014 07:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Of course it depends on what DE is. The most common theory is that it's just the cosmological constant term in Einstein's equation. If that's the case then it's just another geometric effect of the dynamics of space. It's not really a force, it's just part of gravity. Yes, it depends on what it is, which is why I didn't think he could necessarily say it existed between someone's fingers. Of course gravity isn't a force either. The term is being used to simplify the discussion, it's a lot easier to type force than effect of the curvature of space (it also seems a valid shorthand usage because it would be experienced in a similar manner to a force, i.e. it would cause an acceleration). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: I have a very good question but I don't know how to ask it...
What do you think of The Egg? http://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Stephen Lin sw...@post.harvard.edu wrote: Without coaching anyway assume an answer. Trust me, it really is on-optic; it has something to do with a supercomputer. Annywy, here does: Give that I am Neo, is it possible for me to bot attended and not addending the wedding of Tim Lee and Jess Han without actually doing it, such that Tim Lee becomes reborn as Wakka? It''s actually a good question, but if you have no idea what it means, Try not to embarrass yourself by thinking you know. It has to with the fact that I think we converge the same person in the end which becomse our own beginning. Unfortunatley, sometimes we lose track of where we started or where you're spposed to do... Thanks, Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: I have a very good question but I don't know how to ask it...
No, not criticizing! This poem seems to express the question more comprehensibly, and I just wanted to see what others think of it? The idea that all is one is interesting, though it is at variance with my belief. But, my belief is faith-based, and therefore not valid for others, I suppose. However, I do believe in interconnectedness through the fabric of space-time. And that also encourages being nicer to one another :) On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:10 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: It echoes a thought I've had myself at times, and which if turned into a religion might even make people be nicer to one another - perhaps - namely the idea that there is only one mind, shuffling through every possible life. Of course this is an infinite sequence, and the mind would I guess be something like God, living inside his creation so as to experience it - the universe creating senses with which to perceive itself, or words to that effect. Or were you after literary criticism? On 23 October 2013 15:49, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: What do you think of The Egg? http://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Stephen Lin sw...@post.harvard.eduwrote: Without coaching anyway assume an answer. Trust me, it really is on-optic; it has something to do with a supercomputer. Annywy, here does: Give that I am Neo, is it possible for me to bot attended and not addending the wedding of Tim Lee and Jess Han without actually doing it, such that Tim Lee becomes reborn as Wakka? It''s actually a good question, but if you have no idea what it means, Try not to embarrass yourself by thinking you know. It has to with the fact that I think we converge the same person in the end which becomse our own beginning. Unfortunatley, sometimes we lose track of where we started or where you're spposed to do... Thanks, Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: A Post About # and *
Very interesting! Thanks for sharing. On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 6:49 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: http://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/pound.jpg http://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/asterisk.jpg?w=595 Part of my approach to making new sense of the universe involves indulging in meditations on unintentional symbolism. Any pattern that catches my attention is a potential subject for intuition voodoo. Usually it pays off eventually, even when it seems absurd at first. In this case, I was thinking about the # and * symbols that were inserted into our visual culture obliquely, as extra buttons on the telephone which flanked the 0. Taking this as my cue to relate this to the multisense continuum, I compared the symbols graphically, etymologically, and semantically. The pound sign (hash, hashtag, number sign) seems to me a dead ringer for the Western-mechanistic pole of the continuum, while the asterisk (star) fits quite nicely as the Oriental-animistic pole. Here’s how it breaks down: # – number sign, so quantitative and generic. The symbol is one of four lines crossing each other at right angles to yield nine implicit regions of space. The slant provides a suggestion of orientation – a forward lean that disambiguates spatial bias and implies, subliminally, an arrow of time. In the age of Twitter and Instagram, the hashtag has become an important cultural influence. It is interesting with respect to mechanism in that it refers to accessing a machine’s sorting algorithms. It is a note to the network of how this term should be handled. We have appropriated this satirically so that we recapture it for our own entertainment, but also as a kind of show of affection for and familiarity with the technology. In direct contrast, the * is am icon which is used to interrupt one level of attention to direct the reader to another level – a footnote. Instead of relating to numbers, the * is a wildcard that can be related to any string. It stands for “all that is preceded by or follows”. Contrary to the cellular modularity of #, the * is a mandala. It implies kaliedoscopic sensibility and fractal elaboration. It is a symbol of radiance, growth, life, unity, etc. There’s some interesting threads that connect the * with mathematical terms such as Kleene closure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleene_star(more commonly known as the free monoid construction). Just the words ‘free monoid construction’ ring in my ears as an echo of what I call solitrophy – the constructive progress of teleological unity…the creation and solution of problems. Also the use of *asterisk* for heightened emphasis links it to the significance of euphoria or magnified feeling (and the euphoria that is associated with significance or magnified prestige/importance). Wikipedia mentions the use of # by editors to represent where space should be added on galley proofs. The use of * is, by contrast associated with repetition of a particular thing – a replication. This is a tenuous but deep connection to the origins of space and time in the difference between syntactic-public sense and semantic-private sense. The name ‘pound sign’ seems to be fairly mysterioushttp://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2461. It does not seem to be related conclusively to either the English currency or the Avoirdupois weight. Both references, however, have very tempting subliminal associations to the Western pole of empirical domination. On the other side, the name asterisk means ‘little star’, from Greek and Latin. I can read into that a reference to ‘as above, so below’, as the twinkling point of light reproduces in miniature that which is the grand solar source of life on Earth. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Our Demon-Haunted World
Modifying the DNA to fix psycopaths sounds promising, but going with the assumption that the world is controlled by psycopaths, what if they control the biotechnology and create Frankesteins instead? Do we need clearly established rules and laws in place before we embrace technology with open arms? Who will legislate those laws? On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 8:08 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 November 2013 15:57, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *LizR *Sent:* Wednesday, November 06, 2013 6:18 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: Our Demon-Haunted World On 7 November 2013 14:39, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: There's a continuum of behavior which at the extreme absence of empathy we call psychopathy or sociopathy. But that doesn't mean more empathy is better. Sometimes it's good to be hard hearted. Should we have been nicer to the Neanderthals? We'll never know. But we do know we evolved to cope with a world that is very far removed from the one we have. Is there any reason to believe evolution got everything right? We've already made changes to other aspects of our being, both physically and psychologically. But certain aspects of our behaviour still seem to be stuck in a distant past when life was almost always nasty, brutish and short. Evolution sometimes saddles life forms with burdensome defects – for example almost all animals can synthesize their own vitamin C; we lost this; Human’s also have ridiculously thin walled arteries – compared to most other animal species. In fact strokes are very rare in most species because their circulatory systems are superior in this regard to ours. Evolution is a mixed bag and we got what we got – both good and bad; the evolutionary benefits of an opposable thumb, enlarged forebrain, linguistic abilities etc. far outweighed the defects our evolutionary roulette wheel spit out and we have succeeded in covering this planet with members of our species. Yes. But I wouldn't necessarily call that success, not if it leads to us dying off in large numbers because (from our perspective, at least) we screwed up the environment. Are you saying we've done well so we should be grateful - or something - at least it sounds like that's what you're saying, maybe not what you intended? Anyway, having cheated evolution in all sorts of ways, from domesticating animals to cochleal implants, I for one am not prepared to sit back and say, darn, I can't synthesise my own vitamin C so I guess I'll just have to die. Instead I eat fruit, having benefitted from someone having worked out how to obtain vitamin C. And if they find a way to fix strokes I'll be lining up for that too. I don't see why we have to stick with the mixed bag we got from evolutionary roulette, and I certainly haven't, having given birth with the aid of modern medical knowledge rather than going off to a cave to do it the natural way, thank you very much, and when my gall bladder started playing up I had keyhole surgery rather than opting to live in pain, or die. And as far as I'm concerned we should fix up all the other evolutionary mistakes as soon as possible, including the ones that make some people behave like monsters. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Everything is real or unreal?
Neils Bohr is famously quoted as saying: 'Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded asreal. If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet.” What's your take on this? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Everything is real or unreal?
Never mind who said it. Considering what we know of quantum mechanics, is everything real made of everything unreal? Does that mean that everything is actually unreal, a holograph, a reflection of our mind, if that is real? On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: I suspect this is one of those fake quotes that gets circulated around the internet; searching for everything we call real and bohr on books.google.com I mostly just find it in various religious/spiritual books, nothing scholarly (and nothing dating back to before 1986). Jesse On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 10:51 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.comwrote: Neils Bohr is famously quoted as saying: 'Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded asreal. If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet.” What's your take on this? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Everything is real or unreal?
Bruno wrote: In a sense, with comp, the illusions and dreams are more real that the stuff we imagine, which are useful fictions. Dreams and illusions are not stuff we imagine? How do you differentiate? On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 16 Nov 2013, at 11:32, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 5:22 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Never mind who said it. Considering what we know of quantum mechanics, is everything real made of everything unreal? Does that mean that everything is actually unreal, a holograph, a reflection of our mind, if that is real? As Bruno said, real is not properly defined. If you interview some random person on the street, you are likely to get something like real=material. Under that definition, I think most of us would agree with the quote. But this is a naive and uninteresting definition of real. I have a friend who's a psychiatrist and likes the definition: real is what does not go away when you stop believing it. He likes it because it's useful to him, because it helps with therapy in many cases. I think this definition will also run into problems with comp. It already runs into problems even with Plato and his cave. But he has it easy, because his job is just to guide people into a state of consciousness where they can hopefully have a life with less suffering. Of course, the buddhists might argue that he's not doing it right :) I think Bruno might agree with this: 2 + 2 + 4 is real. Yes, 2+2+4 is real, and 2+2=4 is true. If the base theory is arithmetic, 2+2+4 is the same object as s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0. If we use the combinators instead, 2+2+4 would be the name of some complex combinators, and would seem less primitive and more like a derived element, making the objective reality a bit of a convention, almost. What counts are the illusions from inside. They don't depend on the choice of the absic reality. In a sense, with comp, the illusions and dreams are more real that the stuff we imagine, which are useful fictions. Bruno On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: I suspect this is one of those fake quotes that gets circulated around the internet; searching for everything we call real and bohr on books.google.com I mostly just find it in various religious/spiritual books, nothing scholarly (and nothing dating back to before 1986). Jesse On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 10:51 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Neils Bohr is famously quoted as saying: 'Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded asreal. If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet.” What's your take on this? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
Bruno asks: Should we search, or not, for a reason behind the physical reality? We must, otherwise this life itself doesn't make any sense. There has to be a purpose, and there has to be some sort of an outcome. On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 24 Nov 2013, at 10:06, LizR wrote: To be exact it's the belief that no gods exist, i.e. that theism is wrong. But otherwise it does seem to echo Aristotle and Plato, at least as far as I understand them. Atheism is also the belief in NO afterlife, which is close to not making much sense to me (even without comp). This is well illustrated by the french philosophers like La Mettrie and Sade, defending the right to do what you want in your life (including torturing children and women), as you have only one life to profit on. It is part of the origin of the political materialism, implemented in both communism and capitalism, and indeed both are aggressive with any form of spiritualism, and confuse a rich life with a life of rich. The big conceptual difference between Aristotle and Plato is that in Aristotle there is a belief in a primitive material universe, where for Plato, the material universe is a shadow (an emanation, a border, a reflection, a projection,...) of something else (the one, God, the universal dream, etc.). It is the opposition between naturalism (materialism, physicalism), and the other conceptions of reality (which can still be rational, like with the antic greeks and Indians). Atheists and Christians are alike. They have the same conception of the creator (the first to deny it, the second to believe in it), and the same conception of the creation (a material universe). The real religious debate is about the primitive or not existence of the physical reality. Should we search, or not, for a reason behind the physical reality? Bruno On 24 November 2013 04:56, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 23 Nov 2013, at 14:05, Roger Clough wrote: Atheism is wish fulfillment. Yes. Notably. I agree. It is the fuzzy belief that the Christian God does not exist, together with the belief in the Christian Matter. The debate between Atheists and Christians hides the deeper debate between Aristotle and Plato. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
OK. But in that case I don't see any reason to think 'life' or 'the universe' has any purpose. Brent The more we learn about the universe the more it seems pointless. --- Steven Weinberg Perhaps that is why we need to explore and evaluate the 'divinely revealed / inspired' books, in search of the point and purpose. There is too much 'precision-engineering' and 'order' in the observable / measurable 'chaos' to be 'self-evolved'. If there is a God behind all this, then perhaps there is much more we do not know about than just dark matter. Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 26-Nov-2013, at 9:51 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/25/2013 7:35 PM, LizR wrote: On 26 November 2013 15:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: All things I do. So why does purpose presuppose something like God? In fact I don't see that something like God could add or subtract from my purposes - although He might affect my methods and whether or not I realized my purposes. Because we were talking about the purpose of life, not the purposes of living beings. For life to have a purpose, one must assume that it (or the universe) has been designed to fulfill some function. At least that is what (imho) it would mean for life or the universe to have a purpose. OK. But in that case I don't see any reason to think 'life' or 'the universe' has any purpose. Brent The more we learn about the universe the more it seems pointless. --- Steven Weinberg -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
What do you mean by 'selected by our existence'? Sent from my iPhone On 26-Nov-2013, at 11:46 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/25/2013 10:36 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: OK. But in that case I don't see any reason to think 'life' or 'the universe' has any purpose. Brent The more we learn about the universe the more it seems pointless. --- Steven Weinberg Perhaps that is why we need to explore and evaluate the 'divinely revealed / inspired' books, in search of the point and purpose. We don't know there are any such books, or any reason why there should be. Of course there are books that some people claim are the word of God, the same people who want to tell you how to eat your food, how to dress, how to treat your slave,... In other words, ignorant tribal lords. There is too much 'precision-engineering' and 'order' in the observable / measurable 'chaos' to be 'self-evolved'. How do you know that? Maybe it isn't self-evolvled; maybe it's selected by our existence as the kind of universe in which we can evolve and exist and speculate. If there is a God behind all this, then perhaps there is much more we do not know about than just dark matter. And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
So the physics of our Universe is fine-tuned to our evolution ? Sent from my iPhone On 26-Nov-2013, at 12:04 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/25/2013 10:58 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: What do you mean by 'selected by our existence'? If, as seems likely, there are infinitely many universes, then the weak anthropic principle dictates that we will find ourselves in one in which the physics is such that we could evolve. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
Bruno wrote: 'I was of course alluding to the greek (neo)platonists. They did invented the God used by both the abramanic cultures (even if terribly deformed, notably by the abandon of science about it, and the use of authoritative arguments, by Christians, Muslims, and perhaps by the Jewish (with Maimonides, to some extent). It is not because we have found strong evidence that the Earth is NOT flat, that Earth has disappeared. We just correct our theory of Earth. Why couldn't we do that with the notion of God?' The God of Abrahamic faiths is the Deity. We believe that He is the only God from time immemorial. All prophets preceding Abraham also spoke of the same God. Unfortunately, over ages most belief systems degenerate into a pantheon of gods 'in the image of humans'. The God I believe in is the majestic, indescribable, unimaginable, majestic Creator and Sustainer of everything. Unfortunately, instead of focussing on and understanding God's message of love and justice, people misunderstand the warnings of not qualifying for Heaven and blame / reject a God who warns of Hell as the consequence of injustice. Rejecting God won't make any difference to God or His plan. We need Him and His guidance, not the other way round! Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 28-Nov-2013, at 6:52 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I was of course alluding to the greek (neo)platonists. They did invented the God used by both the abramanic cultures (even if terribly deformed, notably by the abandon of science about it, and the use of authoritative arguments, by Christians, Muslims, and perhaps by the Jewish (with Maimonides, to some extent). It is not because we have found strong evidence that the Earth is NOT flat, that Earth has disappeared. We just correct our theory of Earth. Why couldn't we do that with the notion of God? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
