Invitation To Islam
Munir K Nayyar
Following is the translation of first Chapter of The Holy Qu'ran.
This is the attitude one should have if he/she in search of
the truth.
..................................................
" 1.. Praise be to Allah, the lord of the worlds,
" 2.. The Beneficent, the Merciful,
" 3.. Master of the day of Requital.
" 4.. Thee do we serve and thee do we beseech for help.
" 5.. Guide us on the right path,
" 6.. The path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed favours,
" 7.. Not those upon whom wrath is brought down, nor those who go astray.
...................................................
john d.
: In the name of Almighty Allah the most Beneficent and Merciful.
:
: Following is the translation of first Chapter of The Holy Qu'ran.
Hey Munir, why are you wasting bandwidth by doublespacing?
: This is the attitude one should have if he/she in search of
: the truth.
This is the attitude one should have if one is in need
of being told what to do, and how to do it, by a bunch
of false prophets, liars and charlatans.
: ..................................................
: " 1.. Praise be to Allah, the lord of the worlds,
allah isn't the lord of my world.
: " 2.. The Beneficent, the Merciful,
Evidently the followers of allah don't seek to
emulate her, when they launch one of their jihads.
Why does allah tolerate all the killing in her name?
: " 3.. Master of the day of Requital.
Master baiter, perhaps.
: " 4.. Thee do we serve and thee do we beseech for help.
Do you talk like this at home, Munir? Use of archaic
pronouns is ridiculous, but some religious kooks seem
to think that it adds a venerable tone to their holy
texts. It doesn't, rather it shows how they are so
easily controlled, so willing to mindlessly follow
and imitate others.
: " 5.. Guide us on the right path,
Guide them, since they couldn't find their way out
of an open telephone booth.
: " 6.. The path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed favours,
: " 7.. Not those upon whom wrath is brought down, nor those who go astray.
So allah is beneficient, merciful, prone to favoritism,
and wrathful, all at the same time.
That reminds me of a song, the title of which eludes me,
but the lyrics go something like:
"He was drinking and driving, and smoking and fucking,
all at the same time...."
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Dobbs / The biological son of J. R. "Bob" Dobbs and "Connie" \
\ and sole heir to all of their wealth. /
john d.
: In the name of Almighty Allah the most Beneficent and Merciful
: Dear Matthew,
:
: Yes belief in Allah is necessary for salvation.
:
: Other requirements of belief are:
:
: Belief in his messengers. [ From Adam to Muhammad (Peace be upon him)
including Ibraham, Moses, David, Jesus etc.]
Munir, when are you going to figure out
that thing about 80 columns?
:
: Belief in his books and messages given to these prophets
( not the distorted versions)
If you don't read the authorized edition, you'll
burn in hell forever!
:
: Belief in his angels
:
: Belief in Day of judgment
:
: Belief in heaven and hell
:
: Belief in good and bad destiny (A place for you exists in heaven and hell
simultaneously, depends on your actions where you end up)
:
: ...........................
:
: Only Allah can guide any one to the right path. Our (muslims) duty is to
deliver the message, so that every body is saved from the hell and does
not have the excuse that " no one told me".
Aw, shucks! Now I can't use that excuse anymore.
Well, Munir, you've told us, so you can pat yourself
on the back. Will you get preferential treatment from
allah for telling us this wonderful news? In your
previous post, you said she engages in favoritism.
: If we do not deliver the message correctly you can very rightly
blame us on the day of judgment.
Then you had better make sure that you don't make
any mistakes, Munir, or all of the thousands of
readers of the groups in which your posts appear
will be blaming their suffering in hell on you.
:
: Please note there is only one religion on this
earth or in your words three major religions
(Jews,Christens,muslims) which we consider to be
one(same line), apart from these there is no major
religion neither in population nor in effect.
Please note the location of the <enter> key.
:
: It is my duty and a privilege to answer your questions,
but you must have at least read hundreds of books to better
your life here, please find time to read the Quran(translation
preferably translated by Mulana A. Yousaf Ali) which should
not take you much time. It will better your life in this
world(not necessarily monetarily) and the life hereafter.
Is this the only authorized edition? If someone reads
a different translation, will that person burn in hell
forever? What if that person reads an unauthorized edition by
mistake?
{remaining lines deleted}
Munir K Nayyar
Dear Matthew,
Yes belief in Allah is necessary for salvation.
Other requirements of belief are:
Belief in his messengers. [ From Adam to Muhammad (Peace be upon him) including Ibraham, Moses, David, Jesus etc.]
Belief in Day of judgment
Belief in heaven and hell
Belief in good and bad destiny (A place for you exists in heaven and hell simultaneously, depends on your actions where you end up)
...........................
Only Allah can guide any one to the right path. Our (muslims) duty is to deliver the message, so that every body is saved from the hell and does not have the excuse that " no one told me".
It is my duty and a privilege to answer your questions, but you must have at least read hundreds of books to better your life here, please find time to read the Quran(translation preferably translated by Mulana A. Yousaf Ali) which should not take you much time. It will better your life in this world(not necessarily monetarily) and the life hereafter.
May Allah guide you and help you guide others.
Praying for you
Munir.
Following is the translation of first Chapter of The Holy Qu'ran.
This is the attitude one should have if he/she is in search of
the truth.
In the name of Almighty Allah the most Beneficent and Merciful.
..................................................
" 1.. Praise be to Allah, the lord of the worlds,
" 2.. The Beneficent, the Merciful,
" 3.. Master of the day of Requital.
" 4.. Thee do we serve and thee do we beseech for help.
" 5.. Guide us on the right path,
" 6.. The path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed favours,
" 7.. Not those upon whom wrath is brought down, nor those who go astray.
...................................................
I suggest read the holy Qur'an the last testament. God will guide
make things clear for you. It his only he who can guide and remove
confusions of minds.
I cannot and should not force any thing on you.
If you want to reach out tell me and I will help
you to get a copy (translation) of the holy Qur'an.
In the end I apologize for any tension that I may have
caused by my actions to you or your group. This was not
my intention, I wanted good for you. I think when somebody
sees you wandering about and guides you that is the real
love he has for you.
praying for your and all the people's guidance
Munir.
Groups that do not want postings won't get them
from now on.
Stryder
>In the name of Allah The Beneficent and Merciful
>
>I apologize for my postings,
>
I appreciate your humility.
If you do choose to hang out here, I think you will find some thought
provoking discussion.
>I should have read the protocols,
>
>My fault,
>
>I did not know much about,
>
>The News Group protocols,
>
>I was as if playing with a,
>
>new toy,
Cool. Please understand, also, that we have been dealing with a group of
fundamentalists (Christian & Muslim both) who have taken great joy in
claiming their spiritual superiority. It is amazing how "holier than
thou" (literally) a supposedly humble person can be.
Thus, some of the anger we (actually, I'm only speaking for myself)
vented in your direction is probably more for those others.
>
>"This is not to say What I said was wrong"
>
>The time place and rules were not appropiate,
>
>I am very sorry for my ignorance of rules(not religion),
>
>May Allah Guide all Of Us,
>
>Munir,
>
>P.S "This a hurried apology so forgive me I still have to
>
>find out what FAQ is I would be Happy If somebody Helped me
>
>To find out"
If you have not gotten a copy of the FAQ, please feel free to e-mail me
at str...@digex.net, and I'll be happy to send you one.
________________________________________________________________________
| | |
| "Woods and crags know how to keep a | |
| dignified silence with you." | Stryder |
| | |
| Nietzsche, _Thus Spoke Zarathustra_ | |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter V.Vorobieff
>In the name of Allah The Beneficent and Merciful
>
>I apologize for my postings,
>My fault,
A very manly post, I am pleased.
Mary Lee
|> In the name of Allah The Beneficent and Merciful
|>
|>
three apologies for posting proselytizing Islam deleted
Anybody else hit with the feeling that "what I tell you three times is true"?
Mary Lee
****************************************************************************
Anyone who thinks that Mother Nature doesn't have a sense of humor
should come live in the country for a while.
****************************************************************************
Adam Trent Phillips
In a previous article, mkna...@athena.mit.edu (Munir K Nayyar) says:
>In the name of Allah The Beneficent and Merciful
>
>I apologize for my postings,
>I should have read the protocols,
>My fault,
>
>I did not know much about,
>The News Group protocols,
>I was as if playing with a,
>new toy,
>"This is not to say What I said was wrong"
>The time place and rules were not appropiate,
>I am very sorry for my ignorance of rules(not religion),
>May Allah Guide all Of Us,
>
No big deal, we all screw up once in a while, it's good to see a
newbie woho can learn from preivious mistakes.
>Munir,
--
"I'm the day, I can show you the way. And look- I'm right beside you.
I'm the night, I'm the dark and the light- with eyes that see inside you.
...I'm the man on the silver mountain."--Rainbow / Richie Blackmore & R.J.Dio
Email:bb...@cleveland.freenet.edu | A. Trent Phillips, a.k.a. White Rook
Munir K Nayyar
I apologize for my postings,
I should have read the protocols,
My fault,
I did not know much about,
The News Group protocols,
I was as if playing with a,
new toy,
"This is not to say What I said was wrong"
The time place and rules were not appropiate,
I am very sorry for my ignorance of rules(not religion),
May Allah Guide all Of Us,
Munir K Nayyar
Munir K Nayyar
les...@tigger.stcloud.msus.edu
>In the end I apologize for any tension that I may have
>
>caused by my actions to you or your group. This was not
>
>my intention, I wanted good for you. I think when somebody
>
>sees you wandering about and guides you that is the real
>
>love he has for you.
>
>
>
>praying for your and all the people's guidance
>
>
>Munir.
>
>Groups that do not want postings won't get them
>
>from now on.
Munir: I hope that you will realize that alt.atheism does not
welcome your postings!