Quentin wrote: ' if there was an all loving god, it wouldn't allow for hell and evil..' Why do we need courts and jails and police on Earth if its such an unloving thing to do justice? Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 28-Nov-2013, at 8:18 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: if there was an all loving god, it wouldn't allow for hell and evil.. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
Quentin wrote: 'Because we are not all loving, omnipotent, omniscient beings and we can *do* evil. If such being(s) existed, it would not allow that, but there is evil...' So if the Loving, Omnipotent and Omniscient Being tells us that this world's life is but a trial, that free-will has been given so that those who will willingly submit, be honest, just and kind, and whatever we suffer, we will be fully compensated for all injustices and wrongs... You see, free will works both ways! And life comes with consequences... eternal consequences! Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 28-Nov-2013, at 8:42 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Because we are not all loving, omnipotent, omniscient beings and we can *do* evil. If such being(s) existed, it would not allow that, but there is evil... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
Sure, but before being judgemental and throwing it out of the window, do read the Books of the Abrahamic faiths. Perhaps one of them will pleasantly surprise you :) Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 28-Nov-2013, at 8:54 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/11/28 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com Quentin wrote: 'Because we are not all loving, omnipotent, omniscient beings and we can *do* evil. If such being(s) existed, it would not allow that, but there is evil...' So if the Loving, Omnipotent and Omniscient Being tells us that this world's life is but a trial, that free-will has been given so that those who will willingly submit, be honest, just and kind, and whatever we suffer, we will be fully compensated for all injustices and wrongs... You see, free will works both ways! And life comes with consequences... eternal consequences! Well if you want... but let me appreciate it for the BS it is... thanks. Quentin Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 28-Nov-2013, at 8:42 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Because we are not all loving, omnipotent, omniscient beings and we can *do* evil. If such being(s) existed, it would not allow that, but there is evil... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
I understand that so many deities and faith-systems and all the myths and fantasies in them easily put off any thinking mind. Yet, the more we discover, the closer we get to theorizing about everything, the more difficult it is to believe that everything just happens on its own. We may not be able to describe or imagine God, but it is also not possible to honestly dismiss a existence of a Deity! On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 6:26 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: But if *everything's *holy... well, you know the rest. On 29 November 2013 14:02, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think size/length of the list matters much, lol! Crazy Ginsberg's list was shorter and he and his publishers apparently see reason for them to exist: *Footnote to Howl* *By Allen Ginsberg http://www.poetryfoundation.org/bio/allen-ginsberg * Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! The world is holy! The soul is holy! The skin is holy! The nose is holy! The tongue and cock and hand and asshole holy! Everything is holy! everybody’s holy! everywhere is holy! everyday is in eternity! Everyman’s an angel! The bum’s as holy as the seraphim! the madman is holy as you my soul are holy! The typewriter is holy the poem is holy the voice is holy the hearers are holy the ecstasy is holy! Holy Peter holy Allen holy Solomon holy Lucien holy Kerouac holy Huncke holy Burroughs holy Cassady holy the unknown buggered and suffering beggars holy the hideous human angels! Holy my mother in the insane asylum! Holy the cocks of the grandfathers of Kansas! Holy the groaning saxophone! Holy the bop apocalypse! Holy the jazzbands marijuana hipsters peace peyote pipes drums! Holy the solitudes of skyscrapers and pavements! Holy the cafeterias filled with the millions! Holy the mysterious rivers of tears under the streets! Holy the lone juggernaut! Holy the vast lamb of the middleclass! Holy the crazy shepherds of rebellion! Who digs Los Angeles IS Los Angeles! Holy New York Holy San Francisco Holy Peoria Seattle Holy Paris Holy Tangiers Holy Moscow Holy Istanbul! Holy time in eternity holy eternity in time holy the clocks in space holy the fourth dimension holy the fifth International holy the Angel in Moloch! Holy the sea holy the desert holy the railroad holy the locomotive holy the visions holy the hallucinations holy the miracles holy the eyeball holy the abyss! Holy forgiveness! mercy! charity! faith! Holy! Ours! bodies! suffering! magnanimity! Holy the supernatural extra brilliant intelligent kindness of the soul! *Berkeley 1955* I believe both Brent and Allen. And the Sun... Dunno much about their existence though. PGC On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 1:03 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 29 November 2013 09:19, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. Hey, what's that about Amaterasu? She obviously exists! (Admittedly we tend to
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
How is it 'easiest to dismiss'? Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 29-Nov-2013, at 12:32 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/11/29 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com I understand that so many deities and faith-systems and all the myths and fantasies in them easily put off any thinking mind. Yet, the more we discover, the closer we get to theorizing about everything, the more difficult it is to believe that everything just happens on its own. And how is it easier for a god to happen on its own it is as absurd, between the two, god hypothesis is just a gap of explanation and the easiest to dismiss. Quentin We may not be able to describe or imagine God, but it is also not possible to honestly dismiss a existence of a Deity! On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 6:26 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: But if everything's holy... well, you know the rest. On 29 November 2013 14:02, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think size/length of the list matters much, lol! Crazy Ginsberg's list was shorter and he and his publishers apparently see reason for them to exist: Footnote to Howl By Allen Ginsberg Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! The world is holy! The soul is holy! The skin is holy! The nose is holy! The tongue and cock and hand and asshole holy! Everything is holy! everybody’s holy! everywhere is holy! everyday is in eternity! Everyman’s an angel! The bum’s as holy as the seraphim! the madman is holy as you my soul are holy! The typewriter is holy the poem is holy the voice is holy the hearers are holy the ecstasy is holy! Holy Peter holy Allen holy Solomon holy Lucien holy Kerouac holy Huncke holy Burroughs holy Cassady holy the unknown buggered and suffering beggars holy the hideous human angels! Holy my mother in the insane asylum! Holy the cocks of the grandfathers of Kansas! Holy the groaning saxophone! Holy the bop apocalypse! Holy the jazzbands marijuana hipsters peace peyote pipes drums! Holy the solitudes of skyscrapers and pavements! Holy the cafeterias filled with the millions! Holy the mysterious rivers of tears under the streets! Holy the lone juggernaut! Holy the vast lamb of the middleclass! Holy the crazy shepherds of rebellion! Who digs Los Angeles IS Los Angeles! Holy New York Holy San Francisco Holy Peoria Seattle Holy Paris Holy Tangiers Holy Moscow Holy Istanbul! Holy time in eternity holy eternity in time holy the clocks in space holy the fourth dimension holy the fifth International holy the Angel in Moloch! Holy the sea holy the desert holy the railroad holy the locomotive holy the visions holy the hallucinations holy the miracles holy the eyeball holy the abyss! Holy forgiveness! mercy! charity! faith! Holy! Ours! bodies! suffering! magnanimity! Holy the supernatural extra brilliant intelligent kindness of the soul! Berkeley 1955 I believe both Brent and Allen. And the Sun... Dunno much about their existence though. PGC On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 1:03 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 29 November 2013 09:19, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
Simple? It takes intelligence and knowledge to write computer program, build a machine, and so on. How can we conclude that the software of life, the creation of the Universe / multiverse, all just happened on its own, and for no purpose? Consider the following: “Behold! In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of Night and Day – there are indeed Signs for men of understanding .” (Qur’an 3:190) It is He Who has created hearing, sight and minds for you. What little thanks you show! (Qur'an 23:78) We shall show them Our signs in the Universe and within themselves, until it becomes clear to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that your Lord is the witness of all things? [Quran 41:53] We created human from a mingled drop to test him, and We made him hearing and seeing. (Qur'an 76:2) Regards, Samiya On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/11/29 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com How is it 'easiest to dismiss'? Because it is an assumption you add... so keep it simple is easier, so as it adds nothing, and explain nothing about how can something exists on its own... well it's easy to dismiss. Quentin Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 29-Nov-2013, at 12:32 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/11/29 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com I understand that so many deities and faith-systems and all the myths and fantasies in them easily put off any thinking mind. Yet, the more we discover, the closer we get to theorizing about everything, the more difficult it is to believe that everything just happens on its own. And how is it easier for a god to happen on its own it is as absurd, between the two, god hypothesis is just a gap of explanation and the easiest to dismiss. Quentin We may not be able to describe or imagine God, but it is also not possible to honestly dismiss a existence of a Deity! On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 6:26 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: But if *everything's *holy... well, you know the rest. On 29 November 2013 14:02, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think size/length of the list matters much, lol! Crazy Ginsberg's list was shorter and he and his publishers apparently see reason for them to exist: *Footnote to Howl* *By Allen Ginsberg http://www.poetryfoundation.org/bio/allen-ginsberg * Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! The world is holy! The soul is holy! The skin is holy! The nose is holy! The tongue and cock and hand and asshole holy! Everything is holy! everybody’s holy! everywhere is holy! everyday is in eternity! Everyman’s an angel! The bum’s as holy as the seraphim! the madman is holy as you my soul are holy! The typewriter is holy the poem is holy the voice is holy the hearers are holy the ecstasy is holy! Holy Peter holy Allen holy Solomon holy Lucien holy Kerouac holy Huncke holy Burroughs holy Cassady holy the unknown buggered and suffering beggars holy the hideous human angels! Holy my mother in the insane asylum! Holy the cocks of the grandfathers of Kansas! Holy the groaning saxophone! Holy the bop apocalypse! Holy the jazzbands marijuana hipsters peace peyote pipes drums! Holy the solitudes of skyscrapers and pavements! Holy the cafeterias filled with the millions! Holy the mysterious rivers of tears under the streets! Holy the lone juggernaut! Holy the vast lamb of the middleclass! Holy the crazy shepherds of rebellion! Who digs Los Angeles IS Los Angeles! Holy New York Holy San Francisco Holy Peoria Seattle Holy Paris Holy Tangiers Holy Moscow Holy Istanbul! Holy time in eternity holy eternity in time holy the clocks in space holy the fourth dimension holy the fifth International holy the Angel in Moloch! Holy the sea holy the desert holy the railroad holy the locomotive holy the visions holy the hallucinations holy the miracles holy the eyeball holy the abyss! Holy forgiveness! mercy! charity! faith! Holy! Ours! bodies! suffering! magnanimity! Holy the supernatural extra brilliant intelligent kindness of the soul! *Berkeley 1955* I believe both Brent and Allen. And the Sun... Dunno much about their existence though. PGC On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 1:03 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 29 November 2013 09:19, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
Yes, I know we cannot answer that, but that is due to our lack of knowledge and comprehension of God, and not because God is useless or does not exist. God's presence is perceivable through His creation! Denying God won't change anything, but we may miss out on something critically important, to our own detriment and loss. Samiya On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/11/29 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com Simple? It takes intelligence and knowledge to write computer program, build a machine, and so on. How can we conclude that the software of life, the creation of the Universe / multiverse, all just happened on its own, and for no purpose? Ask the same thing about god, and you have still an unsolved problem and you have explained nothing at all. god is useless as an hypothesis about the world. Quentin Consider the following: “Behold! In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of Night and Day – there are indeed Signs for men of understanding .” (Qur’an 3:190) It is He Who has created hearing, sight and minds for you. What little thanks you show! (Qur'an 23:78) We shall show them Our signs in the Universe and within themselves, until it becomes clear to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that your Lord is the witness of all things? [Quran 41:53] We created human from a mingled drop to test him, and We made him hearing and seeing. (Qur'an 76:2) Regards, Samiya On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/11/29 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com How is it 'easiest to dismiss'? Because it is an assumption you add... so keep it simple is easier, so as it adds nothing, and explain nothing about how can something exists on its own... well it's easy to dismiss. Quentin Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 29-Nov-2013, at 12:32 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/11/29 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com I understand that so many deities and faith-systems and all the myths and fantasies in them easily put off any thinking mind. Yet, the more we discover, the closer we get to theorizing about everything, the more difficult it is to believe that everything just happens on its own. And how is it easier for a god to happen on its own it is as absurd, between the two, god hypothesis is just a gap of explanation and the easiest to dismiss. Quentin We may not be able to describe or imagine God, but it is also not possible to honestly dismiss a existence of a Deity! On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 6:26 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: But if *everything's *holy... well, you know the rest. On 29 November 2013 14:02, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think size/length of the list matters much, lol! Crazy Ginsberg's list was shorter and he and his publishers apparently see reason for them to exist: *Footnote to Howl* *By Allen Ginsberg http://www.poetryfoundation.org/bio/allen-ginsberg * Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! The world is holy! The soul is holy! The skin is holy! The nose is holy! The tongue and cock and hand and asshole holy! Everything is holy! everybody’s holy! everywhere is holy! everyday is in eternity! Everyman’s an angel! The bum’s as holy as the seraphim! the madman is holy as you my soul are holy! The typewriter is holy the poem is holy the voice is holy the hearers are holy the ecstasy is holy! Holy Peter holy Allen holy Solomon holy Lucien holy Kerouac holy Huncke holy Burroughs holy Cassady holy the unknown buggered and suffering beggars holy the hideous human angels! Holy my mother in the insane asylum! Holy the cocks of the grandfathers of Kansas! Holy the groaning saxophone! Holy the bop apocalypse! Holy the jazzbands marijuana hipsters peace peyote pipes drums! Holy the solitudes of skyscrapers and pavements! Holy the cafeterias filled with the millions! Holy the mysterious rivers of tears under the streets! Holy the lone juggernaut! Holy the vast lamb of the middleclass! Holy the crazy shepherds of rebellion! Who digs Los Angeles IS Los Angeles! Holy New York Holy San Francisco Holy Peoria Seattle Holy Paris Holy Tangiers Holy Moscow Holy Istanbul! Holy time in eternity holy eternity in time holy the clocks in space holy the fourth dimension holy the fifth International holy the Angel in Moloch! Holy the sea holy the desert holy the railroad holy the locomotive holy the visions holy the hallucinations holy the miracles holy the eyeball holy the abyss! Holy forgiveness! mercy! charity! faith! Holy! Ours! bodies! suffering! magnanimity! Holy the supernatural extra brilliant intelligent kindness of the soul! *Berkeley 1955* I believe both Brent and Allen. And the Sun... Dunno much about their existence though. PGC
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
Just for the record, I do not personify God. It would be simply speculative and unfair of us to imagine any form of God. All I know is how He briefly introduces Himself as the 'noor' or 'spiritual light' of the heavens and earth. (Quran 24:35) Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 29-Nov-2013, at 3:12 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/11/29 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com Yes, I know we cannot answer that, but that is due to our lack of knowledge and comprehension of God, and not because God is useless It is. or does not exist. The god you talk about (the christian's one) with the long beard, certainly does not exist. God's presence is perceivable through His creation! Nope... Denying God won't change anything, Same thing doing the opposite. but we may miss out on something critically important, to our own detriment and loss. In french I would say... nawak ! Quentin Samiya On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/11/29 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com Simple? It takes intelligence and knowledge to write computer program, build a machine, and so on. How can we conclude that the software of life, the creation of the Universe / multiverse, all just happened on its own, and for no purpose? Ask the same thing about god, and you have still an unsolved problem and you have explained nothing at all. god is useless as an hypothesis about the world. Quentin Consider the following: “Behold! In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of Night and Day – there are indeed Signs for men of understanding .” (Qur’an 3:190) It is He Who has created hearing, sight and minds for you. What little thanks you show! (Qur'an 23:78) We shall show them Our signs in the Universe and within themselves, until it becomes clear to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that your Lord is the witness of all things? [Quran 41:53] We created human from a mingled drop to test him, and We made him hearing and seeing. (Qur'an 76:2) Regards, Samiya On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/11/29 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com How is it 'easiest to dismiss'? Because it is an assumption you add... so keep it simple is easier, so as it adds nothing, and explain nothing about how can something exists on its own... well it's easy to dismiss. Quentin Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 29-Nov-2013, at 12:32 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/11/29 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com I understand that so many deities and faith-systems and all the myths and fantasies in them easily put off any thinking mind. Yet, the more we discover, the closer we get to theorizing about everything, the more difficult it is to believe that everything just happens on its own. And how is it easier for a god to happen on its own it is as absurd, between the two, god hypothesis is just a gap of explanation and the easiest to dismiss. Quentin We may not be able to describe or imagine God, but it is also not possible to honestly dismiss a existence of a Deity! On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 6:26 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: But if everything's holy... well, you know the rest. On 29 November 2013 14:02, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think size/length of the list matters much, lol! Crazy Ginsberg's list was shorter and he and his publishers apparently see reason for them to exist: Footnote to Howl By Allen Ginsberg Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! The world is holy! The soul is holy! The skin is holy! The nose is holy! The tongue and cock and hand and asshole holy! Everything is holy! everybody’s holy! everywhere is holy! everyday is in eternity! Everyman’s an angel! The bum’s as holy as the seraphim! the madman is holy as you my soul are holy! The typewriter is holy the poem is holy the voice is holy the hearers are holy the ecstasy is holy! Holy Peter holy Allen holy Solomon holy Lucien holy Kerouac holy Huncke holy Burroughs holy Cassady holy the unknown buggered and suffering beggars holy the hideous human angels! Holy my mother in the insane asylum! Holy the cocks of the grandfathers of Kansas! Holy the groaning saxophone! Holy the bop apocalypse! Holy the jazzbands marijuana hipsters peace peyote pipes drums! Holy the solitudes of skyscrapers and pavements! Holy the cafeterias filled with the millions! Holy the mysterious rivers of tears under the streets! Holy the lone juggernaut! Holy the vast lamb of the middleclass! Holy the crazy shepherds of rebellion! Who digs Los Angeles IS Los Angeles! Holy New York Holy San Francisco Holy Peoria Seattle Holy Paris Holy