Personally, I find the Fatiha lovely, and I enjoyed
reading it again in your post. However, this method of
proselytization is generally not welcomed on the net and
in alt.atheism it provides many with the opportunity for rude
humor.
Speaking for myself, I appreciate your concern. And should
the day of judgement arrive as you expect, then may
Allah hear my witness that you have brought the testimony
to the net.
sincerely and in friendship,
arn
les...@tigger.stcloud.msus.edu
Dewey Henize
Munir K Nayyar <mkna...@athena.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>
>In the name of Almighty Allah the most Beneficent and Merciful
>
>
>
>
> Muhammad is not the father of any of your men,
> but (he is) the messenger of Allah, and the seal
> of the prophets, and Allah has full knowledge of
> all things.
No moron, it is NOT ok to post this type of superstitious drivel
here where people with minds might encounter it.
There's a whole set of FAQs for this board, that have been offered
to you already by others. One of the prime items in these is that
while believers are welcome to come and take part in discussions,
this is a board for athiest issues and we do NOT appreciate youo
coming here to preach your idiotic pablum.
We've heard most of this trash, and if we want to read it nearly
all of us can get hold of it on our own. Plus most of us have
enough access to Usenet that if we want to take part in strictly
Muslim discussions, complete with silly honorifics for an entity
that fails all tests for basic existance, we can just subscribe to
the various Islam groups and watch the loving sects threaten each
other with death and damnation.
The majority of posts here from Muslims so far indicate that as a
group they are taught to ride roughshod over the beliefs, desires,
and requests of others any time anyone is so foolish as to do other
than to tell them emphatically to get the hell away. You are yet
another prime example, making it clearer and clearer what can be
expected of a significant proportion of theists.
Here it is very tersely. If you want to come and DISCUSS issues
regarding atheists, this is the board. If you aren't smart enough
to realize your holy book is just another book here, you are too
dumb to discuss things and should stay away. If you think you
should be allowed to preach and attempt to drive atheists to convert
to your religion of the week, you definately should stay away.
If you don't read the FAQs but instead you just keep posting your
holy books pablum, you should expect lots of flames and insults,
because your actions show you really want that and are enough
of a pervert to enjoy being reviled.
Now go read the FAQs. Please don't return, or at least remain away
until you understand them. So far you've shown nothing of any
value, just an intention to ingore the rights of others to have
a forum of their own - which, as I said, seems to be a hallmark
of the American followers of your religion.
Dew
--
Dewey Henize Sys/Net admin RISC hardware (512) 891-8637 pager 928-7333 x 8637
Panthera Onca
>
>Only Allah can guide any one to the right path. Our (muslims) duty is to deliver the message, so that every body is saved from the hell and does not have the excuse that " no one told me".
It is also written that only Allah can convert who he chooses. It is
not your job to convert us. If he chooses to convert us, we will be converted.
So leave us alone!
>It is my duty and a privilege to answer your questions, but you must have at least read hundreds of books to better your life here, please find time to read the Quran(translation preferably translated by Mulana A. Yousaf Ali) which should not take you much time. It will better your life in this world(not necessarily monetarily) and the life hereafter.
>
I have read part of the Qur'an in the original Arabic, a beautiful
piece of literature with much wisom. I still believe my way is the best for
me.
>May Allah guide you and help you guide others.
May the Goddess bless your path and bring you to understanding.
>
>Munir.
Most of us here have studied long and hard to find our path. I am
sure almost everyone here has had at least a passing interest in Islam,
and we have chosen elsewhere. Your prosteletizing is not welcome, please
take it elsewhere.
Jay
--
_____________________________________________________________________
Jay is for Jaguar on...@netcom.com Yes, I do have spots!
Munir K Nayyar
In the name of Almighty Allah the most Beneficent and Merciful
Is it okay to post something like this.......
Muhammad is not the father of any of your men,
but (he is) the messenger of Allah, and the seal
of the prophets, and Allah has full knowledge of
all things.
Who, then does more wrong than the one who utters a lie
concerning Allah? (Qur'an 39:32)
"He it is who has sent His Messenger with guidance and
the religion of truth to make it supreme over all religion:
and sufficient is Allah as a Witness. Muhammed is the
Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are firm
against the unbelievers and merciful among each other."
[Al Qur'an 48:28]
"Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joint
together, before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing.
Will they not then believe?" (Qur'an: 21;30)
"The heaven, We have built it with power, verily We are expanding it."
(Qur'an: 51;47)
'Truth has arrived and falsehood perished;
verily falsehood is ever bound to perish.'[Al-Qur'an 17:81]
"The Creed of Muhammad is free from the suspicions of ambiguity
and the Qur'an is Glorious testimony to the Oneness of God."
by Gibbon in his "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire."
"History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical
Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the
point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most
fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated."
by De Lacy O'Leary in his "Islam at the Crossroads."
"Well then, if the Koran were his own composition other man could rival it.
Let them produce ten verses like it. If they could not (and it is obvious that
they could not), then let them accept the Koran as an outstanding evidential
miracle."
H.A.R. Gibb, Muhammedanism, London 1953, p. 33.
WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT MUHAMMAD (ASW)
"I doubt whether any man whose external conditions changed so much ever
changed himself less to meet them"
R.V.C. Bodley, The Messenger, London 1946, p. 9.
"Four years after the death of Justanian, A.D. 569, was born at Mecca, in
Arabia the man who, of all men exercised the greatest influence upon the human
race. . .Muhammad. . ."
John William Draper, M.D., LL.D., A History of the Intellectual
Development of Europe, London 1875, Vol 1, pp329-330
WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT QUR'AN
"So there has been no opportunity for any forgery or pious fraud in the
Koran, which distinguishes it from almost all other important religious works
of ancient times. . .It is exceedingly strange that this illeterate person
should have composed the best book in the language."
Basanta Coomar Bose, Mohammedanism, Calcutta 1931, p.4.
...
WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT MUHAMMAD (SAW):
"If greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and astounding results are the
three criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in
modern history with Muhammad? The most famous man created arms, laws and
empires only. They founded, if anything at all, no more than material powers
which often crumbled away before their eyes. This man moved not only armies,
legislations, empires, peoples and dynasties, but millions of men in one-third
of the then inhabited world; and more than that, he moved the altars, the gods,
the religions, the ideas, the beliefs and souls...his forebearence in victory,
his ambition, which was entirely devoted to one idea and in no manner striving
for an empire; his endless prayers, his mystic conversations with God, his
death and his triumth after his death; all these attest not to an imposture but
to a firm conviction which gave him the power to restore a dogma. This dogma
was twofold, the unity of God and immateriality of God; the former telling what
God is, the latter telling what God is not; the one overthrowing false gods
with the sword, the other starting an idea with words."
Lamartine, Historie de la Turquie,
Paris 1854, Vol II, pp. 276-277.
WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT THE QUR'AN:
"... A Book which is a Poem, a Code of Laws, A Book of Common Prayer and Bible
all in one; and is reverenced to this day by a sixth of the whole human race as
a miracle of purity, of style, of wisdom and of truth. It is the one miracle
claimed by Mohammed, his standing miracle, he called it and a miracle indeed
it is."
Rev. R. Bosworth Smith,
Mohammad and Mohammadanism, London 1874, p 92.
WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT MUHAMMAD
"He is Caesar and Pope in one; but he was Pope without Pope's pretentions,
Caesar without the legions of Caesar: without a standing army, without a
bodyguard, without a palace, without a fixed revenue; if ever any man had the
right to say that he ruled by the right divine, it was Muhammad, for he had all
the power without its instruments and without its supports."
Rev. R. Bosworth Smith,
Mohammad and Mohammadanism, London 1874, p. 92.
WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT THE QUR'AN
"In making the present attempt to improve on the performance of my
predecessors, and to produce something which might be accepted as echoing
however faintly the sublime rhetoric of the Arabic Koran, I have been at pain
to study the intricate and richly varied rhytms which -apart from the message
itself- constitute the Koran's undeniable claim to rank amongst the greatest
literary masterpieces of mankind."
Arthur J. Arbery, The Koran Interpreted,
London: Oxford University Press, 1964, p. X.
...
WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT MUHAMMAD (SAW)
"Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas,
restorer of rational dogmas, of a cult without images; the founder of twenty
terrestial empires, that is Muhammad. As regards all standards by which human
greatness may be measured, we may well ask, is there any man greater than he?"
Lamartine, "Historie de la Turquie",
Paris 1854, Vol II, pp. 276-277.
...
WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT THE QUR'AN
"A totally objective examination of it(The Qur'an) in the light of modern
knowledge, leads us to recognize the agreement between the two, as has been
already noted on repeated occasions. It makes us deem it quite unthinkable for
a man of Muhammad's time to have been the author of such statements on account
of the state of the knowkedge in his day."
Maurice Bucaille,
"The Qur'an and the Modern Science", 1981, p.18.
Munir
Keith Justified And Ancient Cochran
>
>I apologize for my postings,
Stop apologizing already. :]
(Seriously, Munir, this article showed up three times in alt.atheism. Perhaps
you should ask your sysadmin if your site is having problems with posts
going out multiple times?)
--
=kcoc...@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza. OK???=
=The government that can ban abortions can also mandate them. Think about it.=
Christopher A. Lee
>In the name of Almighty Allah the most Beneficent and Merciful
>
>
>Is it okay to post something like this.......
Mistake number 1:
You have to remember that atheists don't believe in any god at all. Not
just Allah, or Krishna, or Rama, or Osiris, or Mithras, or Thor, or Odin,
or Osiris, or the Earth Mother, or QuetzalCoatl, or the Great Spririt.
I didn't mention the jewish and christian gods because people claim they
are the same as Allah although the differences in interpretation are so
far apart they might as well be different gods. Besides which there have
been wars and mass slaughter to "prove" it one way or the other.
Any posting which starts off as yours did is likely to be assumed to be
religious preaching and met with scorn and derision because it
presupposes your god.
You obviously believe in Allah with complete sincerety. Allah is
obviously a basic axiom of your life. We don't share that basic axiom,
for whatever reason. In fact all atheists have in common is their
disbelief in all deities of all the religions.
Basic common sense should tell anybody that if they go to any group of
people anywhere, barge in and start declaiming about something the group
doesn't care about, they will get a variety of responses, none of them
particularly welcoming.
Putting islam and atheism to one side for a moment, let's say for the
sake of argument you were a speedboat enthusiast. If you posted to a
sailboating group about the joys of creating high-would waves you
would expect a frosty response.
>
Muhammad is not the father of any of your men,
> but (he is) the messenger of Allah, and the seal
> of the prophets, and Allah has full knowledge of
> all things.
> Who, then does more wrong than the one who utters a lie
>concerning Allah? (Qur'an 39:32)
We don't believe in Allah. Muhammed if he existed is just a man like any
other, and we don't hold the Qur'an in any more esteem than any other book.
Why should we?
You have assumed that we share your basic axioms. We don't, so we are
hardly going to be convinced by any conclusion drawn from them.
<more Qur'an quotes deleted because they are not relevent until you
show why the Qur'an is any more relevant than any other book>
There is no point in using quotes from authority to try and persuade us
that the one true god is Allah as revealed in Qur'an when we don't
believe in any god all. I can bring up just as authoratitive quotes
about other religions and their gods. What would that prove?
If you feel you have to do this, you should do it from first principals,
ie convince us that there is a god first. Once you have done that you will
have to convince us that this god is Allah and not Osiris or any of the
others that beople have believed in. You cannot yet use the bible or
the Qur'an to do this because that would be circular, ie you cannot use
the assumption of Allah to prove the Qur'an and then the assumption of
the Qur'an to prove Allah. You have to prove one of them first.
Remember, you are the outsider coming to our group to make these claims,
therefore you have to back them up using ways we can accept, ie use our
methods and understanding as a basis, not yours.
>Munir
Robert Knowles
>FROM: Munir K Nayyar <mkna...@athena.mit.edu>
>
>In the name of Almighty Allah the most Beneficent and Merciful
>
>Is it okay to post something like this.......
>
Only if you are trying to remove all doubt that you have shit for brains.
arnold v. lesikar
(Munir K Nayyar) wrote:
>
> In the name of Almighty Allah the most Beneficent and Merciful
> athena% add sipb
> athena% webster
> Word: proselytizing
> No definition for ' proselytizing'.
>
>
> This is one of my problems
>
>
> Munir.
This seems tomewhat disingenuous, Munir. You could always look up
"proselytize" in a paper dictionary - in your campus library, for example.
Here's what I found on line via gopher:
Type=7
Name=Webster's Dictionary
Host=gopher.Princeton.EDU
Port=5003
proselytize:
1: to induce someone to convert to one's faith
2: to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause
~ vt
:to recruit or convert esp. to a new faith, institution, or cause
Now, in my friendly opinion, if you want to post this material to
talk.religion.misc, there can be no objection. But you should not try to
post this to religious groups dedicated to a particular faith other than
Islam. Such material is undesired in alt.atheism, and I am sure that people
in the various religious interest groups dedicated to topics such as
paganism, Eastern Religions, Bahaism, or the various flavors of
Christianity would equally as much find the material undesirable, and
additionally boring, offensive, or laughable depending upon the individual
reader's particular point of view.
You must realize that the Qu'ran translated into English does not carry the
same kind of impact that it does in the Arab tongue. Therefore, it is
unlikely that citations of verses of the Qu'ran are going to have much
effect on net people.
It would probably be better to give up the enterprise of using the net for
the purpose of proselytization.
You might find it of interest, and useful for your purpose, just to read
for a while in order to understand better the viewpoint from which
non-muslim people write. If you had a better understanding of that
viewpoint, you might be more effective in representing the message of Islam
on the net.
in friendship,
arn
les...@tigger.stcloud.msus.edu
Matthew Teague
Munir K Nayyar <mkna...@athena.mit.edu> wrote:
>In the name of Almighty Allah the most Beneficent and Merciful
>
>
>athena% add sipb
>athena% webster
>Word: proselytizing
>No definition for ' proselytizing'.
>
>
>This is one of my problems
Actually i'm not sure if that's spelled right....that may be
why the dictionary can't find it. But it means "to actively
seek out converts", usually with negative, unwelcome contexts.
+===================+==================================================+
| Matt Teague |"...Rested and fearless, cheered by your nearness;|
| June '88 LEHS | I knew which direction was right. |
| May '92 WPI | The case had been tried by the jury inside; |
| March '94 UW | The choice between Darkness and Light..." |
| METGRADAXPDSP498 | ---RUSH, Double Agent |
+===================+==================================================+
"...Just the bang; and the clatter, as an angel....hits the ground.."
--U2, Stay(Faraway, So Close)
John Luther
: find out what FAQ is I would be Happy If somebody Helped me
:
: To find out"
Faq sent. Thanks for the appology.
Peace,
jwl
--
*****************************************************************************
* | | If a man achieves or suffers *
* | | change in premises which are *
* John W. Luther | W | deeply embedded in his mind, he *
* | E + F | will surely find that the results *
* lut...@umr.edu | A | of that change will ramify *
* | | throughout his whole universe. *
* | | --Gregory Bateson *
*****************************************************************************
Matthew Teague
Munir K Nayyar <mkna...@athena.mit.edu> wrote:
>In the name of Almighty Allah the most Beneficent and Merciful
>
>
>`` I can risk being flamed here, but not in hell''
>
>I did not stop posting for the fear of being flamed.
>I stopped because I do not want to offend the good
>people in you, and play by the rules.
>All others are welcome to flame me because not only
>it helps me in my cause but also lets me identify the
>barriers and walls you have set around you
>and the way you guard them.
>I will not hoard the treaure I have, I intend
>to spread it, you can run but you cannot hide
>from the truth and I shall Insha-Allah (if god
>be willing) bring it to you by your rules.
>May God be with me,
>
>Munir.
With all due respect this is misplaced, at least in alt.atheism. I
don't believe anyone there missed your postings, and anyone who is
interested will or probably already has responded to you through
email. If you wish to debate issues, by all means continue posting
to alt.atheism....but if you intend to continue preaching (not a bad
thing in itself) you should do so through email or any other newsgroups
that are more appropriate, such as talk.religion.misc which in fact, you
have posted to.
But if so, please, go to the header of the post and remove alt.atheism.
You have brought the message to us; your duty is absolved. If the people
here ignore it they will live with whatever consequences there may or may
not be.
Is this agreeable?
Munir K Nayyar
on the following requests
I will remove this one too
after all you who replied
cancel your postings
" Path: senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!gatech!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!decwrl!usenet.coe.montana.edu!netnews.nwnet.net!news.u.washington.edu!mteague
From: mte...@u.washington.edu (Matthew Teague)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.pagan,talk.origins,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Invitation To Islam
Date: 31 Jan 1994 19:00:50 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <2ijkh2$a...@news.u.washington.edu>
References: <2iecsv$f...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu> <2igh1s...@rtfm.sps.mot.com> <2ijh7p$1...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu
Keywords: Islam
Xref: senator-bedfellow.mit.edu alt.atheism:88170 alt.pagan:47963 talk.origins:70344 talk.religion.misc:112589
In article <2ijh7p$1...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>,
Munir K Nayyar <mkna...@athena.mit.edu> wrote:
>In the name of Almighty Allah the most Beneficent and Merciful
>Clarification
>
>`` I can risk being flamed here, but not in hell''
>
>I did not stop posting for the fear of being flamed.
>I stopped because I do not want to offend the good
>people in you, and play by the rules.
>All others are welcome to flame me because not only
>it helps me in my cause but also lets me identify the
>barriers and walls you have set around you
>and the way you guard them.
>I will not hoard the treaure I have, I intend
>to spread it, you can run but you cannot hide
>from the truth and I shall Insha-Allah (if god
>be willing) bring it to you by your rules.
>May God be with me,
>
>Munir.
With all due respect this is misplaced, at least in alt.atheism. Idon't believe anyone there missed your postings, and anyone who is
Matz Bjurstroem
>
> Please note there is only one religion on this earth or in your words three major
religions(Jews,Christens,muslims) which we consider to be one(same line), apart from
these there is no major religion neither in population nor in effect.
>
the name is in Japan (Shintu??) or in China...
My definition of 'religion' is (rather loosely) 'a set of beliefs, one or more
persons have as a guidepoint regarding ethics, morals etc; that might or might not
involve a sort of deity or deities.'
Cheers
Matz
Of Aesir belief
MoonWolf
n article <2iafbm$8...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> mkna...@athena.mit.edu wrote:
>
> Please note there is only one religion on this earth or in your words three ma
jor
religions(Jews,Christens,muslims) which we consider to be one(same line), apart
from
these there is no major religion neither in population nor in effect.
>
I would say this statement is pretty ignorant. What about the Hindu and whatever
the name is in Japan (Shintu??) or in China...
Actually, it is not ignorant (meaning uninformed)...Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are considered to the be three of the major religions of the world. These
are also the three religions that society tends to regard in their definition
of pagan religions...those religions that are not of those three major
belief systems are called pagan.
And actually, between Hindi, Taoism, Bhudism, Shinto, and any of the other
religions, although I do not have any official statistics, they are fairly
isolated religions - they may have more followers, but they are not worldwide
religions like J,C, and I.
-the statement is not ignorant...just not worded properly-
MoonWolf
les...@tigger.stcloud.msus.edu
>
>And actually, between Hindi, Taoism, Bhudism, Shinto, and any of the other
>religions, although I do not have any official statistics, they are fairly
>isolated religions - they may have more followers, but they are not worldwide
>religions like J,C, and I.
>
Buddhism is widely spread around the earth. It is strongest in central
and east Asia, but it also has followers in North America, and Europe.