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 29-Nov-2013, at 10:34 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 28 Nov 2013, at 15:29, Samiya Illias wrote: Bruno wrote: 'I was of course alluding to the greek (neo)platonists. They did invented the God used by both the abramanic cultures (even if terribly deformed, notably by the abandon of science about it, and the use of authoritative arguments, by Christians, Muslims, and perhaps by the Jewish (with Maimonides, to some extent). It is not because we have found strong evidence that the Earth is NOT flat, that Earth has disappeared. We just correct our theory of Earth. Why couldn't we do that with the notion of God?' The God of Abrahamic faiths is the Deity. It is preferable to bet so. OK. We believe that He is the only God from time immemorial. Hmm OK. But he might have encounter by Indians, Egyptians, and many others. Only God can be God, the rest are not god in the absolute sense of the word. All prophets preceding Abraham also spoke of the same God. Unfortunately, over ages most belief systems degenerate into a pantheon of gods 'in the image of humans'. As far as I know, they might be intermediate gods and goddesses, and many things. But the big one is one, OK. The problem is that the big ONE has no name, and humans keep invoking it or even acting in his name, which is blasphemous. The problem is in the idolatry of text and syntax, and being sleepy on the semantic or meaning. That is why we use the term Allah which translates to the Deity. However, God informs us that all beautiful names belong to Him, and introduces Himself variously as the Beneficent, the Merciful, the Mighty, the Seer, the Knower, the Hearer, the Aware, the Loving, the Forgiving, Accepter of Repentance, the Stern in Punishment, the Bountiful, the Able, the Sublime, the Absolute, Lord of the Throne, and so on. The God I believe in is the majestic, indescribable, unimaginable, majestic Creator and Sustainer of everything. Yeah ... I might relate. (I am not entirely sure the term creator is a not a bit misleading, though). How? Unfortunately, instead of focussing on and understanding God's message of love and justice, people misunderstand the warnings of not qualifying for Heaven and blame / reject a God who warns of Hell as the consequence of injustice. Injustice and dishonesty leads to catastrophes. But is not the warning of God private? can we really tell this to others, like if few words could really help, and not confuse. God has given all humans a conscience and a moral compass. Moreover, He has sent prophets and scriptures throughout the ages. I believe that most religions started of as monotheist but morphed into a pantheon when people started adding to religion, for whatever reasons. When hell becomes a metaphysical or theological punishment, how can someone do the good, for the good, and not by fear of the bad? Well, God knows better how to warn. What little I understand from my study of the Quran is that there is a balance of glad tidings and warnings. Moreover, guidance is granted by Allah to those who are willing to be guided. There is no compulsion in religion. We have been given this life (respite) according to a decree that went before that humans will be given a chance to prove themselves, and no injustice will be done to anyone on the Day of Reckoning of humans. With comp there is something like a non communicable moral law, which asserts don't ever do moral, which is non communicable, but still accessible as true from the first person point of view of the machine. We have to trust Conscience or God in that matter, somehow. If you mean conscience and morality is inbuilt and an intrinsic quality, yes I agree. Rejecting God won't make any difference to God or His plan. We need Him and His guidance, not the other way round! Nobody rejects God, I think. People rejects this or that representation of God and the norm and moral often associated with It, which have been imposed to them by tradition/coercion. That's not a problem, and participates to the faith. They look behind the names, and wake up from the hypnotic repetition of sentences and words. I agree, as long as they seek a better explanation instead of rejecting theism. But some identifies the unique God and this or that representation, and so believes that they reject all notions of God, to directly bet on another one unconsciously, and abandon the honest spiritual inquiry, which requires an humble doubting third person attitude in those matter. I agree. That's more grave because that lead to 'authoritative arguments' (the worst) in both science and religions. It is all good for the bandits and credulity exploiters. Yes, true. Samiya Bruno Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 28-Nov-2013, at 6:52 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
Bruno wrote: 'But thanks to the discovery of the universal machine I have few doubt that I can prove to you (if patient enough) the existence of all the computations in the arithmetical reality. (I might know that already).' Yes, please, I am very keen. Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 29-Nov-2013, at 9:51 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: But thanks to the discovery of the universal machine I have few doubt that I can prove to you (if patient enough) the existence of all the computations in the arithmetical reality. (I might know that already). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Progress and Happiness
That's a refreshingly new take on evolution! At least, I can say for myself that my preference for junk food is evolving to a preference for fruits and vegetables :) On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 12:04 AM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: If evolution by natural selection were correct, then it seems to me that if the overall environment remained relatively stable for an extended period of time - then regardless of how it ended up, humans would be at about same level of happiness. A paradise or a hell, the species should evolve towards the same overall happiness level. We can only be excessively happy, or excessively unhappy, in a world that we aren't well adapted to. My reasoning is that happiness serves a purpose...it motivates us to do things that enhance our reproductive success. Unhappiness also serves a purpose...it motivates us to avoid things that decrease our reproductive success. Happiness is useless as a motivational tool if it's too hard *or* too easy to achieve. Unhappiness is useless as a motivational tool if it's too hard *or* too easy to avoid. There has to be some optimum motivational mix of happiness and unhappiness...and I'd think it's always approximately the same mix. Even in a hellish world, humans would be about as happy as they would be in a paradise...once they (as a species) had adapted. Which brings me to my next point. IF this evolutionary theory were true, then scientific advancements only increase human happiness to the extent that it puts us into situations that we're not well adapted to. AND, given enough time (and mutation), we should adapt to all scientific advancements...and a key part of this adaptation will be to reduce the amount of happiness that they generate. We can only be happier than cavemen when we are in a situation that we are not well adapted to. For instance, food. Most people really like sweets and salty greasy foods. Much more than they like bland vegetables and whatnot. The acquisition of junk food makes us happy *because* those things were hard to acquire a few hundred years ago...and if you're living in resource-poor circumstances, then calories and salt are just what the doctor ordered. BUT...we're now out of equilibrium. Junk food is at least as easy to get as vegetables, if not easier. So our evolved preferences push us to consume more than is good for us. Given time, and if we allowed heart disease and diabetes to do their work, the human race would eventually lose their taste for such unhealthy fare, as those with genetic tendencies in that direction died off. Anticipating a greasy meal of pizza and consuming it would no longer make us as happy. Because that happiness is too easily satisfied to provide the optimal level of motivation. In the future, I would think that our taste for junk food will decrease while our taste for vegetables and fruit will increase. Further, this adjustment process isn't just true of food. It should be true of everything. Even something that IS good for us will cause less happiness if its easily available, because there's no real harm in not being highly motivated to get it - since you'll get it even if you're relatively indifferent to it. Also, even good things can become detrimental if over-indulged in. So, over time entropy will eat away at the structure that underlies the desire for that thing. Ya? Rex -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Progress and Happiness
That's a refreshingly new take on evolution! At least, I can say for myself that my preference for junk food is evolving to a preference for fruits and vegetables :) On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 12:04 AM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: If evolution by natural selection were correct, then it seems to me that if the overall environment remained relatively stable for an extended period of time - then regardless of how it ended up, humans would be at about same level of happiness. A paradise or a hell, the species should evolve towards the same overall happiness level. We can only be excessively happy, or excessively unhappy, in a world that we aren't well adapted to. My reasoning is that happiness serves a purpose...it motivates us to do things that enhance our reproductive success. Unhappiness also serves a purpose...it motivates us to avoid things that decrease our reproductive success. Happiness is useless as a motivational tool if it's too hard *or* too easy to achieve. Unhappiness is useless as a motivational tool if it's too hard *or* too easy to avoid. There has to be some optimum motivational mix of happiness and unhappiness...and I'd think it's always approximately the same mix. Even in a hellish world, humans would be about as happy as they would be in a paradise...once they (as a species) had adapted. Which brings me to my next point. IF this evolutionary theory were true, then scientific advancements only increase human happiness to the extent that it puts us into situations that we're not well adapted to. AND, given enough time (and mutation), we should adapt to all scientific advancements...and a key part of this adaptation will be to reduce the amount of happiness that they generate. We can only be happier than cavemen when we are in a situation that we are not well adapted to. For instance, food. Most people really like sweets and salty greasy foods. Much more than they like bland vegetables and whatnot. The acquisition of junk food makes us happy *because* those things were hard to acquire a few hundred years ago...and if you're living in resource-poor circumstances, then calories and salt are just what the doctor ordered. BUT...we're now out of equilibrium. Junk food is at least as easy to get as vegetables, if not easier. So our evolved preferences push us to consume more than is good for us. Given time, and if we allowed heart disease and diabetes to do their work, the human race would eventually lose their taste for such unhealthy fare, as those with genetic tendencies in that direction died off. Anticipating a greasy meal of pizza and consuming it would no longer make us as happy. Because that happiness is too easily satisfied to provide the optimal level of motivation. In the future, I would think that our taste for junk food will decrease while our taste for vegetables and fruit will increase. Further, this adjustment process isn't just true of food. It should be true of everything. Even something that IS good for us will cause less happiness if its easily available, because there's no real harm in not being highly motivated to get it - since you'll get it even if you're relatively indifferent to it. Also, even good things can become detrimental if over-indulged in. So, over time entropy will eat away at the structure that underlies the desire for that thing. Ya? Rex -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
The harmful effects of the consumption of intoxicants for the individual and its consequent effects on society are observable. The bans are in thus in the larger interest. However, if cannabis and other drugs have some medicinal benefits, then the research should continue to find the correct, beneficial use of them, as well as the side-effects. In Islam, consumption of intoxicants are discouraged. The arabic word used for intoxicants, in the Quran, is al-khamr. The root alphabets of the word are kh-m-r which means to cover or hide something. Intoxicants, it implies, cover the intellect, and thus are discouraged. It is explained: [Quran 2:219] They ask you about intoxicants and games of chance. Say: In both of them there is a great sin and means of profit for men, and their sin is greater than their profit... The word used for sin also means frustration; tiredness; laziness. Thus, I gather, both mind and body eventually suffer from the harmful effects of the intoxicant, and thus the negatives far outweigh the benefits. Initially, the believers were advised to pray when in a clear state of mind, and not when under the influence of intoxicants: : [Quran 4:43] O you who believe! do not go near prayer when you are Intoxicated until you know (well) what you say,... Gradually, they were exhorted to refrain from it altogether: [Quran 5:90] O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan's handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper. References: [Quran 2:219] http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=2from_verse=218to_verse=220mac=translation_setting=1show_yusufali=1show_shakir=1show_pickthal=1show_mkhan=1show_urdu=1 [Quran 4:43] http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=4from_verse=42to_verse=44mac=translation_setting=1show_yusufali=1show_shakir=1show_pickthal=1show_mkhan=1show_urdu=1 [Quran 5:90] http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=5from_verse=89to_verse=92mac=translation_setting=1show_yusufali=1show_shakir=1show_pickthal=1show_mkhan=1show_urdu=1 Samiya On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 3:52 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/18/2014 7:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: What society thinks has nothing to do with it, because weak correlation-based scientific evidence is used selectively to create laws that were desired a priori by some interest group. That implies some nefarious motive and corrupt use of data known to be wrong. In fact there was no nefarious 'interest group' that wanted to ban marijuana or to ban alcohol or to ban heroin. All these bans were initiated by people who believed in the ill effects of these substances for individuals and for society. In many cases they had personal experience. That the bans may have given rise to criminal activities to circumvent them, isn't to the point of their origin. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 19-Apr-2014, at 1:15 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 19 Apr 2014, at 08:42, Samiya Illias wrote: The harmful effects of the consumption of intoxicants for the individual and its consequent effects on society are observable. The bans are in thus in the larger interest. This does not follow. Banning intoxicant augments the intoxicant consumption, and so, if that is bad, it leads to the contrary effect than the one desired. Agree to disagree :) However, if cannabis and other drugs have some medicinal benefits, then the research should continue to find the correct, beneficial use of them, as well as the side-effects. Sure. In Islam, consumption of intoxicants are discouraged. The arabic word used for intoxicants, in the Quran, is al-khamr. The root alphabets of the word are kh-m-r which means to cover or hide something. Intoxicants, it implies, cover the intellect, and thus are discouraged. Does it? The Sufi thinks differently (as you know and can see by searching sufi drug use. For them, some psychotropic does not cover the intellect, but discover it. I am aware of the Sufi branch and thought. However, I am only quoting the Quran, the original Arabic text, which all sects agree upon as the Book revealed to Prophet Muhammad, which has not undergone any change, and is preserved in written form as well as in the memory of millions of human beings till this day. If something is intoxicating the mind, then how can it be considered safe to 'discover the intellect' unless the intellect has not yet been discovered? ;) In that case, in the absence of an active intellect, can such a person be expected to making a rational decision of choosing whether or not to 'use the drug'?? It is explained: [Quran 2:219] They ask you about intoxicants and games of chance. Say: In both of them there is a great sin and means of profit for men, and their sin is greater than their profit... That is an authoritative argument. You must understand that this is not a good point for the Quran, or that interpretation of the Quran. How can *you* be sure if the prophet did not misunderstood God? The original Arabic words of the Quran have not suffered any change over the centuries. They are not the words of the Prophet. He was only the messenger, transmitting the revelation as received. Have you come across any human book which has about 6236 sentences, and millions of people know it by heart completely, from beginning till end? This original manuscript is protected from human interpretation... The word used for sin also means frustration; tiredness; laziness. Thus, I gather, both mind and body eventually suffer from the harmful effects of the intoxicant, and thus the negatives far outweigh the benefits. Initially, the believers were advised to pray when in a clear state of mind, and not when under the influence of intoxicants: : [Quran 4:43] O you who believe! do not go near prayer when you are Intoxicated until you know (well) what you say,... Gradually, they were exhorted to refrain from it altogether: [Quran 5:90] O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan's handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper. References: [Quran 2:219] http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=2from_verse=218to_verse=220mac=translation_setting=1show_yusufali=1show_shakir=1show_pickthal=1show_mkhan=1show_urdu=1 [Quran 4:43] http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=4from_verse=42to_verse=44mac=translation_setting=1show_yusufali=1show_shakir=1show_pickthal=1show_mkhan=1show_urdu=1 [Quran 5:90] http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=5from_verse=89to_verse=92mac=translation_setting=1show_yusufali=1show_shakir=1show_pickthal=1show_mkhan=1show_urdu=1 Conventional religion have a tradition of forbidding anything which can lead to psychotropic experience, if not mystic experience, because they have decided of what is truth, and psychotropic experience are able to question it, and usually leads to making the doubt greater. In the religious matter, even more than in science, I think we cannot let other people think for you. Exactly! That is why we must not be under the influence of any intoxicant so as to be able to think clearly! In my religion, you can caricature the prophets, even God, and you can burn the sacred text without blaspheming, but then you *do* a genuine blasphem when you dare to talk in its name. If I'm misguided, then you are right. However, I earnestly believe that the Quran is God-sent and it helps us understand our purpose here on Earth, and where we are headed. You can only trust God to talk directly to the heart of the people. You can't suggest any action or inaction in its name, as it becomes
Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
There are many 'interesting' things to learn about Islam only if one is willing to look beyond the prejudices. The more one studies and contemplates on the Quran and the world, the more one falls in love with God. It is intoxicating, it's an amazing feeling! Samiya On 19-Apr-2014, at 6:12 pm, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Interesting, however, religion itself can an intoxicant, with the promise of paradise with many, many, willing females, and wine is permitted, and eternal life, if one merely, throws caution to wind and becomes a shaheed. What are a few years in this valley of tears, compared to paradise? An intoxicant indeed for the faithful. In Islam, consumption of intoxicants are discouraged. The arabic word used for intoxicants, in the Quran, is al-khamr. The root alphabets of the word are kh-m-r which means to cover or hide something. Intoxicants, it implies, cover the intellect, and thus are discouraged -Original Message- From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Apr 19, 2014 2:42 am Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. The harmful effects of the consumption of intoxicants for the individual and its consequent effects on society are observable. The bans are in thus in the larger interest. However, if cannabis and other drugs have some medicinal benefits, then the research should continue to find the correct, beneficial use of them, as well as the side-effects. In Islam, consumption of intoxicants are discouraged. The arabic word used for intoxicants, in the Quran, is al-khamr. The root alphabets of the word are kh-m-r which means to cover or hide something. Intoxicants, it implies, cover the intellect, and thus are discouraged. It is explained: [Quran 2:219] They ask you about intoxicants and games of chance. Say: In both of them there is a great sin and means of profit for men, and their sin is greater than their profit... The word used for sin also means frustration; tiredness; laziness. Thus, I gather, both mind and body eventually suffer from the harmful effects of the intoxicant, and thus the negatives far outweigh the benefits. Initially, the believers were advised to pray when in a clear state of mind, and not when under the influence of intoxicants: : [Quran 4:43] O you who believe! do not go near prayer when you are Intoxicated until you know (well) what you say,... Gradually, they were exhorted to refrain from it altogether: [Quran 5:90] O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan's handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper. References: [Quran 2:219] http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=2from_verse=218to_verse=220mac=translation_setting=1show_yusufali=1show_shakir=1show_pickthal=1show_mkhan=1show_urdu=1 [Quran 4:43] http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=4from_verse=42to_verse=44mac=translation_setting=1show_yusufali=1show_shakir=1show_pickthal=1show_mkhan=1show_urdu=1 [Quran 5:90] http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=5from_verse=89to_verse=92mac=translation_setting=1show_yusufali=1show_shakir=1show_pickthal=1show_mkhan=1show_urdu=1 Samiya On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 3:52 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/18/2014 7:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: What society thinks has nothing to do with it, because weak correlation-based scientific evidence is used selectively to create laws that were desired a priori by some interest group. That implies some nefarious motive and corrupt use of data known to be wrong. In fact there was no nefarious 'interest group' that wanted to ban marijuana or to ban alcohol or to ban heroin. All these bans were initiated by people who believed in the ill effects of these substances for individuals and for society. In many cases they had personal experience. That the bans may have given rise to criminal activities to circumvent them, isn't to the point of their origin. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com
Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
People do many strange and horrid things in the name of religion or nation or some other pretext. Violence has been perpetrated by the Crusaders, by the Nazis, by the Buddhists in Bhutan, by the Hindus in the Kashmir, Babri Masjid, by the Jews in Palestine, the Soviets in Afghanistan, the US and Allies in Iraq, and the list goes on... One must look beyond the people and evaluate religions for their message. Samiya spudboy100 wrote: Well, I am more focused on human behavior, and what happens to humans in this world. If such a spiritual intoxication leads to an ecstatic, plunge into violence, a holy violence, then a reasoning person may pause, and ponder what is lost, what is gained, and what is the damage done? Rather than focus on the internal realm of self, I concentrate, for now, on behavior. On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 9:26 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Well, I am more focused on human behavior, and what happens to humans in this world. If such a spiritual intoxication leads to an ecstatic, plunge into violence, a holy violence, then a reasoning person may pause, and ponder what is lost, what is gained, and what is the damage done? Rather than focus on the internal realm of self, I concentrate, for now, on behavior. There are many 'interesting' things to learn about Islam only if one is willing to look beyond the prejudices. The more one studies and contemplates on the Quran and the world, the more one falls in love with God. It is intoxicating, it's an amazing feeling! -Original Message- From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Apr 19, 2014 11:10 am Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. There are many 'interesting' things to learn about Islam only if one is willing to look beyond the prejudices. The more one studies and contemplates on the Quran and the world, the more one falls in love with God. It is intoxicating, it's an amazing feeling! Samiya On 19-Apr-2014, at 6:12 pm, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Interesting, however, religion itself can an intoxicant, with the promise of paradise with many, many, willing females, and wine is permitted, and eternal life, if one merely, throws caution to wind and becomes a shaheed. What are a few years in this valley of tears, compared to paradise? An intoxicant indeed for the faithful. In Islam, consumption of intoxicants are discouraged. The arabic word used for intoxicants, in the Quran, is al-khamr. The root alphabets of the word are kh-m-r which means to cover or hide something. Intoxicants, it implies, cover the intellect, and thus are discouraged -Original Message- From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Apr 19, 2014 2:42 am Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. The harmful effects of the consumption of intoxicants for the individual and its consequent effects on society are observable. The bans are in thus in the larger interest. However, if cannabis and other drugs have some medicinal benefits, then the research should continue to find the correct, beneficial use of them, as well as the side-effects. In Islam, consumption of intoxicants are discouraged. The arabic word used for intoxicants, in the Quran, is al-khamr. The root alphabets of the word are kh-m-r which means to cover or hide something. Intoxicants, it implies, cover the intellect, and thus are discouraged. It is explained: [Quran 2:219] They ask you about intoxicants and games of chance. Say: In both of them there is a great sin and means of profit for men, and their sin is greater than their profit... The word used for sin also means frustration; tiredness; laziness. Thus, I gather, both mind and body eventually suffer from the harmful effects of the intoxicant, and thus the negatives far outweigh the benefits. Initially, the believers were advised to pray when in a clear state of mind, and not when under the influence of intoxicants: : [Quran 4:43] O you who believe! do not go near prayer when you are Intoxicated until you know (well) what you say,... Gradually, they were exhorted to refrain from it altogether: [Quran 5:90] O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan's handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper. References: [Quran 2:219] http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=2from_verse=218to_verse=220mac=translation_setting=1show_yusufali=1show_shakir=1show_pickthal=1show_mkhan=1show_urdu=1 [Quran 4:43] http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=4from_verse=42to_verse=44mac=translation_setting=1show_yusufali=1show_shakir=1show_pickthal=1show_mkhan=1show_urdu=1 [Quran 5:90] http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=5from_verse=89to_verse=92mac
Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
Chris, I was replying to Spudboy100 who refuses to consider the Quran because of the 'jihadis' 'behavoir' . The point I was trying to make is that some people, from all religious persuasions, do strange and at times horrible things. We need to look past people and their behaviours, and examine the religious texts to evaluate for ourselves what it is. We are all responsible for our own beliefs and actions. We come to this world alone, we will leave it alone. What religious label we are born in, which religious label or not we choose, eventually we all must face death alone, and whatever's beyond that. Wishing it away because some people are poor ambassadors or poor communicators of the message, won't change things according to our wishes. We humans have intelligence and a vast wondrous world full of thoughts and ideas and science and signs... we must explore everything we can for its own merit before discarding it. On this Everything list, I see earnest seekers exploring almost everything, but somehow they stop short of scripture, especially Quran. I understand much of this has to do with a filtered view of history, long-held prejudices, popular media, as well as the actions of people who poorly understand or use the religion, etc. The thing is, to understand everything, we must be willing to explore everything. To answer your question, you may find these versions of history different from what you may know about Muslim conquests: http://lostislamichistory.com/did-islam-spread-by-the-sword/ http://lostislamichistory.com/?s=crusades http://lostislamichistory.com/the-crusades-part-3-liberation/ Samiya On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote: Samiya – Has Islam never participated in perpetrating violence against others; in conquest? Islam is as guilty as the other Abrahamic faiths, as an agent of violence in human history. Chris *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Samiya Illias *Sent:* Saturday, April 19, 2014 9:57 AM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. People do many strange and horrid things in the name of religion or nation or some other pretext. Violence has been perpetrated by the Crusaders, by the Nazis, by the Buddhists in Bhutan, by the Hindus in the Kashmir, Babri Masjid, by the Jews in Palestine, the Soviets in Afghanistan, the US and Allies in Iraq, and the list goes on... One must look beyond the people and evaluate religions for their message. Samiya spudboy100 wrote: Well, I am more focused on human behavior, and what happens to humans in this world. If such a spiritual intoxication leads to an ecstatic, plunge into violence, a holy violence, then a reasoning person may pause, and ponder what is lost, what is gained, and what is the damage done? Rather than focus on the internal realm of self, I concentrate, for now, on behavior. On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 9:26 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Well, I am more focused on human behavior, and what happens to humans in this world. If such a spiritual intoxication leads to an ecstatic, plunge into violence, a holy violence, then a reasoning person may pause, and ponder what is lost, what is gained, and what is the damage done? Rather than focus on the internal realm of self, I concentrate, for now, on behavior. There are many 'interesting' things to learn about Islam only if one is willing to look beyond the prejudices. The more one studies and contemplates on the Quran and the world, the more one falls in love with God. It is intoxicating, it's an amazing feeling! -Original Message- From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Apr 19, 2014 11:10 am Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. There are many 'interesting' things to learn about Islam only if one is willing to look beyond the prejudices. The more one studies and contemplates on the Quran and the world, the more one falls in love with God. It is intoxicating, it's an amazing feeling! Samiya On 19-Apr-2014, at 6:12 pm, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Interesting, however, religion itself can an intoxicant, with the promise of paradise with many, many, willing females, and wine is permitted, and eternal life, if one merely, throws caution to wind and becomes a shaheed. What are a few years in this valley of tears, compared to paradise? An intoxicant indeed for the faithful. In Islam, consumption of intoxicants are discouraged. The arabic word used for intoxicants, in the Quran, is al-khamr. The root alphabets of the word are kh-m-r which means to cover or hide something. Intoxicants, it implies, cover the intellect, and thus are discouraged -Original Message- From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list
Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 1:53 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 19 Apr 2014, at 12:35, Samiya Illias wrote: On 19-Apr-2014, at 1:15 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 19 Apr 2014, at 08:42, Samiya Illias wrote: The harmful effects of the consumption of intoxicants for the individual and its consequent effects on society are observable. The bans are in thus in the larger interest. This does not follow. Banning intoxicant augments the intoxicant consumption, and so, if that is bad, it leads to the contrary effect than the one desired. Agree to disagree :) Even when a turkish sultana condemned smoking tobacco by having the head off, the consumption of tobacco grew. Now, when a religion is related to the state, some religious prohibition might work, but I was thinking to laic multi-confessional countries. However, if cannabis and other drugs have some medicinal benefits, then the research should continue to find the correct, beneficial use of them, as well as the side-effects. Sure. In Islam, consumption of intoxicants are discouraged. The arabic word used for intoxicants, in the Quran, is al-khamr. The root alphabets of the word are kh-m-r which means to cover or hide something. Intoxicants, it implies, cover the intellect, and thus are discouraged. Does it? The Sufi thinks differently (as you know and can see by searching sufi drug use. For them, some psychotropic does not cover the intellect, but discover it. I am aware of the Sufi branch and thought. However, I am only quoting the Quran, the original Arabic text, which all sects agree upon as the Book revealed to Prophet Muhammad, which has not undergone any change, and is preserved in written form as well as in the memory of millions of human beings till this day. The muslims I know disagree on many verses. I am not sure such text are easy to interpret. Even arithmetic is not that easy to interpret. Yet you work with arithmetic, explore comp and try to understand :) If something is intoxicating the mind, then how can it be considered safe to 'discover the intellect' unless the intellect has not yet been discovered? ;) It can be a reminiscence :) In that case, in the absence of an active intellect, can such a person be expected to making a rational decision of choosing whether or not to 'use the drug'?? The decision has to be done before taking the drug. Yes, there is always a risk, and nobody should push you, and that is another reason to make it legal, at least in laïc countries. To avoid unscrupulous street dealers pushing weak people to buy rotten psychotropic. (and to avoid legal drug dealer not trying to cure you). It is explained: [Quran 2:219] They ask you about intoxicants and games of chance. Say: In both of them there is a great sin and means of profit for men, and their sin is greater than their profit... That is an authoritative argument. You must understand that this is not a good point for the Quran, or that interpretation of the Quran. How can *you* be sure if the prophet did not misunderstood God? The original Arabic words of the Quran have not suffered any change over the centuries. That might not necessarily be a good sign. What do you mean? They are not the words of the Prophet. He was only the messenger, transmitting the revelation as received. Asserting this might not add sense to me. I respect your belief, but I will be vigilant about you respecting possible other beliefs. Fair enough Have you come across any human book which has about 6236 sentences, and millions of people know it by heart completely, from beginning till end? You are not reassuring me, here. Just pointing out a unique miracle that I know not of any other book. I do not understand your comment. This original manuscript is protected from human interpretation... My question is: what if a young person tells you, I don't want to study by heart the Quran, I want to study by heart the Bhagavad-Gita? Will that person keep a decent life in your neighborhood? The question is besides the point: can the Bhagavad-Gita or any other book be memorized by heart, from beginning till end, word by word, in the original language? Do millions of people already know it by heart, so that the authenticity of the original text can be verified by cross-checking various sources? There are many decent people on all communities and societies who have different sets of beliefs and religions, as well as different sects within the same religion. I have Hindu and Christian neighbours, and that's fine. Saudi arabis just decided to make atheism illegal. Do we agree that this should not be tolerated? I am not an atheist, but I consider that each human can think for himself, as long as it does not impose its idea by dishonest means or violence, threat, etc. The word used for sin also means frustration; tiredness
Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 8:34 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 20 April 2014 15:15, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Chris, I was replying to Spudboy100 who refuses to consider the Quran because of the 'jihadis' 'behavoir' . The point I was trying to make is that some people, from all religious persuasions, do strange and at times horrible things. We need to look past people and their behaviours, and examine the religious texts to evaluate for ourselves what it is. We are all responsible for our own beliefs and actions. We come to this world alone, we will leave it alone. What religious label we are born in, which religious label or not we choose, eventually we all must face death alone, and whatever's beyond that. Wishing it away because some people are poor ambassadors or poor communicators of the message, won't change things according to our wishes. We humans have intelligence and a vast wondrous world full of thoughts and ideas and science and signs... we must explore everything we can for its own merit before discarding it. On this Everything list, I see earnest seekers exploring almost everything, but somehow they stop short of scripture, especially Quran. I understand much of this has to do with a filtered view of history, long-held prejudices, popular media, as well as the actions of people who poorly understand or use the religion, etc. This is, at least in my case, due to a distrust of taking the authority of centuries-old texts when there is little to no evidence that any of them contain more than - at best - a slight grain of truth, and when from a present day perspective it is clear they were created for reasons well understood by psychologists (in particular, for social control). The thing is, to understand everything, we must be willing to explore everything. Including Uri Geller, UFOs, a thousand people who want to prove Einstein wrong, Borley Rectory, the people trying to sell me something from Nigeria, the Loch Ness monster, Ouija boards, Thor, Zeus, Odin and so on - yes, no doubt one shouldn't dismiss anything, but life's too short not to prioritise. Too short, yes! Prioritize, yes! Especially because if there is a purpose to this life, and especially if there is more to life after death, and if this short life is but a test, whose result is eternal, then we better study earnestly. Difficult, yes, impossible, no! Samiya -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind. -Albert Einstein On 20-Apr-2014, at 9:59 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. -- Steven Weinberg On 20 April 2014 16:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/19/2014 9:01 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: Including Uri Geller, UFOs, a thousand people who want to prove Einstein wrong, Borley Rectory, the people trying to sell me something from Nigeria, the Loch Ness monster, Ouija boards, Thor, Zeus, Odin and so on - yes, no doubt one shouldn't dismiss anything, but life's too short not to prioritise. Too short, yes! Prioritize, yes! Especially because if there is a purpose to this life, and especially if there is more to life after death, and if this short life is but a test, whose result is eternal, then we better study earnestly. Difficult, yes, impossible, no! It's an incredible con job when you think of it, to believe something now in exchange for life after death. Even corporations with all their reward systems don't try to make it posthumous. Gloria Steinem, women's rights activist -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 20-Apr-2014, at 9:24 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 20 April 2014 16:01, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 8:34 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 20 April 2014 15:15, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Chris, I was replying to Spudboy100 who refuses to consider the Quran because of the 'jihadis' 'behavoir' . The point I was trying to make is that some people, from all religious persuasions, do strange and at times horrible things. We need to look past people and their behaviours, and examine the religious texts to evaluate for ourselves what it is. We are all responsible for our own beliefs and actions. We come to this world alone, we will leave it alone. What religious label we are born in, which religious label or not we choose, eventually we all must face death alone, and whatever's beyond that. Wishing it away because some people are poor ambassadors or poor communicators of the message, won't change things according to our wishes. We humans have intelligence and a vast wondrous world full of thoughts and ideas and science and signs... we must explore everything we can for its own merit before discarding it. On this Everything list, I see earnest seekers exploring almost everything, but somehow they stop short of scripture, especially Quran. I understand much of this has to do with a filtered view of history, long-held prejudices, popular media, as well as the actions of people who poorly understand or use the religion, etc. This is, at least in my case, due to a distrust of taking the authority of centuries-old texts when there is little to no evidence that any of them contain more than - at best - a slight grain of truth, and when from a present day perspective it is clear they were created for reasons well understood by psychologists (in particular, for social control). The thing is, to understand everything, we must be willing to explore everything. Including Uri Geller, UFOs, a thousand people who want to prove Einstein wrong, Borley Rectory, the people trying to sell me something from Nigeria, the Loch Ness monster, Ouija boards, Thor, Zeus, Odin and so on - yes, no doubt one shouldn't dismiss anything, but life's too short not to prioritise. Too short, yes! Prioritize, yes! Especially because if there is a purpose to this life, and especially if there is more to life after death, and if this short life is but a test, whose result is eternal, then we better study earnestly. Difficult, yes, impossible, no! Hmm. Pascal's wager, no less. So which of the 1000s of Gods people have invented, I mean discovered through divine revelation, should one bet on (and why) ? The one that you truly believe in, based upon all the study and contemplation you can put in. Not bet upon any arbitrarily, rather search and find faith. :) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 1:16 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 20 April 2014 18:52, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: So which of the 1000s of Gods people have invented, I mean discovered through divine revelation, should one bet on (and why) ? The one that you truly believe in, based upon all the study and contemplation you can put in. Not bet upon any arbitrarily, rather search and find faith. To me, god is a non-answer. Where did god come from? I don't think anybody has the answer to that. The mind keeps going back to who created the world, and who created the universe, and what was before that, and who created what was before it, and before it, till we are either left with nothing and chance and chaos, or an unexplained, incomprehensible, initiator we call God. For those who think its nothing and chance and chaos that we come from, then the question is settled as far as they themselves are concerned. But for those of us who think that there is this God, and everything has been created, the question arises: why? That is the answer we search for. So far the only ontologies that don't seem to merely push the question back a step are ones like Bruno's comp, Russell's theory of nothing or Max Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
Liz, Pascal's wager is not good enough. Its not as simple as placing a bet. We are fairly warned that those who claim to be Muslims will be tried and tested. To hear how Yusuf Estes was tested: Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTIBC80cBAQ Relevant verses: [Quran 29:2] Do people think that they will be left alone because they say: We believe, and will not be tested [Quran 76:2] Lo! We create human from a drop of thickened fluid to test him; so We make him hearing, knowing Samiya On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 9:24 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 20 April 2014 16:01, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 8:34 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 20 April 2014 15:15, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Chris, I was replying to Spudboy100 who refuses to consider the Quran because of the 'jihadis' 'behavoir' . The point I was trying to make is that some people, from all religious persuasions, do strange and at times horrible things. We need to look past people and their behaviours, and examine the religious texts to evaluate for ourselves what it is. We are all responsible for our own beliefs and actions. We come to this world alone, we will leave it alone. What religious label we are born in, which religious label or not we choose, eventually we all must face death alone, and whatever's beyond that. Wishing it away because some people are poor ambassadors or poor communicators of the message, won't change things according to our wishes. We humans have intelligence and a vast wondrous world full of thoughts and ideas and science and signs... we must explore everything we can for its own merit before discarding it. On this Everything list, I see earnest seekers exploring almost everything, but somehow they stop short of scripture, especially Quran. I understand much of this has to do with a filtered view of history, long-held prejudices, popular media, as well as the actions of people who poorly understand or use the religion, etc. This is, at least in my case, due to a distrust of taking the authority of centuries-old texts when there is little to no evidence that any of them contain more than - at best - a slight grain of truth, and when from a present day perspective it is clear they were created for reasons well understood by psychologists (in particular, for social control). The thing is, to understand everything, we must be willing to explore everything. Including Uri Geller, UFOs, a thousand people who want to prove Einstein wrong, Borley Rectory, the people trying to sell me something from Nigeria, the Loch Ness monster, Ouija boards, Thor, Zeus, Odin and so on - yes, no doubt one shouldn't dismiss anything, but life's too short not to prioritise. Too short, yes! Prioritize, yes! Especially because if there is a purpose to this life, and especially if there is more to life after death, and if this short life is but a test, whose result is eternal, then we better study earnestly. Difficult, yes, impossible, no! Hmm. Pascal's wager, no less. So which of the 1000s of Gods people have invented, I mean discovered through divine revelation, should one bet on (and why) ? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
Liz, I gather from some of your posts that you're an author? Is it humanly possible for you to author a book spread over 23 years, writing 'occasion/event-relevant' sentences, and then compiling it, such that the book is tightly bound in a grid of a prime number, to protect it from any alterations? On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 5:26 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On the subject of the miracle of number 19 in the Qur'an, has anyone read Martin Gardner's article on the miracle of the number 5 in the Empire State Building? (Or the not-such-a-miracle of pi in the great pyramid...) With enough data and ingenuity and willing to not be too rigorous, one can find number coincidences in anything. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Microbes do combinatorial communication
Does scientific research back the claims made in this article? Samiya Amoebic Morality http://www.damninteresting.com/amoebic-morality/ [image: Dictyostelium discoideum composite photo, Copyright © M.J. Grimson R.L. Blanton; Biological Sciences Electron Microscopy Laboratory, Texas Tech University] Dictyostelium discoideum composite photo, Copyright © M.J. Grimson R.L. Blanton; Biological Sciences Electron Microscopy Laboratory, Texas Tech University Once food had been plentiful, but no longer. In the early days of the colony, the amoebas had feasted on a rich supply of bacteria. But as the generations passed and the population swelled, they had hunted out their food supply. Now starvation threatens. Their home-- a scrap of deer dung which once provided all their needs-- has become a trap which they must escape if they are to survive. At last, one amoeba sends out a cry for help. The starving amoeba begins to emit a chemical signal in the form of *cyclic adenosine monophosphate*, or cAMP. Nearby individuals sprout new pseudopods and crawl toward the source. They also begin to give off cAMP themselves, amplifying the call until the signal spreads to the far reaches of the colony. Amoebas cannot concurrently detect and produce cAMP, so they alternate, and the cells trace out intricate spiral patterns as they surge forward in waves. The amoebas pile on top of one another in growing numbers until so many of them have joined the heap that this pile of microscopic single-celled organisms becomes visible to the naked eye. At first their behavior might seem odd; to gather together in the face of starvation surely ought to end in cannibalism or death. Not so, for they are capable of an extraordinary and rare transformation. The amoebas set aside their lives as individuals and join ranks to form a new multicellular entity. Not all the amoebas will survive this cooperative venture, however. Some will sacrifice themselves to help the rest find a new life elsewhere. These astonishing creatures are *Dictyostelium discoideum*, and they are a member of the slime mold family. They are also known as social amoebas. Aside from the novelty value of an organism that alternates between unicellular and multicellular existence, D. discoideum is highly useful in several areas of research. Among other things, this organism offers a stellar opportunity to study cell communication, cell differentiation, and the evolution of altruism. In response to the cAMP distress call, up to one hundred thousand of the amoebas assemble. They first form a tower, which eventually topples over into an oblong blob about two millimeters long. The identical amoebas within this *pseudoplasmodium*-- or slug-- begin to differentiate and take on specialized roles. The slug begins to seek out light, leaving a slimy trail behind. Some of the amoebas take on the difficult role of sentinel, or immune-like functions. They circulate through the slug, hunting for pathogens. If they find any, they will engulf them in a process similar to the feeding behavior they once displayed when in solitary form. The pseudoplasmodium periodically sloughs off the sentinels-- and any pathogens they have engulfed-- and abandons them in the trail of slime. More cells will then be tapped to fill their place. [image: Dictyostelium discoideum slug] Dictyostelium discoideum slug Once the slug finds a suitably sunny location, the unlucky cells at the head of the slug form a stalk for the others to climb. These cells--which make up roughly a fifth of the total population--will sacrifice themselves in order to provide a path up for their comrades. The remaining cells then climb the stalk and collect on its tip, eventually resulting in a structure resembling a ping-pong ball balanced on top of a floppy wire. This formation is known as a fruiting body. They then form spores, which are carried away by wind or passing animals or insects. Once carried to a suitable location, the amoebas emerge from spore form and begin the cycle again. So long as all the amoebas which make up the slug are related, this impressive display of self-sacrifice on the part of the stalk cells makes sense. Though they will perish in the act of creating the stalk, they will pass along their genetic legacy via their kin. In fact, when the amoebas reproduce by division, they create an ever-increasing pool of genetically identical clones. These clones suffer no genetic cost at all from sacrificing their lives for each other. More familiar multicellular organisms pool resources in a similar way. For example, in a human being, a liver cell fills a very different role from a lung or skin cell, but all of them harbor the same chromosomes. The result is that the liver doesn't need to compete with the lungs concerning reproduction. So long as the germ cells get lucky, all of the cells can be (metaphorically) content knowing they will pass on their genetic legacy. However, when the cAMP call goes out, it isn't
Consciousness: Emotions Feelings
An interesting conversation: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/feeling-our-emotions/?page=1 Bruno, can this be developed in a machine? Samiya *MIND*: Do you believe that we will someday be able to create artificial consciousness and feelings? *Damasio*: An organism can possess feelings only when it can create a representation of the body's functions and the related changes that occur in the brain. In this way, the organism can perceive them. Without this mechanism there would be no consciousness. It is unclear that this could ever develop in a machine or whether we really want machines with feelings. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Consciousness: Emotions Feelings
Thanks, Bruno. Quite profound: 'To be or not to be' ... 'I don't want to be here' ! Samiya On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 29 Apr 2014, at 12:00, Samiya Illias wrote: An interesting conversation: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/feeling-our-emotions/?page=1 Bruno, can this be developed in a machine? I agree with large parts of Damasio, and disagree on others. Alas, he is still not aware of the consequence of mechanism, (like most brain scientists), and I disagree with his interpretation of Descartes (but that is another topic). Yes, we are driven by emotion. The intellect is a recent development in our history. It is the passage from eaten or to be eaten to to be or not to be. Keep in mind that computationalism is the assumption that *you* are already a machine, and so, trivially, comp takes into account all your emotion. If you survive a teleportation, but would lose your emotion, comp would be false. By definition, your entire mental universe, including faith, emotion, reason, ... is preserved. The body ([]p) is only a finite local representation of you, but you comes as much from the truth than from that self-representation. Personal consciousness, the maker of sense, start from the intersection of truth and bodily-beliefs: the []p p. Consciousness is semantical, and is more on the side of p, in the []p p. Somehow, the intellect (mind, machine) []p is a filter of that consciousness p. emotion is our oldest language, with a quick evaluation of the adequacy of a chemical environment. Our olfactive neurons have special relationship with the region of the brain related to emotions, which witness that fact, and people know how much a smell can trigger souvenir charged with emotion. This is also well illustrated in the following video. Although the paramecia are a bit slow figuring what happened, they got eventually the point; probably not in the shape Gosh I am eaten by an amoeba, but more something like I don't want to be here and I have to try to escape at all cost. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvOz4V699gk Bruno Samiya *MIND*: Do you believe that we will someday be able to create artificial consciousness and feelings? *Damasio*: An organism can possess feelings only when it can create a representation of the body's functions and the related changes that occur in the brain. In this way, the organism can perceive them. Without this mechanism there would be no consciousness. It is unclear that this could ever develop in a machine or whether we really want machines with feelings. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Evolution from Scripture
Evolution and Creationism are generally considered to be opposing world views. This article attempts to prove from Scripture the existence of humans pre-dating Adam, thereby showing that evolution is not opposed to creationism, rather it is one of the methods of creation: http://can-you-answer.com/scripts/miscArticles.asp?artno=92 Samiya -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Evolution from Scripture
Proof is the domain of science. Scripture guides the way for those who believe. For those who believe theology to be a valid area of study, it is interesting to find that though the scriptures may be ancient, yet they are still relevant to modern age / scientific knowledge, and thus should not be discarded, rather a careful study has much to offer to those seeking a Theory of Everything. Samiya On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote: So what? If valid, one can probably prove anything from the Bible. On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 08:35:30AM +0500, Samiya Illias wrote: Evolution and Creationism are generally considered to be opposing world views. This article attempts to prove from Scripture the existence of humans pre-dating Adam, thereby showing that evolution is not opposed to creationism, rather it is one of the methods of creation: http://can-you-answer.com/scripts/miscArticles.asp?artno=92 Samiya -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Evolution from Scripture
On 02-May-2014, at 11:03 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/1/2014 9:08 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: Proof is the domain of science. Scripture guides the way for those who believe. For those who believe theology to be a valid area of study, it is interesting to find that though the scriptures may be ancient, yet they are still relevant to modern age / scientific knowledge, and thus should not be discarded, rather a careful study has much to offer to those seeking a Theory of Everything. Bruno's a big proponent of studying theology; so maybe you'll convince him. Not trying to convince anyone. Just sharing so that whoever finds it worth considering considers. Samiya Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Evolution from Scripture