I know little about the presence of Buddhism in South America or
Africa, although I am sure that there are Buddhists in the nation of
South Africa.
Unlike Hinduism or Shinto, Buddhism is not associated with with
nationality or ethnicity. Buddhism is truly as much a world religion
as Christianity or Islam. However, Buddhism tends to propagate rather
quietly, as few Buddhist sects believe in loud and persistent
proselytization.
sincerely,
arn
les...@tigger.stcloud.msus.edu
Warren Vonroeschlaub
>religions, although I do not have any official statistics, they are fairly
>isolated religions - they may have more followers, but they are not worldwide
>religions like J,C, and I.
Uh, the language is Hindi, the religion is Hinduism. As for the content of the
above comment: there are representatives from each of those religions within 100'
of me right now, on the oposite side of the earth from the place they were founded.
Or maybe the adress of a Hindu temple in Iowa (America's Heartland) would be
convincing that these religions do indeed have followers around the globe?
--
MoonWolf
Unfortunately, I didn't come up with the definition of what religions are
"pagan" and which are not. The denotative definitions I have seen in modern
dictionaries seem, however, to point to Judaism, Christianity and Islam
as the major religions of the world...there are also a number of other
world wide religions, and I don't know why they don't fall into the
category...
then again, isn't neo-paganism catching on and spreading around the world
as well....interesting how things non-conformist become the standard
after a while.....
MoonWolf
Bruce Salem
>My definition of 'religion' is (rather loosely) 'a set of beliefs,
>one or more persons have as a guidepoint regarding ethics, morals etc;
>that might or might not involve a sort of deity or deities.'
Thank you, this makes a point which I brought up on another
thread that the grounds for religion for most people are rather weak,
a means to get moral authority. I wonder if someone out there, prehaps
not tainted with the perspective of Judeo-Christanity and Islam could
come up with a better definition. This might be a Hindu, or Bhuddist,
or American Indian.
I would accept that religion does deal in more prescription, but
that religions differ widely in how much authority such formulas have. I
dare say that most Christians and Jews would not view the Ten Commandments
as a "guideline", but that is probably due to the strongly partiarchial,
monocratic, and theocratic nature of this tradition. Lets get away from
the idea that our affairs have some absolute basis in Creation or the
will of some all-powerful agent, and that we really are masters of our
entire fate with the untapped ability to gain widsom and spiritual devel-
opment onto the moment of death.
Bruce Salem
--
!! Just my opinions, maybe not those of my sponsor. !!
Munir K Nayyar
Dear tanner,
You write,
:The denotative definitions I have seen in modern
:dictionaries seem, however, point to Judaism, Christianity and Islam
:as the major religions of the world
Well this is true, and this the point,
which should be noted.
According to Islamic teachings, Since the
advent of Adam(PBUH) There have been 124,000
Messengers(God sent) upto Muhammad(PBUH)
[Seal of prophets,.... Just as some hearts are sealed(i.e
they do not believe)].
It is generally thought that enlightened people,
like Buddah,Hindu Gods(Excluding Elephant,Monkey Gods,
and animal Gods) etc. might be of those messengers. Although,
There is no proof to it,because Qur'an mentions by name
only 29 of them by name and above mentioned are not included.
The point worth pondering is that why in the world,
sometime centuries apart people (Messengers) said
although not exactly the same, but similar things.
This is especially true of these three faiths I,C,J.
To me it is pretty clear that Someone planned this
and sent them. I cannot come up with another reason.
Even for the simple thing that why on earth did man
have the concept of God if there was none.
I testify that there is God, He took the first step,
i.e sent his messengers, now the ball is in our court(sp)
May God Show us the right way,
love,
Munir.
Jim Hogan
>In the name of Almighty Allah the most Beneficent and Merciful
Careful! Don't risk insult.... stay tuned....
>Dear tanner,
>According to Islamic teachings, Since the
>advent of Adam(PBUH) There have been 124,000
>Messengers(God sent) upto Muhammad(PBUH)
>[Seal of prophets,.... Just as some hearts are sealed(i.e
>they do not believe)].
>It is generally thought that enlightened people,
>like Buddah,Hindu Gods(Excluding Elephant,Monkey Gods,
>and animal Gods) etc. might be of those messengers. Although,
>There is no proof to it,because Qur'an mentions by name
>only 29 of them by name and above mentioned are not included.
Such shortsightedness! The _Book of Jim(PBUH)_ mentions
no fewer than 4,336,321 messengers, and is nice enough to
include elephant, monkey, and other animal gods. I think
you need to shift gears here -- get with the program, so to
speak. I mean, what is Allah's problem here? A little
problem with elephants and monkeys? Does he want to talk about
it?
>The point worth pondering is that why in the world,
>sometime centuries apart people (Messengers) said
>although not exactly the same, but similar things.
>This is especially true of these three faiths I,C,J.
The _Book of Jim(PBUH)_ eclipses Islamic insights by
a country mile on this point. I mean, look at the
following examples:
BOJ 1:1 (Brian Jones) "Hey, who cut the cheese?"
BOJ 12:5 (Henry the Human Fly) "Hey, who cut the cheese?"
BOJ 71:9 (GenX) "Hey, who cut the cheese?"
Need I say more?
>To me it is pretty clear that Someone planned this
>and sent them. I cannot come up with another reason.
>Even for the simple thing that why on earth did man
>have the concept of God if there was none.
All the right evidence, but all the wrong conclusions.
*I* was sent, yet I don't see you bowing in submission yet!
>I testify that there is God, He took the first step,
>i.e sent his messengers, now the ball is in our court(sp)
No shit! Get a clue! Prepare thyself for mutually
consenting intimacy with the one true messenger!
>May God Show us the right way,
Careful with your teeth!
>love,
You bet!
>Munir.
_JIM_(PBUM)
Matthew P Wiener
>In article <CKnFo...@microsoft.com> ma...@microsoft.com (Matz Bjurstroem) writes:
>>My definition of 'religion' is (rather loosely) 'a set of beliefs,
>>one or more persons have as a guidepoint regarding ethics, morals etc;
>>that might or might not involve a sort of deity or deities.'
> Thank you, this makes a point which I brought up on another
>thread that the grounds for religion for most people are rather weak,
>a means to get moral authority. I wonder if someone out there, prehaps
>not tainted with the perspective of Judeo-Christanity and Islam could
>come up with a better definition. This might be a Hindu, or Bhuddist,
>or American Indian.
I'm of course tainted, but I have made a decent attempt over the years
to understand various religions on their own terms. The whole idea of
fixating on beliefs as the key to religion is _Christian_. (It is not
Jewish. There is no such thing as Judeo-Christianity, other than the
original followers of St Peter.)
It never ceases to amaze me how many virulent atheists have bought hook
line and sinker the Christian definition of religion, and then use this
propaganda as a line of attack on non-Christian religions.
Anyway, a far more accurate, but still incomplete approach, follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Religion is man's attempt to relate and perhaps influence the unknown.
This can involve ritual, belief, tribalism, meditation, study, behavior,
legend, memory, prayer, and so on. These are not mutually exclusive, but
the different religions place their own emphases. Christianity happens
to emphasize belief, to the point of making it the key for its own self.
Belief is not key for most other religions, and it should not be part of
anyone's honest definition of religion.
--
-Matthew P Wiener (wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Bill Goodrich
tan...@wam.umd.edu (MoonWolf) writes:
>And actually, between Hindi, Taoism, Bhudism, Shinto, and any of the
>other religions, although I do not have any official statistics, they
>are fairly isolated religions - they may have more followers, but they
>are not worldwide religions like J,C, and I.
On the contrary, Buddhism and Hinduism are extremely widespread. While
the regions in which they are the State religion are relatively limited,
such a region for Judaism is even more limited. BTW, Hindi is a language
not a religion.
You seem to assume that the cultural biases of the Anglo/European
derived cultures are universal and/or valid. They are neither.
W.E. Goodrich, PhD
Stryder
>In the name of Almighty Allah the most Beneficent and Merciful
>Dear tanner,
>You write,
>:The denotative definitions I have seen in modern
>:dictionaries seem, however, point to Judaism, Christianity and Islam
>:as the major religions of the world
>Well this is true, and this the point,
>which should be noted.
>According to Islamic teachings, Since the
>advent of Adam(PBUH) There have been 124,000
>Messengers(God sent) upto Muhammad(PBUH)
>[Seal of prophets,.... Just as some hearts are sealed(i.e
>they do not believe)].
>It is generally thought that enlightened people,
>like Buddah,Hindu Gods(Excluding Elephant,Monkey Gods,
>and animal Gods) etc. might be of those messengers. Although,
>There is no proof to it,because Qur'an mentions by name
>only 29 of them by name and above mentioned are not included.
Have there, according to your belief system, ever been any enlightened
atheists?
I assume not, that your definition of "enlightened" automatically excludes
atheists.
You may complain about blanked assumptions made by non-Muslims regarding
your religion, but you perpetuate the EXACT SAME LIE with regards to
to atheists. And your lies are based on ignorance, pure and simple. You
have no idea what it means to be an atheist. The word causes a false
image to pop into your mind that has nothing to do with the millions of
thinking, feeling, living, breathing human beings that exist in reality.
>The point worth pondering is that why in the world,
>sometime centuries apart people (Messengers) said
>although not exactly the same, but similar things.
>This is especially true of these three faiths I,C,J.
These three "faiths" occurred in the same historical period in the same
part of the world. A century is not a long time in the history of humanity.
As for Hinduism and Buddhism, they both occurred in other times in other
cultures, and because of that fact, their nature is very different.
Please keep in mind that any similarities between religions are easily
explained by cultural similarities, and by similar brain physiologies.
People aren't as different as you seem to think, so if they have a
tendency to believe in even vaguely similar religions, it is hardly
a surprise.
Except to a religionist like yourself, who tend to take obviously meaningless
facts and distort them in order to use them as evidence that your particular
belief system is based on truth.
>To me it is pretty clear that Someone planned this
>and sent them. I cannot come up with another reason.
YOU CAN'T COME UP WITH ANOTHER REASON? You must be incredibly short sighted.
I don't mean to flame, but MAN, I can easily come up with MANY other reasons,
and those reasons are OBVIOUS, and many of those reasons very likely contain
aspects of the TRUTH of the situation.
Religion has a shocking, sad effect of making people blind, blind, blind.
>Even for the simple thing that why on earth did man
>have the concept of God if there was none.
To me it is pretty clear that they are social conventions, coupled with
the psychological tendency of human beings to believe in things that do
not exist, often for the purpose of seeking comfort.
I would like to know if you think there's even a possibility that the above
paragraph is true, or if you totally, out of hand, reject ANY possibility
that doesn't include the literal interpretation of your religion and,
particularly, the the Quran.
Of course I am quite certain, and in fact am betting my "soul", that said
pargraph IS true.
>I testify that there is God, He took the first step,
>i.e sent his messengers, now the ball is in our court(sp)
What is testimony? That and 45 cents will buy me a cup of coffee. We
atheists are not interested in discussions in which unsubstantiated claims
are made. Give me evidence that your God(tm) exists, and the ball will
indeed be in my court. Until then, you are still preaching words that are
meaningless to a real seeker of truth.
Your argument that Islam(tm) "works", by the way, is NOT an argument that
Allah(tm) exists and Islam(tm) is true. A lot of people believe a lot of
things that are patently false, and yet they are happier in believing them.
Many of us are not interested in being happy at the expense of seeing the
world as it really is (or, more often, admitting that as humans we CAN'T
see the world as it really is).
>May God Show us the right way,
I don't need Him(tm) to.
>love,
>Munir.
Stryder.
______________________________________________________________________________
Do not dress in those rags for me,
You know that you are not poor.
And do not love me quite so fiercely, now,
When you know that you are not sure.
Leonard Cohen
"Avalanche"
______________________________________________________________________________
Matz Bjurstroem
> >Even for the simple thing that why on earth did man
> >have the concept of God if there was none.
>
> the psychological tendency of human beings to believe in things that do
> not exist, often for the purpose of seeking comfort.
>
Also man need to 'blame' someone for the 'evil' mishaps he encounters or
have someone responsible for 'unexplainable' events, katastrophes, weather,
whatever...
It's easy to invent a God (or several) for these reasons.
Matz
Munir K Nayyar
Dear Matz,
You Write,
:It's easy to invent a God (or several) for these reasons.
This implies it tough not to believe in one
and easy to believe in one
It further implies there are more proofs, reasons to
believe in one and less not to believe in one
Also it can be deduced that there is more probability
of existence of one than not
further more it is easy to believe than not
THIS IMPLIES that the concept is much clearer than
being vague or ambiguious
Which means You can not blame God for being unfair
because he already made everything clear
It is we that are unfair.
IT also proves true God's word that we need him
and he does not need us(He is independent we are dependent)
Wow what an easy chance to miss.
Regards,
Munir.
Matthew Teague
>
>Dear Matz,
>You Write,
>:It's easy to invent a God (or several) for these reasons.
Sorry, Munir, but i think you're missing his point. "invent" has MUCH
different connotations than "percieve".
Invent implies that the god in question had no existence until someone
dreamt him up.
>
>This implies it tough not to believe in one
>and easy to believe in one
No it implies that if so many people have invented gods in the
past (say the norse, the greeks, the romans, the celts, to mention
only the european nations) then its not unthinkable that the Jews
and the Arabs might have done the same darn thing. Ditto with
the Christians. This actually casts more doubt on God.
[rest deleted]
Granted it does nothing to disprove God. But it's foolish at
best to say it helps his case. If God wants to reveal himself
(beyond doubt or merely as a voice in someone's head) then i'm sure
he can do so. But the argument you gave is pretty shabby i'm afraid.
Munir K Nayyar
There is Nothing But Glorifies His (ALLAH's) Praise.
In The Name Of Allah, The Compassionate, The Merciful
Dear Atheists,
Forgive me if these querries have been made before,
I would appreciate some answers.
1.. How many atheists are there (current estimate)
2.. Are all leading scientists atheists
3.. If not did they become enlightened with atheism
when they discovered the workings of the environment.
4.. Were most inventions and dicoveries made by atheists.
5.. Do atheists trust the works of theist scientists
6.. Ideally how would you want your bodies handled
( I get the impression you would want them recycled
as that is the scientific trend)
[ Do not get annoyed by the remark because Islam encourages
recycling also
1.. Use of human organs
2.. Not using coffins which increases lag of recycling time
3.. keeping graves of dirt only not building solid ones
so as not to waste land ]
Regards,
Munir.
Matthew Teague
>1.. How many atheists are there (current estimate)
Sigh....i don't think anyone's kept count....we're a fairly loose bunch,
and we have no central church or whatever (someone make sure Publius
reads that!!). Hopefully someone else will have a good estimate.
>2.. Are all leading scientists atheists
Heck, no. Some are, some aren't. But of those who are religious,
they tend to have very liberal interpretations of the Bible, or
whatever. They have to be, if they plan to do their job, open to
new ideas and new evidence. This is *not* incompatible with theism.
>3.. If not did they become enlightened with atheism
>when they discovered the workings of the environment.
Huh? "enlightened with atheism" for those who are *not* atheists?
You're losing me here. Certainly they've heard our point of view,
and usually (NOT always) understand it and respect it, even if they
disagree with it.
>4.. Were most inventions and dicoveries made by atheists.
No. Atheism wasn't really a viable option until somewhat
recently, and its progress is slow due to social stigma. That social
stigma *is* fading away though. And certainly we have no monopoly
on creativity. Atheism only comes through when you start subjecting
religious beliefs to the same scrutiny as say the laws of physics.
If you never put religion to that test, it's easy to maintain a belief.
>5.. Do atheists trust the works of theist scientists
Depends. Not one from alt.science.kooks, that's for sure.
But by and large, as long as they guy has done out the
calculations and taken good notes in his research, i'll trust
him. If he starts inserting scripture into his proofs, then
i'll start running, and running fast, because something is probably
going to blow up.
>6.. Ideally how would you want your bodies handled
>( I get the impression you would want them recycled
> as that is the scientific trend)
Depends. Except that it would probably cause friends
and relatives a great deal of anguish, i wouldn't care if they
threw me out with yesterday's garbage. Or bury me, WITHOUT
a coffin of any kind. Just put dirt right up against the corpse.
I'll decompose sooner or later, anyway.
But yes, organ donations would be the altruistic way to
go about it. I couldn't sign away my eyes, simply because
i have this totally irrational animal-level-instinctive-phobia
of anything happening to my eyes. (when i was a 2 yrs old i
accidentally dumped bleach in my eyes; go figure i've had this
phobia ever since) But any other body parts of mine are up
for grabs to whoever needs them after i'm dead.
>[ Do not get annoyed by the remark because Islam encourages
>recycling also
>1.. Use of human organs
>2.. Not using coffins which increases lag of recycling time
>3.. keeping graves of dirt only not building solid ones
>so as not to waste land ]
Really? I had not known that. Actually i agree with that totally.
Even if Islam did not, i would still not take offense. Actually it's
only logical, atheist or not, to recycle. Helps out others, and either
you don't exist anymore anyway, or if there is an afterlife, you no longer
have any use for the body.
Honoring the dead need not have anything to do with any ceremony
with the body.
Clark Davis Adams
>There is Nothing But Glorifies His (BEAVIS') Praise.
>Dear Atheists,
>Forgive me if these querries have been made before,
>I would appreciate some answers.
OK. Here are the answers of one atheist.
>1.. How many atheists are there (current estimate)
Oodles. According to the World Almanac, there are almost one billion
"non-religious" people in the world. While not all of these are
"atheists", a good number of them are. I don't know an exact number, as I
have never counted :).
>2.. Are all leading scientists atheists
No. The only thing "all leading scientists" are is scientists. However, I
would contend that a larger proportion of leading scientists would be
atheists than in the regular populace.
>3.. If not did they become enlightened with atheism
>when they discovered the workings of the environment.
I suppose. What is the point? What do you mean "enlightened with
atheism"? It sounds like a compliment to atheists. Thank you.
>4.. Were most inventions and dicoveries made by atheists.
Many were. Edison, who is probably the most accomplished inventor in
history, was an atheist. Darwin, whose discoveries revolutionized
science, theology, and philosophy, was an atheist/agnostic. An invention
or discovery must stand on its own merit, though, not on the religious
opinion of its originator.
>5.. Do atheists trust the works of theist scientists
Yup. If they are valid. I respect the works of Newton and Dobzhansky,
(both Xians) for example.
>6.. Ideally how would you want your bodies handled
>( I get the impression you would want them recycled
> as that is the scientific trend)
While I am alive, by an attractive female. When I am dead, I won't be
needing it, so I would like for it to be given to science and medicine.
As a humanist, I a would like for my body to better humanity in some way
after I perish. It would be better that way than if I merely fed worms.
>[ Do not get annoyed by the remark because Islam encourages
>recycling also
>1.. Use of human organs
>2.. Not using coffins which increases lag of recycling time
>3.. keeping graves of dirt only not building solid ones
>so as not to waste land ]
Why would I be annoyed? It was a fair question. Those three things are
admirable practices, but they have nothing to do with the truth or falsity
of Islam.
-- Clark
Chris Woodward (PSY)
>In His Name (ALLAH) , Be He (ALLAH) Glorified!
>There is Nothing But Glorifies His (ALLAH's) Praise.
>
>In The Name Of Allah, The Compassionate, The Merciful
>
>Dear Atheists,
>Forgive me if these querries have been made before,
>I would appreciate some answers.