John asks: Name one scientific fact in the Bible or the Koran that you wouldn't expect members of a Bronze Age tribe in 1500BC to know. 1. Worker honey bees who collect food are females 2. More than one stomach in a honey bee's body 3. Description of human embryo which can only be studied with a microscope 4. Sex of the baby determined by the father's semen 5. Lying is associated with the frontal brain 6. Shape of the Earth is ovoid 7. Iron is not indigenous to Earth 8. Time is relative You can explore these and more topics on the following links: http://www.speed-light.info/miracles_of_quran/ http://www.4islam.com/amazingquran.shtml John asks: And why do both books give so much moral advice that today we can only describe as evil? Why is the God of the Bible such a moral imbecile? 1. The scriptures need to be studied with reference to context. 2. The scriptures have suffered alterations, so that we do need to be very careful in the study and assess them against sound moral principles, scientific knowledge and cross-check with itself and other scriptures. 3. Only the arabic text of the Quran has not suffered changes, yet still one needs to be careful with the translations and interpretations. 4. I find the moral advice in the Quran to be based upon beautiful moral principles. 5. God is loving, kind and compassionate. Samiya On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 8:40 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.comwrote: Proof is the domain of science. Proof is the domain of mathematics, science can never prove that a idea is correct, it can only prove that something is wrong. Scripture guides the way for those who believe. Scripture, that is to say the silly myths of bronze age tribes, are either capable of guiding our way or they aren't, belief has nothing to do with it. What the faithful believe is that a conscious intelligent being created the universe and thinks that the ultimate virtue is believing in something when there is absolutely no reason for doing so, and the more ridiculous the belief the more virtuous it is. I frankly have great difficulty understanding why a omnipotent omniscient being would think that faith (that is to say stupidity) is a virtue let alone the most important one, but I find it extraordinarily easy to understand why a human prophet who wishes to gain control over his fellow human beings would push this idea, it turns the weakness and inconsistency of the mountebank's spiel into a strength. For those who believe theology to be a valid area of study, A understanding of theology is about as useful in understanding the universe as knowledge of Mother Goose is, and expeditions to find Noah's Ark are as intellectually deep as expeditions to find the giant shoe the old lady lived in who had so many children she didn't know what to do. Richard Dawkins recounts the time he was at a party and somebody asked an Oxford astronomer why there was something rather than nothing, the astronomer said Ah, now we move beyond the realm of science. This is where I have to hand over to our good friend the chaplain. Dawkins said I was not quick-witted enough to utter the response that I later wrote: 'But why the chaplain? Why not the gardener or the chef?' Why are scientists so cravenly respectful towards the ambitions of theologians, over questions that theologians are certainly no more qualified to answer than scientists themselves? it is interesting to find that though the scriptures may be ancient, yet they are still relevant to modern age / scientific knowledge, Name one scientific fact in the Bible or the Koran that you wouldn't expect members of a Bronze Age tribe in 1500BC to know. And why do both books give so much moral advice that today we can only describe as evil? Why is the God of the Bible such a moral imbecile? and thus should not be discarded, So you think Jeremiah 19:9 should not be discarded: And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend; you think we should follow Yahweh's example and force people we don't like to eat their children and friends. Is that what you really want? If not then you too think that very very large parts of scripture should not only be discarded but spit upon. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Re: Evolution from Scripture
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 9:28 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 May 2014, at 05:35, Samiya Illias wrote: Evolution and Creationism are generally considered to be opposing world views. This article attempts to prove from Scripture the existence of humans pre-dating Adam, thereby showing that evolution is not opposed to creationism, rather it is one of the methods of creation: http://can-you-answer.com/scripts/miscArticles.asp?artno=92 He wrote I will welcome any objection, I will reply with great efforts or accept defeat with full grace. . That is very nice, but he does not give the comment ability on the page. So Then he uses the Quran as a literal apparently authoritative source. Only that is not playing the fair rule for that type of argument. perhaps he makes clear on some other page, but for a cold outsider logician, that begs many questions. I don't know Samiya. I tend to believe that we are locally colony of cells, and that each cells is itself an older colony of bacteria, and that those cells are type of colony of molecules, going through some improving self-stabilizing chemical reaction. The bible 'Genesis is a wonderful tale, and it might taught us something, but I don't believe in any literal meaning of it. Evolution is not just random mutation and selection, it is an iteration of simple transformations, and that has mathematical shape (referring to some arithmetical (at least) truth. Evolution is guided by mathematical structure like the mandelbrot set, where you can find basically all natural shapes, from the thunder to fetuses, from river to brains, from forest to cities, and this surrounding itself everywhere 2 times, 4 times, 8 times, 16 times, ... (that might help for the measure problem in case the rational m set is a compact Turing complete set). I am afraid that your conception of God might be too much human and cultural, earthly provincial, I would say, with respect of the possible absolute whole. I understand the comfort for the humans in that type of thought, but to get light on the mind body problem, even with the comp assumption, we have to be open for something which might be much more big, and much more deep. How do you get that impression? I think that God is unknowable and incomprehensible. The more I study the Quran and the more I learn of research and discoveries on the frontiers of science, the more I'm filled with awe at the Majesty of God. God is above and beyond, greater than anything we can even begin to imagine. It may be that the comp God dislikes, eventually, those creatures who *assert publicly* that God prefers them to other creatures. Well, that seems to be true. In Quran 62:6, and other places, we read about God's dislike for people claiming preference over others in God's favour. God's mercy extends over all. You might have some experiences which can give that felling, but the more that experience is genuine, the less you invoke it, and the more you are cautious with respect to more and more creatures and type of creatures, I think. In fact you get even more skeptical on the very sense of you, and a fortiori of God. We do recognize the existence of other creatures. What do you mean by 'In fact you get even more skeptical on the very sense of you, and a fortiori of God.'? Samiya Sacred texts can be useful, but only as far as you can see the meaning behind the poetry, and can abandon them when progressing on your path. If not they became soon or later an obstacle. if you compare with machine's theology, we can say that Sufi, Kabbala and the mystic christians are less wrong, less influenced by maimonides' emphasis on the Aristotelian conception. That emphasis was useful for the development of science, but still wrong at the fundamental level. The sufi people, and the kabbalist have not cut the link with Platonism and the mystic message. In that direction, things like clay are but theologically irrelevant dreamy local implementation details. In the west, we are wrong on this plato/aristotle branching since the 6th century. In the middle-east, we are wrong on it since the 11th century, and in the far east, I don't know, but many doctrines are comp-theologically coherent. By wrong, I always mean making a big shift from what is more coherent with the comp assumption. Bruno *A screw has the nature of buddha* Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (Robert M. Pirsig) Samiya -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received
Honey Bee
[Quran 16:68-69] 68 And inspired your Lord to the Bee that Take [second person female singular] among the mountains houses, and among the trees, and in what they construct 69 Then/ Moreover eat [second person feminine singular] from all the fruits, and follow [second person female singular imperative] ways/paths, of your Lord, made smooth. Comes forth, from her [singular feminine] bellies [plural], a drink of varying colours. In it is a healing for the mankind. Arabic grammatical form of each word: http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=16verse=68 http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=16verse=69 National Geographic: http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/bugs/honeybee/ Worker honeybees are all females and are the only bees most people ever see. They forage for food and build and protect the hive, among many other societal functions. http://www.ontariohoney.ca/kids-zone/bee-facts Bees have two stomachs - one stomach for eating and the other special stomach is for storing nectar collected from flowers or water so that they can carry it back to their hive. http://www.newscientist.com/gallery/eof/4 Each lens is sensitive to ultraviolet light, which can reveal markings on flowers that are invisible to humans but inform the bees where to land in order to find nectar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_honey Health effects of honey Other links: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19526216.100-honey-is-the-bees-knees-for-staying-young.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128305.200-honeybee-antiwaggle-song-tells-others-to-buzz-off.html#.U2SgFvmSw2Y Please let me know if the above format is sufficient, or if i should add some explanation as well. Samiya -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Evolution from Scripture
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 03 May 2014, at 09:15, Kim Jones wrote: On 3 May 2014, at 4:59 pm, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Will do as separate threads, insha'Allah (if God wills) Samiya More than likely as YOU YOURSELF choose to. It’s the height of sophistry to give the Unknowable credit for your own decisions. Kim, I did not interpreted insha'Allah in that way. I think Samiya was saying I have taken the decision to do it ... unless some asteroids hit my town (or something else) preventing me to do it, in which case I would take that as a sign that God did not want me to do it Am I right Samiya? [Quran 18:23,24] And say not of anything: Lo! I shall do that tomorrow, Except if Allah will. And remember thy Lord when thou forgettest, and say: It may be that my Lord guideth me unto a nearer way of truth than this. http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=18 Samiya Bruno PS I have to go and will comment other posts this evening and tomorrow. Kim Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Honey Bee
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 9:24 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 4 May 2014 15:20, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: I have forwarded your query to an expert in Arabic Grammar. Your quote from Wikipedia is correct. What I can inform you, based on my understanding, is that the pronoun 'ha' used in the verse is for female singular with a plural masculine noun 'butuun' indicates that it is specifically about a female bee. OK. I hope you are prepared to accept that if Arabic gives genders to everything, including things which are in fact genderless (like tables), then that demolishes any claim that bees being described as female in ancient texts has any particular significance. I will look at the other claims once this one has been settled, if you don't mind. I think one at a time is best if we are attempting to establish the truth in each case. Sure, that's fine. Samiya -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Honey Bee
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 3:24 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, good point. It seems likely to me that people would notice that there was a queen bee who laid all the eggs, and perhaps make some assumptions based on that. If they noticed that the queen started as a normal worker but was fed special stuff to make her into the queen... well, people weren't stupid in those days! (Just badly informed on many matters).. In the interests of full disclosure, I should also quote the Bible. Proverbs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Proverbs, Chapter 6, verse 6: Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider *her *ways, and be wise. [Quran 27:18] Till, when they reached the Valley of the Ants, an (female) ant exclaimed: O ants! Enter your dwellings lest Solomon and his armies crush you, unperceiving. Worker ants are indeed female... and they too have queens... but as you say Samiya needs to show that this couldn't be ascertained, or reasonably assumed, by ancient people before he makes any claims about it being provided by divine inspiration (which I assume is his aim). I believe the scriptures were revealed by Divine decree. By sharing verses of scientific relevance from the Quran, I hope to establish that it is factually correct, and without any human errors, so that anyone who wishes may include it in their quest for scientific knowledge. Do my posts give an impression of being from a man, or do you also employ the general style of the Quran, of speaking in the male tense about living things, unless specifically speaking about a female? Not that I mind, but in the interest of being factually correct, the feminine pronoun will be more appropriate when referring to Samiya :) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Honey Bee
On 06-May-2014, at 6:20 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: As Dr Seuss might have put it, Sam - I - am - not! :) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Honey Bee
Posting the verses and science article links above your query, and response to your query below your it, for ease of reading: *Honey Bee* [Quran 16:68-69] 68 And inspired your Lord to the Bee that Take [second person female singular] among the mountains houses, and among the trees, and in what they construct 69 Then/ Moreover eat [second person feminine singular] from all the fruits, and follow [second person female singular imperative] ways/paths, of your Lord, made smooth. Comes forth, from her [singular feminine] bellies [plural], a drink of varying colours. In it is a healing for the mankind. Arabic grammatical form of each word: http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=16verse=68 http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=16verse=69 National Geographic: http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/bugs/honeybee/ Worker honeybees are all females and are the only bees most people ever see. They forage for food and build and protect the hive, among many other societal functions. https://insects.tamu.edu/continuing_ed/bee_biology/lectures/password/Internal_Anatomy_of_Honey_Bees_PN.pdf Food enters through the esophagus and enters the crop (aka honey stomach). Most digestion and absorption occurs in the midgut (a.k.a. small intestine). The small intestine opens to the rectum through which waste is expelled. http://beeinformed.org/2011/07/from-the-flower-to-the-hive/ http://beeinformed.org/2011/07/from-the-flower-to-the-hive/slide-b/ The crop and proventriculus make up what is referred to as the fore-gut while the ventriculus (stomach) and pyloric valve constitute what is otherwise known as the mid-gut. The small intestine and rectum form the region called the hind-gut. Each organ plays an integral role in digestion, absorption, and excrement. http://www.newscientist.com/gallery/eof/4 Each lens is sensitive to ultraviolet light, which can reveal markings on flowers that are invisible to humans but inform the bees where to land in order to find nectar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_honey Health effects of honey Other links: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19526216.100-honey-is-the-bees-knees-for-staying-young.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128305.200-honeybee-antiwaggle-song-tells-others-to-buzz-off.html#.U2SgFvmSw2Y On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 2:06 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: That's quite interesting. I assume Arabic is a language in which there are not normally masculine and feminine forms of nouns, since that would mean that there was a 50-50 chance of happening to get it right simply by luck. (For example, I'm sure the French would be overjoyed if all tables turned out to be female.) So I assume this is a language like English, with a non-gendered form for most things, and only gendered forms for things which are actually known to *have* genders, like animals and people. In that case it would be fairly startling if bees are specifically described as female when it would seem more natural to make them gender-neutral (as I believe they are in English). On the other hand, if Arabic commonly assigns random genders to genderless things (as French does with la table) then it would be fairly insignificant, and I would expect a detailed survey of all gender assignments to things that weren't known to have a specific gender to have a hit rate around 50%. According to Wikipedia, Nouns in Literary Arabic have three grammatical caseshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun_case (nominative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_case, accusativehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accusative_case, and genitive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genitive_case [also used when the noun is governed by a preposition]); threenumbershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_number (singular, dual and plural); *two **genders*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_(grammar)* (masculine and feminine)*; and three states (indefinite, definite, and constructhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_constructus ). I'm not very well up on languages, and there appear to be several varieties of Arabic, but that quote certainly appears to indicate there is no neutral form, like the German das (or the English the) but that *all* nouns in Arabic are assigned a gender, as in French (le or la). That would make the fact that bees are described as female simply a linguistic artefact that happens to have come out the right way (a 50% chance, as I said) rather than any deep insight into which gender they in fact are. Since it's fairly crucial to your argument, can you explain how gender assignment works in the particular form of Arabic that is being used in this case? PS By the way, what's this? Am I missing something? Here, the bee appears to be masculine. (16:68:4) l-naḥli http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=nHl#(16:68:4) the bee, http://corpus.quran.com/wordmorphology.jsp?location=(16:68:4) *N* – genitive masculine noun →
Re: Honey Bee
Links on Ant Communication below your comment: On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 9:42 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 5 May 2014 16:16, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 3:24 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, good point. It seems likely to me that people would notice that there was a queen bee who laid all the eggs, and perhaps make some assumptions based on that. If they noticed that the queen started as a normal worker but was fed special stuff to make her into the queen... well, people weren't stupid in those days! (Just badly informed on many matters).. In the interests of full disclosure, I should also quote the Bible. Proverbs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Proverbs, Chapter 6, verse 6: Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider *her *ways, and be wise. [Quran 27:18] Till, when they reached the Valley of the Ants, an (female) ant exclaimed: O ants! Enter your dwellings lest Solomon and his armies crush you, unperceiving. If scientists discover that ants can speak, you will definitely be onto something! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant#Communication Ants communicate with each other using pheromones, sounds, and touch... Some ants produce sounds by stridulation, using the gaster segments and their mandibles. Sounds may be used to communicate with colony members or with other species. link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs002650050292 ... The results support the hypothesis that leaf-cutting ant workers stridulate during cutting in order to recruit nestmates, and that the observed mechanical facilitation of stridulation is an epiphenomenon of recruitment communication. Worker ants are indeed female... and they too have queens... but as you say Samiya needs to show that this couldn't be ascertained, or reasonably assumed, by ancient people before he makes any claims about it being provided by divine inspiration (which I assume is his aim). I believe the scriptures were revealed by Divine decree. By sharing verses of scientific relevance from the Quran, I hope to establish that it is factually correct, and without any human errors, so that anyone who wishes may include it in their quest for scientific knowledge. In my opinion we have a long way to go on this front. Do my posts give an impression of being from a man, or do you also employ the general style of the Quran, of speaking in the male tense about living things, unless specifically speaking about a female? Not that I mind, but in the interest of being factually correct, the feminine pronoun will be more appropriate when referring to Samiya :) Oops, sorry. Most of the people who post here are male (or I should say, they have male names and / or avatars :) so I tend to assume people on this forum are male unless told otherwise. (PS - You have won the Turing Test, or is it the imitation game? You probably know the one I mean?) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Fwd: An interview based on Christopher Hitchen's book (parts 1 and 2)
Parts 1 2 of an interview based on Christopher Hitchen's book about God: Part 1: https://vimeo.com/94004548 Part 2: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=787228407968996 Samiya -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Pluto bounces back!