>
>1.. How many atheists are there (current estimate)
Depends. There are lots of people who move in and out of
what they call atheism on a regular basis. You might want
to contact the American Atheist Society (there should be
a chapter in a city near you) for some actual numbers.
>2.. Are all leading scientists atheists
Not at all. All leading scientists know enough, however,
to keep their religious and scientific lives separate.
>3.. If not did they become enlightened with atheism
>when they discovered the workings of the environment.
Begs the question, doesn't it? That's like asking "Have
you stopped masturbating your dog yet?"
>4.. Were most inventions and dicoveries made by atheists.
Hard to say. Very few inventors and discoverers had enough
time on their hands to declare their religious beliefs.
>5.. Do atheists trust the works of theist scientists
As long as that work is independently supportable, and
doesn't require subscription to the theist scientist's
private beliefs, yes. The evidence has to speak for itself.
>6.. Ideally how would you want your bodies handled
>( I get the impression you would want them recycled
> as that is the scientific trend)
By the Swedish Bikini Team, if possible.
Jim Perry
>1.. How many atheists are there (current estimate)
About 20%+ of the world's population, according to alt.atheism
definitions (all non-believers in deities, not limited to dogmatic
definitions).
>2.. Are all leading scientists atheists
No. Certainly not historically, though atheism is more common these
days among the more educated, and especially the more scientifically
educated.
>3.. If not did they become enlightened with atheism
>when they discovered the workings of the environment.
I can't parse this. Do you mean do believers tend to lose faith upon
learning science? Some do, but I don't know what proportion; clearly
not all.
>4.. Were most inventions and dicoveries made by atheists.
Probably not -- open atheism is a relatively new phenomenon in our
society. The only ways this might be true are a) if historically
scientists were *really* religious skeptics, deep down, or b)
according to arguments of the form "95% of all inventions have been
invented in the past 50 years". I don't believe either of these are
true (though I don't know they're false either).
>5.. Do atheists trust the works of theist scientists
If they're competent scientises, their religious beliefs are their own
business.
>6.. Ideally how would you want your bodies handled
>( I get the impression you would want them recycled
> as that is the scientific trend)
Personally, I don't care (assuming you mean after death here); it
won't matter to me one way or another. The custom of allowing corpses
to moulder in expensive boxes buried in expensive plots of land
reserved for the purpose is stupid and wasteful, in my opinion.
Assuming it meets the emotional needs of my surviving family, I'd say:
use whatever bits can be put to good use, and dispose of the rest in
the most efficient manner available.
--
Jim Perry pe...@dsinc.com Decision Support, Inc., Matthews NC
This particularly rapid, unintelligible patter
Isn't generally heard, and if it is it doesn't matter! (W.S. Gilbert)
chi kim
: There is Nothing But Glorifies His (ALLAH's) Praise.
: In The Name Of Allah, The Compassionate, The Merciful
: Dear Atheists,
: Forgive me if these querries have been made before,
: I would appreciate some answers.
: 1.. How many atheists are there (current estimate)
I'm afraid I can't help you on that point. I'd suggest an almanac,
although they probably just have an "unaffiliated" listing.
: 2.. Are all leading scientists atheists
No, but many are.
: 4.. Were most inventions and dicoveries made by atheists.
Many were, but I wouldn't go so far as to say most, because theism was
almost universal in Europe before the 18th century or so.
: 5.. Do atheists trust the works of theist scientists
I wouldn't treat a theist's work any different from an atheist's. I
would inspect the work and judge it individually.
: 6.. Ideally how would you want your bodies handled
: ( I get the impression you would want them recycled
: as that is the scientific trend)
I would want any organs that are useful to be transplanted (people
need those organs a lot more than I would after I die). I also would
want to be cremated and my ashes spread somewhere. I wouldn't want to
be buried in a graveyard, because that would waste land.
C.
--
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are
punished....unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of
trumpets." --Voltaire
Munir K Nayyar
There is Nothing But Glorifies His (ALLAH's) Praise.
In The Name Of Allah, The Compassionate, The Merciful
Dear Clark,
You Write,
:While I am alive, by an attractive female.
Sense of Humor is aknowledged.
Regards,
Munir.
mark
(though he apparently hasn't a *clue* about what a logical and rational
argument is)
>In the name of Almighty Allah the most Beneficent and Merciful
>
>Dear Matz,
>You Write,
>:It's easy to invent a God (or several) for these reasons.
>
>This implies it tough not to believe in one
>and easy to believe in one
Ease of invention does not imply anything like this. All that *I* can
think that it implies is that it's harder to find *real* reasons for such
things. Think of it this way: it's easy for a little kid to deny having
done something, and blame it on "I don't know", when they haven't the
reasoning yet to figure out that you heard them in the room, and there's
no animal or person or breeze that could have done it. Does that imply that
it's easy for me to believe that the kid *didn't* do it?
<snip>
>Also it can be deduced that there is more probability
>of existence of one than not
Show us this proof. Was it Pascal who, 150 years ago, tried, and came up
with the "wager"? (Sorry, it's been too many years since Philosophy 101.)
>further more it is easy to believe than not
>THIS IMPLIES that the concept is much clearer than
>being vague or ambiguious
Oh, so you believe Ronnie Raygun's, or Ollie North's view of the world,
too? They're simple and clear. Of course, they only map a fantasy world,
but they're simple and clear.
>Which means You can not blame God for being unfair
>because he already made everything clear
If it was clear, why are there sects *within* religions, much less mulitple
religions in the *same* tradition (JCI), as well as more religions *outside*
the traditions?
>IT also proves true God's word that we need him
>and he does not need us(He is independent we are dependent)
a) Find a dictionary.
b) Read the definition of the word "proof".
c) Find an encyclopedia (say, the Brittanica).
d) Read what it has to say about proofs and arguments.
e) After completing these assignments, decide if you want to come back
and try again, or just to open a brown paper bag and insert your
head into it, knowing that you made a fool of yourself in front
of tens of thousands of people.
mark
mark
From: bans...@wixer.com (Susan Harwood Kaczmarczik)
Subject: ALT.PAGAN Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Message-ID: <1993Oct31.1...@wixer.bga.com>
Followup-To: alt.pagan
Summary: This FAQ for alt.pagan answers questions on paganism, Wicca,
& witchcraft
Sender: bans...@wixer.bga.com (Susan Harwood Kaczmarczik)
Supersedes: <1993Sep22.1...@wixer.bga.com>
Reply-To: bans...@wixer.bga.com (Susan Harwood Kaczmarczik)
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1993 15:21:56 GMT
Approved: news-answe...@MIT.Edu
Lines: 776
Archive-name: paganism-faq
Last-modified: Oct 31 1993
Version: 2
Posting-frequency: every four weeks or after each revision
Keywords: paganism Wicca Witchcraft
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS FOR ALT.PAGAN
Authors:
Susan Harwood Kaczmarczik; Br'an Arthur Davis-Howe;
T. O. Radzykewycz; Ailsa N.T. Murphy; Cecilia Henningsson
Acknowledgements to Jack Coyote and Robert Pearson, and a special
thanks to Janis Maria Cortese.
**Disclaimer**
Throughout this FAQ you will find the words "usually," often," and
other disclaimers; this is because Paganism is not a rigid, structured
belief system. We have tried to present as many faces of the neopagan
sub-culture as possible in the FAQ, but realize we can't possibly
cover it all.
Many people, no doubt, will object to every part of this FAQ, but
we stand by it as our best attempt.
*First version completed 25 January 1993*
Questions:
1) What is this group for?
2) What is paganism/a pagan?
2b) What is Paganism? How is it different from paganism?
3) What are different types of paganism?
4) What is Witchcraft/Wicca?
4b) Why do some of you use the word Witch? Wiccan?
5) What are some different traditions in the Craft?
6) Are pagans Witches?
7) Are you Satanists?
8) What kinds of people are pagans?
9) What holidays do you celebrate?
9b) How do I pronounce...? What does this name mean?
10) What god(s) do you believe in?
11) Can one be both Christian and pagan?
12) What were the Burning Times?
13) How many pagans/Witches are there today?
14) Why isn't it soc.religion.paganism instead of alt.pagan?
15) Is brutal honesty or polite conversation the preferred tone of
conversation around here?
16) What are the related newsgroups?
17) Are there any electronic mailing lists on this subject?
18) I'm not a pagan; should I post here?
19) How does one/do I become a pagan?
20) What books/magazines should I read?
21) How do I find pagans/Witches/covens/teachers in my area?
22) What's a coven really like?
23) How do I form a coven?
24) What does Dianic mean?
25) Aren't women-only circles discriminatory?
26) Can/will you cast me a love spell/curse my enemies?
27) Is it okay if I...? Will I still be a pagan if I...?
28) I am a pagan and I think I am being discriminated against because
of my religion. What should I do?
29) What one thing would most pagans probably want the world to know
about them?
1) What is this group for?
This newsgroup is for the discussion of paganism and Witchcraft in
their various forms and traditions; for sharing ideas for ritual and
completed liturgy; for networking with others of a like mind and those
who are not; for answering questions and disseminating information
about paganism and Witchcraft (and, occasionally, for dispelling the
misconceptions about same). It's also for sharing within a larger
community than one might find at home. While we are interested in
traditional pagan practices, the alt.pagan community is fundamentally
neopagan -- our practices are modern, though they are based on ancient
ideas or images.
2) What is paganism/a pagan?
The words paganism and pagan come from the Latin "paganus,"
meaning "country dweller." Neopagans hold a reverence for the Earth
and all its creatures, generally see all life as interconnected, and
tend to strive to attune one's self to the manifestation of this
belief as seen in the cycles of nature. Pagans are usually
polytheistic (believing in more than one god), and they usually
believe in immanance, or the concept of divinity residing in all
things. Many pagans, though polytheistic, see all things as being
part of one Great Mystery. The apparent contradiction of being both
polytheistic and monotheistic can be resolved by seeing the God/desses
as masks worn by the Great Mystery. Other pagans are simply
monotheistic or polytheistic, and still others are atheistic.
Some people believe paganism to be a religion within itself;
others see it as a belief system (such as monotheism) that can be
incorporated into religions like Wicca or Druidism; others see it as a
broad category including many religions. The fact that we are
re-creating religion for ourselves after centuries of suppression
makes us very eclectic and very concerned with the "rightness" of a
particular thing for the individual. So when you see some people
calling it a religion and others not, when you see it capitalized in
some instances and not in others, don't be confused -- we're all still
basically talking about the same thing.
2b) What is Paganism? How is it different from paganism?
Paganism (with a capital "P") is one strand of neopaganism which
strives to allow each person to draw from whatever religious and
cultural traditions are meaningful for the individual. The practices
of Paganism derive from those of Wicca, but are not identical with
those of Wicca. Some people view Paganism as a non-initiatory form of
Wicca, or Wicca as an initiatory form of Paganism. Some say that
Witches are the clergy of Paganism. (On the other hand, some Witches
violently disagree with that viewpoint. As with most things in this
FAQ, there is no answer with which everyone can completely agree.)
3) What are different types of paganism?
Paleo-paganism: the standard of paganism, a pagan culture which
has not been disrupted by "civilization" by another culture --
Australian Bushmen modern (who are probably becoming meso-pagans),
ancient Celtic religion (Druidism), the religions of the
pre-patriarchal cultures of Old Europe, Norse religion, pre-Columbian
Native American religions, etc.
Civilo-paganism: the religions of "civilized" communities which
evolved in paleo-pagan cultures -- Classical Greco-Roman religion,
Egyptian religion, Middle-Eastern paganism, Aztec religion, etc.
Meso-paganism: a group, which may or may not still constitute a
separate culture, which has been influenced by a conquering culture,
but has been able to maintain an independence of religious practice --
many Native American nations, etc.
Syncreto-paganism: similar to meso-pagan, but having had to
submerge itself into the dominant culture, and adopt the external
practices and symbols of the other religion -- the various
Afro-diasporic traditions (Voudoun, Santeria, etc.), Culdee
Christianity, etc.
Neopaganism: attempts of modern people to reconnect with nature,
using imagery and forms from other types of pagans, but adjusting them
to the needs of modern people. Since this category is the focus of
alt.pagan, the listing here is more comprehensive (though no listing
could be completely comprehensive):
Wicca -- in all its many forms
neo-Shamanism
neo-Druidism
Asatru and other forms of Norse neopaganism
neo-Native American practices
the range of things labeled "Women's Spirituality"
the Sabaean Religious Order
Church of All Worlds
Discordianism
Radical Faeries and other "Men's Spirituality" movements
certain people within Thelema and hedonistic Satanism
some of eco-feminism
and last, but not least, Paganism
4) What is Witchcraft/Wicca?
Wicca was the first (or at least one of the first) of the neopagan
religions. As a result, it is the best known, and tends to overshadow
its younger, smaller siblings. This bias appears in the postings in
alt.pagan and in this FAQ. This does not mean that Wicca is more
valid than other neopagan religions -- just larger and louder.
Wicca, however, is only one of the things called W/witchcraft (or
sometimes, the Craft, a term also applied to Masonry). There are a
whole range of styles of folk-magic around the world which are called
witchcraft in English. If the word Witch is capitalized, it indicates
that it is being used to refer to a member of a pagan religion, not
just to a practitioner of folk-magic. There are also Witches who
practice religions called Witchcraft which are not Wicca. These
religions tend to be more folk-pagan than Wicca, drawing on the
heritage of a specific culture or region.
Wicca itself is a new religion, drawing strongly on the practices
of Ceremonial Magic. While there are claims that Wicca goes back into
the mists of pre-history, honest examination of the practices and
history of the Wicca will make it clear that Wicca is new. (Actually,
the word "Wicca" itself is recently coined, at least in its present
usage. The OE "wicca" was pronounced "witch-ah" and meant male
magician. The new word "Wicca" is pronounced "wick-uh", capitalized
as a religion, and means a religion, not a person.) However, Wicca
has developed in many directions and should not be seen as a unified
whole, even though it is fairly new. Rituals and beliefs vary widely
among Witches.
Unlike most of the neopagan religions, Wicca is an initiatory
religion, that is, people who choose to practice Wicca believe that
the commitment to this path set changes in motion in their lives.
Many Traditions (sects) of Wicca formalize this with a ritual (or
series of rituals) of initiation. Others, especially Solitary
Witches, trust that the Gods will do the initiating of the Witch.
4b) Why do some of you use the word Witch? Wiccan?
First, not everyone in alt.pagan is Wiccan/Witchy, so this
question only applies to some of the people.
Witch is a very old word meaning "magic-maker", from a root which
meant "bending" and "shaping". For many of us, the word Witch is a
powerful reclaiming of that inherent human power to make changes
around us. For others, including some of the people within Wicca,
that word is not their word. Some people within Wicca take the
adjective "Wiccan" and use it as a noun.
(Some people question the authenticity of the etymology that says
"witch" means "to bend or shape." They believe that the word is
simply from the Old English for "wise one" and has no relation to the
root mentioned above -- which gives us the modern word "wicker," for
instance. However, this definition is a good way to think of how a
modern Witch might see him/herself.)
5) What are some different traditions in the Craft?
Different traditions in the Craft include Gardnerian Wicca,
Alexandrian Wicca, Dianic Wicca, the Faery tradition, many branches of
Celtic-based Wicca, and many other forms of Wicca often called
eclectic, since they draw their practices and liturgy from many
different sources. There is no way to include all traditions because
new ones are being created every day by the practitioners themselves.
6) Are pagans Witches?
We've mentioned that even among pagans and Witches, there is
dispute about just how specific these terms are. But the majority
opinion seems to be that the question, "Are pagans Witches?" is about
the same as the question, "Are Christians Catholics?" (or Methodists,
Baptists or whatever). Most Witches are pagans, but not all pagans
are Witches.
7) Are you Satanists?
This is a bit of a loaded question, since there are several
different conceptions of what Satanism really is. Most pagans do not
worship Satan or practice Satanic rites. Some pagans practice
something called Satanism, but it is a far cry from the Hollywood
image of Satanism. These people tend to value pleasure as a primary
motivation, or to find meaning in images which the repressive
Christian churches attacked. For some of these folk, reclaiming the
word "Satanist" is an act of resistance against oppression. For more
information on Satanism as a religion, please check out alt.satanism.
If what you're really wanting to know is do we sacrifice babies
and worship evil incarnate, the answer's no.
8) What kinds of people are pagans?
People from all walks of life are pagans -- computer programmers,
artists, police officers, journalists, university professors -- the
list is endless. Many people, no matter what their mundane
occupation, find solace in the life-affirming aspects of paganism.
9) What holidays do you celebrate?
Because neopaganism follows so many traditions from many different
parts of the world, there is no single set of holidays that all
neopagans celebrate. Several calendars are available which list many
different holidays, one or more for every day of the year (e.g. Wise
Woman's Wheel of the Year calendar from SageWoman Magazine). Most of
these holidays are either dedicated to particular deities (e.g.
Brighid, Diana, Thor), or mark seasonal changes in the environment
(e.g. the solstices and equinoxes). What specific holidays are
celebrated is something decided within a certain tradition, or by the
individual.
9b) How do I pronounce...? What does this name mean?
The names that are generally used to denote the Wiccan sabbats (as
well as festivals of many pagan traditions) come from Gaelic (both
Scots and Irish), Welsh, Norse, and Anglo-Saxon. There are variations
of pronunciations for each one. We are not trying to say that if you
don't say it like we tell you to, that you'll be wrong or anything
like that. But since so many people have asked, here is a list that
can give you a good start in trying to sound like the languages from
which these words came.
Just remember, this is not some kind of Sekrit Pagan Language
(TM); many of these words are in use in Europe today by pagans and
non-pagans alike to denote these days. And yes, this shows a European
bias, but then so do the commonly-used names for Wiccan holy days.
These seem to be the names most frequently asked about in alt.pagan.
Samhain (31 Oct) -- Irish Gaelic for "summer's end." The
standard Irish pronunciation is "sow-in" with the "ow" like in "cow."
Other pronunciations that follow with the many Gaelic dialects include
"sow-een" "shahvin" "sowin" (with "ow" like in "glow"). The Scots
Gaelic spelling is "Samhuin" or "Samhuinn." There is no linguistic
foundation for saying this word "samhane" the way it might look if it
were English. When in doubt, just say "Hallows" or even "Hallowe'en."
Yule (@21 Dec) -- Norse for "wheel." It's pretty much
pronounced just like it looks, although if you want to make a stab at
a Scandinavian sound, it'll be more like "yool" and less like "yewl."
This is the winter solstice.
Imbolg/Imbolc (1 Feb) -- Irish Gaelic for "in the belly."
Pronounce this one "IM-bullug" or "IM-bulk" with a guttural "k" on the
end. Other names include Candlemas; Brighid (pronounced "breed"), who
is the Irish goddess whose festival this is; and Oimelc (pronounced
EE-mulk), which means "ewe's milk" in Scots Gaelic.
Ostara (@21 Mar) -- Saxon name for a maiden goddess of spring,
loosely connected to Astarte and Ishtar. This one's easy --
"o-STAHR-uh." Other names include Eostre (say "OHS-truh" or
"EST-truh"). This is the spring equinox.
Beltane/Bealtaine (30 April) -- Irish Gaelic for either "fires
of Bel" or "bright fires." If you want to try it in Gaelic, you can
say "bee-YAWL-tinnuh" or "BELL-tinnuh." Unlike Samhain, this word can
within the linguistic structure of its language of origin be
pronounced like it looks -- "BELL-tane" -- without totally abandoning
its original construction. Other names are Walpurgisnacht
(vawl-PUR-gis-nahkt) and May Day.