I won't be surprised if they eventually discover that there are a total of 11 or 12 planets in the solar system. [Al-Qur'an 12:4, Translator: Pickthall] When Joseph said unto his father: O my father! Lo! I saw in a dream eleven planets and the sun and the moon, I saw them prostrating themselves unto me. [Al-Qur'an 12:100, Translator: Pickthall] And he placed his parents on the dais and they fell down before him prostrate, and he said: O my father! This is the interpretation of my dream of old. My Lord hath made it true, and He hath shown me kindness, since He took me out of the prison and hath brought you from the desert after Satan had made strife between me and my brethren. Lo! my Lord is tender unto whom He will. He is the Knower, the Wise. Samiya http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/ On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:35 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Pluto Bids To Get Back Planetary Status Pluto has at least five moons, an atmosphere and now a new analysis places its diameter as bigger than its outer solar system rival Eris. http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/pluto-bids-for-planethood/?utm_source=twitterfeedutm_medium=twitter -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Pluto bounces back!
There is a debate between the interpretation of the word s-j-d. I assume it also means to become lowly, humble, submissive, and not only physical prostration. [http://www.tyndalearchive.com/tabs/lane/ Book 1 Page 1307 ] Summary of why is can't only mean physical prostration: http://www.mypercept.co.uk/articles/Summary-problems-sujud-prostration-Quran.html On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:10 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Does it also explain how planets prostrate themselves? On 28 May 2014 15:51, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: I won't be surprised if they eventually discover that there are a total of 11 or 12 planets in the solar system. [Al-Qur'an 12:4, Translator: Pickthall] When Joseph said unto his father: O my father! Lo! I saw in a dream eleven planets and the sun and the moon, I saw them prostrating themselves unto me. [Al-Qur'an 12:100, Translator: Pickthall] And he placed his parents on the dais and they fell down before him prostrate, and he said: O my father! This is the interpretation of my dream of old. My Lord hath made it true, and He hath shown me kindness, since He took me out of the prison and hath brought you from the desert after Satan had made strife between me and my brethren. Lo! my Lord is tender unto whom He will. He is the Knower, the Wise. Samiya http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/ On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:35 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Pluto Bids To Get Back Planetary Status Pluto has at least five moons, an atmosphere and now a new analysis places its diameter as bigger than its outer solar system rival Eris. http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/pluto-bids-for-planethood/?utm_source=twitterfeedutm_medium=twitter -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Pluto bounces back!
On 28-May-2014, at 9:32 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Here's page 1307 - I would prefer it if you quoted whatever it is you're referring to rather than giving a link to a (rather difficult to access) online book, because it doesn't mean much to me... I did give the alternate meanings of s-j-d. The link to the dictionary and the other one was in case you wanted to verify for yourself. Haven't heard further from you regarding the Honey Bee. As you requested that it be resolved before proceeding with other verses of scientific relevance, I haven't initiated any new topic. However, I've started a new blog which attempts to study the factual accuracy of the Quran. Here's the link in case you or anyone else on this list is interested: http://signsandscience.blogspot.com Samiya As for the second link, I don't understand what it says there either - it certainly isn't a very succinct summary. On 28 May 2014 16:19, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: There is a debate between the interpretation of the word s-j-d. I assume it also means to become lowly, humble, submissive, and not only physical prostration. [http://www.tyndalearchive.com/tabs/lane/ Book 1 Page 1307 ] Summary of why is can't only mean physical prostration: http://www.mypercept.co.uk/articles/Summary-problems-sujud-prostration-Quran.html On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:10 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Does it also explain how planets prostrate themselves? On 28 May 2014 15:51, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: I won't be surprised if they eventually discover that there are a total of 11 or 12 planets in the solar system. [Al-Qur'an 12:4, Translator: Pickthall] When Joseph said unto his father: O my father! Lo! I saw in a dream eleven planets and the sun and the moon, I saw them prostrating themselves unto me. [Al-Qur'an 12:100, Translator: Pickthall] And he placed his parents on the dais and they fell down before him prostrate, and he said: O my father! This is the interpretation of my dream of old. My Lord hath made it true, and He hath shown me kindness, since He took me out of the prison and hath brought you from the desert after Satan had made strife between me and my brethren. Lo! my Lord is tender unto whom He will. He is the Knower, the Wise. Samiya http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/ On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:35 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Pluto Bids To Get Back Planetary Status Pluto has at least five moons, an atmosphere and now a new analysis places its diameter as bigger than its outer solar system rival Eris. http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/pluto-bids-for-planethood/?utm_source=twitterfeedutm_medium=twitter -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received
Re: Pluto bounces back!
You assume that Islam is unethical. Quranic teachings are based on beautiful moral principles and enjoin ethical and just relations among people. The Quran repeatedly enjoins good actions, read it and you'll be amazed how far from truth all the negative propaganda against it is! Whether people study and follow the scripture or not is up to them. If we start following the guidance, most of the social evils will be weeded out. Sadly, you confuse peoples' thoughts, behaviour and actions with the message itself. It really doesn't matter if we label ourselves as Muslims, Jews, or any other religion or not, or if we are a member of the clergy or hold any leadership position in the community, it is basically our beliefs, intentions and actions that make us who we are and which we carry with us when we depart from this life. Samiya On 28-May-2014, at 8:52 pm, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: For me, its the actual physical, ethics, that need to be tuned up. Getting to paradise, however delightful, over someone's dead body is unethical. Morality, is between humans and God technically, but ethics is between people. God, as he exists, can take care of himself, but the all the humbleness in the world, devotion, passion, cannot correct issues, if the Imams, and Muftis, instruct otherwise. Even if the Koran, Soonah, and Bukhari are all God given and have predictions that only God would know, it does no good if the earth gets drowned in blood by seekers of paradise. Unhelpful indeed. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, May 28, 2014 12:32 am Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back! Here's page 1307 - I would prefer it if you quoted whatever it is you're referring to rather than giving a link to a (rather difficult to access) online book, because it doesn't mean much to me... page1307.png As for the second link, I don't understand what it says there either - it certainly isn't a very succinct summary. On 28 May 2014 16:19, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: There is a debate between the interpretation of the word s-j-d. I assume it also means to become lowly, humble, submissive, and not only physical prostration. [http://www.tyndalearchive.com/tabs/lane/ Book 1 Page 1307 ] Summary of why is can't only mean physical prostration: http://www.mypercept.co.uk/articles/Summary-problems-sujud-prostration-Quran.html On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:10 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Does it also explain how planets prostrate themselves? On 28 May 2014 15:51, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: I won't be surprised if they eventually discover that there are a total of 11 or 12 planets in the solar system. [Al-Qur'an 12:4, Translator: Pickthall] When Joseph said unto his father: O my father! Lo! I saw in a dream eleven planets and the sun and the moon, I saw them prostrating themselves unto me. [Al-Qur'an 12:100, Translator: Pickthall] And he placed his parents on the dais and they fell down before him prostrate, and he said: O my father! This is the interpretation of my dream of old. My Lord hath made it true, and He hath shown me kindness, since He took me out of the prison and hath brought you from the desert after Satan had made strife between me and my brethren. Lo! my Lord is tender unto whom He will. He is the Knower, the Wise. Samiya http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/ On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:35 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Pluto Bids To Get Back Planetary Status Pluto has at least five moons, an atmosphere and now a new analysis places its diameter as bigger than its outer solar system rival Eris. http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/pluto-bids-for-planethood/?utm_source=twitterfeedutm_medium=twitter -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
Re: Pluto bounces back!
On 28-May-2014, at 10:12 pm, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Ok, so let's talk some specifics. Islamists issued death sentences on people for artistic expression. Famously on Salman Rushdie for writing a book, and several people for drawing Mohammed. When I was living in Paris, the building of a small publication was bombed for publishing a drawing of Mohammed. The Quran advises us (6:68,69) to remove ourselves from the company of those who blaspheme, till they do not change to another topic. It does not prescribe any of the above forms of punishment. Women in Islamic societies are frequently punished for being raped, their husbands are allowed to beat them (against their will, I have nothing against consensual BDSM), they are sentenced to stoning to death for adultery (even when they were raped), they have to dress in a certain way and can be publicly lashed for not doing so and they are prevented from going to school. Even recently, young girls were attacked for attending school. The Quran prescribes (24:1-14) 100 public lashes for adulterers (not rape victim); for that 4 witnesses of the crime are required, and if the witnesses are found to be lying, then 80 lashes for the persons who give false witness, and they are to be banned from bearing witness in any other case. Regarding beating by husbands, you refer to 4:15. I think the interpretation of the word d-r-b is incorrect, and it is separation which is advised, not beating. However, most translators and scholars insist it means beating. I disagree. Quran advises (24:31) women the covering of their bosoms with scarf; head covering is not explicitly stated but it's traditional in almost all religions. Mother Mary's statues all show her head covered. Muslims did not make those statues. Also, till about a century ago, almost all people, men and women, used to wear some sort of headgear, in most cultures. The Quran also advises (33:59) draping a cloak over the body, when going out, if one fears for her safety. Is that good advise? Homosexuality is considered a crime. Yes, the people of Sodom received divine punished for it. Verse 4:16 contains guidance for how to deal with this crime. Limb amputation is considered an acceptable punishment. Quran (5:38) prescribes cutting off the hand of the thief. I believe it is implemented in Saudi Arabia where theft incidences are very low. However, I have heard scholars argue that such laws can only be implemented in an ideal Islamic welfare society where excuses / rationale for theft are almost non-existent, and thereby stealing is a pure crime, not borne of any need for survival. So, my question to you is this: do you condemn these actions? If so, do you claim that they stem from a misunderstanding of the Quran? I am a Muslim. I believe the Quran to be divine guidance. Therefore, I accept everything in it, and try to understand the best meaning thereof. However, on this forum, I only invite you all to benefit from the factual accuracy of the Quran in your efforts to understand the world of science. I am not asking anyone to become a Muslim. Faith, we believe, is God's gift to the willing heart. Samiya Telmo. On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: You assume that Islam is unethical. Quranic teachings are based on beautiful moral principles and enjoin ethical and just relations among people. The Quran repeatedly enjoins good actions, read it and you'll be amazed how far from truth all the negative propaganda against it is! Whether people study and follow the scripture or not is up to them. If we start following the guidance, most of the social evils will be weeded out. Sadly, you confuse peoples' thoughts, behaviour and actions with the message itself. It really doesn't matter if we label ourselves as Muslims, Jews, or any other religion or not, or if we are a member of the clergy or hold any leadership position in the community, it is basically our beliefs, intentions and actions that make us who we are and which we carry with us when we depart from this life. Samiya On 28-May-2014, at 8:52 pm, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: For me, its the actual physical, ethics, that need to be tuned up. Getting to paradise, however delightful, over someone's dead body is unethical. Morality, is between humans and God technically, but ethics is between people. God, as he exists, can take care of himself, but the all the humbleness in the world, devotion, passion, cannot correct issues, if the Imams, and Muftis, instruct otherwise. Even if the Koran, Soonah, and Bukhari are all God given and have predictions that only God would know, it does no good if the earth gets drowned in blood by seekers of paradise. Unhelpful indeed. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
Re: Pluto bounces back!
On 28-May-2014, at 10:21 pm, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I am not assuming that it is unethical, but I have pieced together that the glorious, afterlife that has been promised, especially for males, is a sure incentive to behave aggressively toward Kufar (infidels). If behaving as such pleases the creator, and guarantees a shaheed (martyr) a bevy of interesting females to spend one's time with, permanent youth and health, the drinking of wine permitted, all this, and more, for the privaledge of pleasing God, dying in the fight, and having all this paradise. I congratulate the faithful for partaking of this heavenly, vision, for it sounds quite excellent! (Sorry, Liz). Quran (33:35) clearly states that there is forgiveness and vast reward for all men and women who submit, believe, obey, speak the truth, persevere, who are humble, who give alms, who fast, who guard their modesty and who remember Allah much. Many other verses also highlight the significance of struggle (jihad) which means overcoming our personal weaknesses and making kind, good and positive contributions to society and religion. Fighting wars ( qital ) is mentioned in the verses dealing with war. In that context, it is important to understand divine tradition. Every time he has sent a messenger ( rasul ), divine judgement follows it. Noah, Lot, ..., Moses, and finally Muhammad are examples of such human messengers. The people to whom Muhammad was preaching were being repeatedly warned of punishment and that God and His messenger will prevail. In the case of the previous messengers, punishment was in the form of floods, earthquakes, storms and other such natural disasters. In Muhammad's case, it was through the hands of the believers. You can read more on this in my blog post: Verses regarding War (The Holy Quran, Ch 9) dated Nov 17, 2009 www.islam-qna.blogspot.com However, it's wrong-headed, just as the Crusades were, in a 'holy' attempt to regain 'holy ground' slaughter the the non-Christians, and gain great wealth, with the incentive of the son's of the rich could find their fortune and fame in pursuit of wealth and Jesus's favor. That was unethical as well, and very, murderous, as well. People screw up, because that is the nature of the emotional beasts we all are. Thus, misbehavior done in the attempt top gain heaven and get one's self rich, is unethical. What I am curious about is pushing the envelop for the human condition of illness, aging, and death. One area that has gained my attention, the NDE/Sam Paria studies, which indicate the possibility of a post Morten survival. Interestingly enough. such research has a absolute lack of 'returnee's' saying that what they experienced (supposedly) was a demand for war and death. Nobody, comes back, and this is worldwide, saying they were told to slay Muslims, cross-worshippers, Hindu's, Al Yahoodi, or even Atheists. This, I find interesting. The second possibility I think is worth examination, is the notion that fantastic computer processing, if we can call it that, could resurrect the dead, or exact copies of the dead, to the point, that from memories, brain states, physicality, personal identity, they are, indeed, the same person who was deceased. Is this madness, a lie? Possibly, but these two areas are a means to an end, it is, in essence, the How questions, of How such is accomplished, not necessarily, the why? Such a development, would for sure, alter the behavior of both Umah and Kufar, because the world, in the human mind, and the physical universe would be changed, and likely, for the better. We shall see if this is just a bit of silliness that will be forgotten, or not? According to the Quran, immortality has not been given to any before thee (21:34) and goes on to state that every soul must taste death; we are being tried with evil and good, and then we must return (21:35). Quran (2:96) states the possibility of a lifespan of a thousand years. However, from another verse, we also know that Noah preached for 950 years, so such a life span has happened in the past and may be possible in the future. The clue to the How may be found in the studies in hibernation. I've recently published a blog post about the People of the Cave, who slept for three hundred years. You might find it interesting: www.signsandscience.blogspot.com Samiya -Original Message- From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, May 28, 2014 12:43 pm Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back! You assume that Islam is unethical. Quranic teachings are based on beautiful moral principles and enjoin ethical and just relations among people. The Quran repeatedly enjoins good actions, read it and you'll be amazed how far from truth all the negative propaganda against it is! Whether people
Re: Pluto bounces back!
On 29-May-2014, at 12:07 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/28/2014 9:50 AM, Samiya Illias wrote: You assume that Islam is unethical. Quranic teachings are based on beautiful moral principles and enjoin ethical and just relations among people. The Quran repeatedly enjoins good actions, read it and you'll be amazed how far from truth all the negative propaganda against it is! Don't bother warning the disbelievers. Allah has made it impossible for them to believe so that he can torture them forever after they die. 2:6-7 2:7 speaks of a seal on hearts and 2:9 speaks of a disease in the heart because of lying. My blogpost lying Sinful Forelock and Rust Upon Their Hearts may be of interest (www.signsandscience.blogspot.com ) However 2:26,27 further explains who and why Allah causes to stray. If it's any comfort, Allah also promises that everything is being recorded (54:53) (99:7,8) (34:2-4) and not the least injustice will be done to anyone. We are directed to remind in case the reminder benefits anyone. (6:68,69) Allah turned Sabbath-breaking Jews into apes to be despised and hated. All modern Jews are descendants of apes (or all modern apes are descendants of Sabbath-breaking Jews). 2:65-66 An alternate translation to apes is pigs. My cousin seems to think that we are forbidden to eat pigs because that would be cannibalism. I haven't researched the evolutionary history of pigs, so I don't know if that follows. However, as directed, I don't eat pigs. Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them. 4:89 I assume this verse, read in context with the preceding and following verses is regarding the Prophet and his companions' migration to Medina to escape persecution. In today's world also, I think those who are forced to migrate to escape war and persecution will be able to better relate to these verses. Cut off the hands of thieves. It is an exemplary punishment from Allah. 5:38 My responses to Telmo and Spudboy earlier today address this. Samiya Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Pluto bounces back!
I have answered each question I'm detail. You haven't quoted the entire email, only the end part. On 29-May-2014, at 9:35 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 29 May 2014 15:33, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: So, my question to you is this: do you condemn these actions? If so, do you claim that they stem from a misunderstanding of the Quran? I am a Muslim. I believe the Quran to be divine guidance. Therefore, I accept everything in it, and try to understand the best meaning thereof. Another non-answer. Maybe you should have tried one question at a time. Let me have a go. Samiya, you agreed that limb amputation is prescribed by the Quran. Do you condemn this action? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Pluto bounces back!
On 29-May-2014, at 10:08 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Men rarely, if ever, manage to dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. --- Robert A. Heinlein That is why I ask that you measure it for factual accuracy. If it's consistent with known scientific knowledge, then it's probably from a higher intelligence. Samiya On 5/28/2014 9:59 PM, LizR wrote: I hate to use the argument from incredulity, but it really IS hard to imagine that someone who's so petty they don't like gays could have made this... On 29 May 2014 16:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/28/2014 9:31 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: Quran (33:35) clearly states that there is forgiveness and vast reward for all men and women who submit, believe, obey, speak the truth, persevere, who are humble, who give alms, who fast, who guard their modesty and who remember Allah much. Clearly stating something has no bearing on its truth. The above is nonsense. Why should forgiveness be needed? - and if it were it would have to come from someone who was harmed; not from an imaginary superbeing who can't possibly be harmed. And why should anyone submit...to whom? Where is the virtue in giving up your own moral judgement and living by someone else's. Of course when you take these questions seriously the answer is obvious: Allah is just extrapolation of every despotic Mesopotamian king. He's vain, jealous, cruel, ruthless, demanding and ignorant. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: study of salvia reportage - brain region pointed to
Can you please repost your objections to MWI? Even I don't think it can be correct, but I would like to read your take on it. Thanks! Samiya On 29-May-2014, at 11:58 am, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 7:43:13 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: Nice post! Interesting, and indeed very reasonable with comp, in its expectable natural realizations. I agree on points on salvia too, except that salvia's reports witness extreme asymmetrical phenomena, which suggests some disconnection between the left brain and the right brain. Of course it is a very complex matter, but there are tools (some a bit toxic though, some other not). Salvia action is believed to be very specific, and what makes salvia attractive for such studies is that when smoked, the experience last for 4m to 8m in the average, on sober people. You feel quite well after (unless the goal was taking a superdose for making a funny video for youtube in company of light and noisy sitters, that is using it contradicting the user guide, or common sense when you know what the plant is capable of). No doubt we will come back on this. I have *many* theories on salvia in the comp realm. Including possible different report predictions for different people. Nice paper, but it still miss Everett's and comp's ways of differentiation of consciousness. wellthey are interested in the hypothesis consciousness is generated by the bits between the ears. The question from me to you would be, given the typical effects of salvia are so close to key parts of your comp extension theories, how did you manage to control for the null-hypothesis? That being, salvia affects the brain like a drug, with very specific effects statistically speaking, which if you go into looking for computational, arithmetic or whatever truth, will give you 'answers' that involve the archetypal effect of the drug PLUS whatever you are imagining laid over the top? Comp is not just testable, it is improvable, but to play fair the game, and keep the comp qualia/quanta distinction, the improvement should not just be based with the experimental facts, but with the arithmetical formulation of the measure problem. Consciousness is not located in the brain. Oh really? Did you forget your logician hat this morning then? You do this a lot but when I mentioned that you did the other day, you said you didn't believe me. Do you believe me now? It is a quasi-arithmetical notion, like arithmetical truth itself. Its differentiation will make it seemingly related to special representations, but that might be transitory, and the uniqueness of them is a delusion. You said you don't believe in comp, and I guess you meant that you believe that comp is untrue, isn't it? What is your opinion on Everett? Bruno, I just think it's nuts that you can be in a conversation with someone for this long and not know key high level aspects of that person's opinion relevant to the actual conversation. I acknowledge it isn't easy to grasp the distinctions another person makesbut I've made that effort with you.why haven't you made that effort with me? I'm going to have to answer another response from you on the consciousness thread, in which you simply have not understood the distinctions I make about falsification at any depth If you would make that effort, spend actual time reflecting...we could nail this conversation, and then if we wanted to (both) move on to possibly understanding more about your steps. Possibly. I think you told us that you reject it? I am not sure. If you reject Everett it is normal that you reject comp. Yes I definitely don't accept MWI. I've explained why in the past. there are massive unrealized assumptions involved in construction of MwI. I've listed some key ones...no one has addressed them...MWI is unreliable knowledge while they are in place. (Note that Crick use comp in the paper, and indeed it is common in that field, even Hameroff use comp (only Penrose suggested a non-comp theory, where indeed gravitation collapse the wave in a way non predictible by QM). Bruno On 28 May 2014, at 17:23, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: they were more likely to believe they were in an environment completely different from the physical space they were actually in - sounds familiar they often believed to be interacting with beings such as hallucinated dead people, aliens, fairies or mythical creatures -- machines the often reported ego dissolution, a variety of experiences in which the self ceased to exist in the user's subjective experience. -- 3p? Is the key to consciousness in the claustrum? by Klaus M. Stiefel, The Conversation The location of the claustrum (blue) and the cingulate cortex (green), another brain region likely to act as a global integrator. The person whose brain
Re: Pluto bounces back!
On 29-May-2014, at 9:59 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I hate to use the argument from incredulity, but it really IS hard to imagine that someone who's so petty they don't like gays could have made this... Yes, with our limited knowledge, we cannot understand why sexual orientations and other desire-related personal matters could be of any significance, but if we can be reasonably sure that the majestic being who has created all this is guiding us to abstain / restrain, then it must be for our own good. Being as tiny as we are, I don't think our actions affect the Creator-Sustainer in any way... any harm we cause is only to ourselves. Samiya On 29 May 2014 16:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/28/2014 9:31 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: Quran (33:35) clearly states that there is forgiveness and vast reward for all men and women who submit, believe, obey, speak the truth, persevere, who are humble, who give alms, who fast, who guard their modesty and who remember Allah much. Clearly stating something has no bearing on it's truth. The above is nonsense. Why should forgiveness be needed? - and if it were it would have to come from someone who was harmed; not from an imaginary superbeing who can't possibly be harmed. And why should anyone submit...to whom? Where is the virtue in giving up your own moral judgement and living by someone else's. Of course when you take these questions seriously the answer is obvious: Allah is just extrapolation of every despotic Mesopotamian king. He's vain, jealous, cruel, ruthless, demanding and ignorant. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Pluto bounces back!
On 29-May-2014, at 7:56 pm, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On 28-May-2014, at 10:12 pm, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Ok, so let's talk some specifics. Islamists issued death sentences on people for artistic expression. Famously on Salman Rushdie for writing a book, and several people for drawing Mohammed. When I was living in Paris, the building of a small publication was bombed for publishing a drawing of Mohammed. The Quran advises us (6:68,69) to remove ourselves from the company of those who blaspheme, till they do not change to another topic. It does not prescribe any of the above forms of punishment. Women in Islamic societies are frequently punished for being raped, their husbands are allowed to beat them (against their will, I have nothing against consensual BDSM), they are sentenced to stoning to death for adultery (even when they were raped), they have to dress in a certain way and can be publicly lashed for not doing so and they are prevented from going to school. Even recently, young girls were attacked for attending school. The Quran prescribes (24:1-14) 100 public lashes for adulterers (not rape victim); for that 4 witnesses of the crime are required, and if the witnesses are found to be lying, then 80 lashes for the persons who give false witness, and they are to be banned from bearing witness in any other case. Regarding beating by husbands, you refer to 4:15. I think the interpretation of the word d-r-b is incorrect, and it is separation which is advised, not beating. However, most translators and scholars insist it means beating. I disagree. Quran advises (24:31) women the covering of their bosoms with scarf; head covering is not explicitly stated but it's traditional in almost all religions. Mother Mary's statues all show her head covered. Muslims did not make those statues. Also, till about a century ago, almost all people, men and women, used to wear some sort of headgear, in most cultures. The Quran also advises (33:59) draping a cloak over the body, when going out, if one fears for her safety. Is that good advise? Homosexuality is considered a crime. Yes, the people of Sodom received divine punished for it. Verse 4:16 contains guidance for how to deal with this crime. Limb amputation is considered an acceptable punishment. Quran (5:38) prescribes cutting off the hand of the thief. I believe it is implemented in Saudi Arabia where theft incidences are very low. However, I have heard scholars argue that such laws can only be implemented in an ideal Islamic welfare society where excuses / rationale for theft are almost non-existent, and thereby stealing is a pure crime, not borne of any need for survival. So, my question to you is this: do you condemn these actions? If so, do you claim that they stem from a misunderstanding of the Quran? I am a Muslim. I believe the Quran to be divine guidance. Therefore, I accept everything in it, and try to understand the best meaning thereof. However, on this forum, I only invite you all to benefit from the factual accuracy of the Quran in your efforts to understand the world of science. I am not asking anyone to become a Muslim. Faith, we believe, is God's gift to the willing heart. You're avoiding the point. Your specific claim was that the Quran teachings are ethical, and that perceptions to the contrary stem from media disinformation. So I submitted to you a list of things that make me conclude that the Quran teachings are unethical. Very honestly, my previous beliefs were reinforced. We have unreconcilable views on ethics. Telmo. Yes, our views are different. We think it unethical to cheat on our spouse, we think it's wrong to steal, we think it's perfectly ethical for a woman to try and protect herself, and so on. You object to the punishment, we object to the crime. We believe the Quran has been revealed by a higher intelligence who knows us inside out, and guides us in matters where we may not be able to legislate appropriately. We believe the laws are based on morally sound principles of justice and fair play. You're entitled to your opinion, but I strongly advise that you evaluate and ascertain for yourself that the Quran is a human invention, and not divine guidance, lest you reject something great! Samiya Samiya Telmo. On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: You assume that Islam is unethical. Quranic teachings are based on beautiful moral principles and enjoin ethical and just relations among people. The Quran repeatedly enjoins good actions, read it and you'll be amazed how far from truth all the negative propaganda against it is! Whether people study and follow the scripture or not is up to them. If we
Re: Pluto bounces back!
On 29-May-2014, at 9:55 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/28/2014 10:34 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: On 29-May-2014, at 10:08 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Men rarely, if ever, manage to dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. --- Robert A. Heinlein That is why I ask that you measure it for factual accuracy. If it's consistent with known scientific knowledge, then it's probably from a higher intelligence. How about if it's inconsistent. 7:124 Crucifixion is a Roman punishment, unknown in Egypt at the time this story supposedly occurred. How do you know? Pharaoh is also referred to as The Lord of the Stakes 51:49 All things We have created by pairs. This is not true. Many bacteria, protists, fungi, and plants reproduce asexually. Being created in pairs and reproducing asexually are two different things. Scientists are now talking of even matter and anti-matter. The Quran also mentions in 6:38 that all animals form communities. Even amoebas and bacteria are now known to communicate. Much more remains to be discovered. 16:68 And thy Lord inspired the bee, saying ... eat of all fruits. Allah told bees to eat from all fruits, but they decided to eat nectar and pollen instead. I'll have to check in the dictionary if s-m-r means specifically fruit or flowering plants. I'll revert later 37/6b: “We (Allah*) have indeed decked the lower heaven (in) stars - - -”. Saying the stars are lower than the moon. If you see Pickthall's translation, he has translated kawakib as planets. In fact, in all places where this word is used, the translation planet seems to fit better. The word for star is najm in Arabic. Samiya Must be from a lower intelligence. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Pluto bounces back!
These are people who are committing crimes in the name of religion. You, on the outside, are horrified by such acts in the name of Islam, and are terrified of it, rightly so. We, on the other hand, live in midst of this blatant violation of the guidance in the Quran! What these elements have not been able to find or insert in the Quran, they have created On 30-May-2014, at 5:28 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: So which lot is it who does this sort of thing? Honest question. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27614359 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/10850212/Iranian-actress-Leila-Hatami-faces-public-flogging.html http://m.inquirer.net/newsinfo/?id=606058 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Pluto bounces back!
The previous mail got sent before I could complete it: These are people who are committing crimes in the name of religion. You, on the outside, are horrified by such acts in the name of Islam, and are terrified of it, rightly so. We, on the other hand, live in the midst of this blatant violation of the guidance in the Quran! What these elements have not been able to find or insert in the Quran, they have created / inserted / discovered in other sources, and practice it in the name of God. That does not justify their actions, neither do the numbers of the mobs make it correct. These are all gross violations of human rights. However, all of us humans are here on this earth, on trial, for a brief limited period of time, after which we return. God has promised Judgement Day and that justice will be established! Of course, that does not absolve us from correcting these wrongs here on Earth. In fact, it increases our responsibility and duty to spread the actual message of the Quran, hoping that sanity will prevail. Civil pressure groups and lawyers are trying to advice and implement corrections, scholars are speaking up and hope to bring about positive changes. Samiya On 30-May-2014, at 5:28 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: So which lot is it who does this sort of thing? Honest question. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27614359 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/10850212/Iranian-actress-Leila-Hatami-faces-public-flogging.html http://m.inquirer.net/newsinfo/?id=606058 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