Litha (@21 Jun) -- Norse or Anglo-Saxon for "longest day."
You can say this one just like it looks, or you can try for a
Scandinavian sound and say "leetha" with the "th" more like a "t."
This is the summer solstice.
Lughnasadh/Lunasa or Lammas (1 Aug) -- The first is Irish
Gaelic for "festival of Lugh" (a major Irish deity); the second is
Anglo-Saxon for "festival of the loaves" ("hlaf-mass"). Don't panic
at that spelling; the second (which is modern Irish as opposed to old
Irish) tells you all you need to know. Say "LOO-nah-sah." (Some
people maintain that the Scots dialect says it "LOO-nah-soo.") Lammas
is just like it looks, "LAH-mus."
Mabon (@21 Sep) -- This is believed to be a form of the Welsh
word for "son." Therefore, it would probably be pronounced "MA-bon"
with the "a" like in "mass." However, most Wiccans and pagans say
"MAY-bon." This is the autumn equinox.
10) What god(s) do you believe in?
Neopagans believe in a great many goddesses and gods. However,
not all neopagans believe in the same ones, or even in any at all.
Many neopagans believe in a Goddess and a God that are manifest in all
things. Some follow particular pantheons (e.g. Greek, Irish, Norse,
Yoruban, Welsh), others don't stick to any one culture, and still
others see the Divine in more symbolic terms. Many ascribe certain
qualities to different goddesses, such as Athena as the goddess of
wisdom; Aphrodite as the goddess of love; Artemis as the goddess of
the hunt, and so on. Many pagans and Witches see the Goddess in three
aspects, those of Maiden, Mother and Crone; and the God in two, the
Young God and the Old God. Other pagans do not believe in any gods at
all, but instead honor spirits and/or totems in various forms such as
animals or trees, as in many of the native American religions. As is
usually the case, defining "God" is a very slippery idea. But these
are some of the more common among modern pagans.
11) Can one be both Christian and pagan?
Depends on who you ask. :)
There is much dissention on this particular topic, with both
pagans and Christians taking both stances. There are many brands of
Christian mysticism, some more similar to the aspects of paganism than
others. But some pagans who dance outside to the light of the moon
and praise the Goddess in Her aspect of Diana see and feel no
contradiction to going inside and lighting candles to Mary, the Queen
of Heaven and the Mother of God, the next day. And those same pagans
see the same sacrificial king motif in Jesus as they do in Osiris.
Many people might find it difficult to reconcile the two paths;
others see a successful integration possible. It depends on what is
right for the individual.
12) What were the Burning Times?
The Burning Times is the name used by many modern Witches and
pagans for the era of the Inquisition, and of the other witch hunts
(including Salem) which sprang from it. During that time, many
women and some men were persecuted for practices objectionable to the
Church, especially witchcraft. The _Malleus Maleficarum_ was a guide
on how to torture accused witches into confessing to whatever they
were accused of. At the height of the persecutions, entire towns were
left with only one or two women in them, and to this day no one knows
for sure how many people were brutally murdered during this craze.
As is often the case, this horror sprang from fear and
misinformation -- most of the people who were arrested, tortured and
killed were not Witches (or witches) of any sort, but simply people
who had gotten on the wrong side of someone who had the local
magistrate's ear, or who somehow didn't fit in (particularly beautiful
or ugly women, widows who had wealth or owned land, the handicapped
and retarded, and even overly intelligent people are all examples of
those who became primary targets of this persecution).
Although discrimination still exists against Witches and pagans,
we now enjoy comparative freedom of religious practice after those
dark times. But this time is considered a very important event by
most Witches and pagans (comparable to the atrocities and devastation
perpetrated during the Holocaust ), one that should never be
forgotten, and many do active public education work to assure as best
they can that it will never happen again.
13) How many pagans/Witches are there today?
Although many people have given estimates, it's impossible to know
this due to the number of people "in the broom closet." However, all
branches of the neopagan movement are steadily growing.
14) Why isn't it soc.religion.paganism instead of alt.pagan?
Because we had a vote to create a talk.religion.paganism newsgroup
back in January 1990 and it was voted down, largely because the
proposed group was to be moderated and people didn't like that idea.
So, when that failed, some enterprising soul took it upon himself to
create alt.pagan, because you don't need approval to do that.
Since then, we have discussed changing newsgroup hierarchies
(usually to either soc.religion or talk.religion), but the consensus
at present seems to be to keep the format we have. Being typical
pagans, we like as little structure as possible.
15) Is brutal honesty or polite conversation the preferred mode
of conversation around here?
People tend to get a little rowdy around here sometimes, so don't
let it get to you. One of the disadvantages to this type of
communication is the increased possibility of misunderstanding due to
the inability to see the person and hear his or her vocal inflections,
see their facial expressions, et cetera. It's generally frowned upon
to attack someone baselessly, but there is no problem with disagreeing
with someone vigorously -- vociferously, even. Try being
constructive.
16) What are the related newsgroups?
alt.mythology
alt.satanism
alt.magick
alt.astrology
alt.divination
alt.discordia
17) Are there any electronic mailing lists on this subject?
Many -- we will include some in our alt.pagan resources list.
This list is not yet completed; we will revise the FAQ as soon as it
is.
18) I'm not a pagan; should I post here?
Yes, definitely -- with a couple of caveats:
a) Don't come on to witness to us. We're really not interested in
being converted (or worse, saved). It's not a tenet of our path to
convert, and so we are particularly unhappy with the idea. Plus
which, you will add unnecessarily to the noise level in this
newsgroup, since most readers will feel compelled to flame you to the
farthest reaches of Hell.
(This doesn't mean we don't want to discuss aspects of other
religions as they relate to paganism, however. Discussion we like.
Argument, even. But *not* witness attempts.)
b) If you're new to News, then you might want to check out
news.announce.newusers for the posting protocol. And you might want
to read some articles for a while -- get the feel of things -- before
you post.
And remember, Usenet and Internet provide you with (among other
things) the opportunity to make a total fool of yourself in front of
thousands of people worldwide, *and* include the bonus of having it
preserved on CD-ROM for many years afterwards.
19) How does one/do I become a pagan?
Most followers of pagan beliefs feel that, if someone is meant to
find the pagan path, s/he will eventually. Usually, it is not a case
so much of "becoming" a pagan as it is of finding a vocabulary for
ideas and beliefs that you have always held. Good ways of
investigating if this path is for you is to frequent pagan or new age
bookstores, attend open pagan gatherings when the opportunity arises,
and look for contacts. Most importantly, read read read! There are
plenty of good books out there, as well as periodicals. The latter
especially might be useful in the way of making contacts in your area.
20) What books/magazines should I read?
There are many, many good books on this subject (and quite a few
bad ones), and we will have many of them in our alt.pagan resources
list when it is completed. But the best book to read is _Drawing Down
the Moon_ by Margot Adler. This is not a how-to book; it's a
comprehensive study of the neopagan movement in America, and the
author is a journalist, a reporter for National Public Radio, and a
pagan.
Also, to get started contacting other pagans, the best place to
write is Circle Network, P.O. Box 219, Mt. Horeb, WI, 53572. Circle
is the largest pagan network in the country and publishes a guide to
pagan groups around the United States, Canada, and overseas. They
might be able to get you in touch with pagans in your area if you
can't find them yourself.
If you start with that, then you will generally find pointers to
other sources and resources.
21) How do I find pagans/Witches/covens/teachers in my area? How do I
evaluate them?
Some of your best contacts may come from your local new age, pagan
or occult bookstores. Check their bulletin boards for notices, or ask
the staff. Also, many periodicals frequently allow people to
advertise for contacts in their particular area. Circle Network,
based in Wisconsin, has recently come out with an updated guide to
pagan groups; it is available by mail-order or through certain new age
bookstores.
Don't be in a hurry to find a teacher. "When the student is
ready, the teacher will appear" is a popular saying in most pagan and
Craft communities. Frustrating as that may sound, it's really a
sensible way to think. Neopaganism, like any esoteric movement,
attracts its share of unsavory characters. When you do meet people,
use your intuition. If they seem somehow "off" to you, then they're
probably not for you. If no one seems like someone you think you'd
like to be with, then you're probably better off working solitary, at
least for such time as you find no compatible people.
And by no means should you infer from this that all solitaries are
"pagans-in-waiting". Many people are quite happy to work alone, and
in fact prefer it. There is nothing wrong with working on your own as
long as you like -- even if that turns out to be a lifetime.
In fact, there are several people who highly recommend that you
study on your own for a while before looking for others to work with.
This gives you the chance to get started figuring out what feels right
for you without having pressure from others to conform to their
beliefs and dogmas.
22) What's a coven really like?
Well, if you're expecting to hear about sex and blood magic,
animal sacrifice, and ritual cruelty, then you'll be disappointed.
Forming or joining a coven, is a spiritual commitment (the words coven
and covenant are related) that is entered into advisedly. Once that
bond is made, though, you find yourself in a spiritual community of
people who have roughly the same theology, getting together to
celebrate the passing of the seasons and the cycles of the moon,
providing support and comfort to its members -- a lot like a small
spiritual community of any faith. Another common saying in the Craft
is "In perfect love and perfect trust," and that sums up the
relationship among coveners pretty well.
Another kind of group for like-minded pagans to gather in is
called a circle. The ties between coven members are as close as those
between members of a family, and in some cases, closer. A circle is
similar to a group of friends -- you like to do things together, but
the bonds between members are not as serious as between coven-members.
23) How do I form a coven?
Just as you shouldn't be in a big rush to find a teacher, you
probably shouldn't set right out to form a coven. Most Witches
believe the coven bond to be a very intense and serious one, one that
applies on the Karmic as well as mundane levels. Think of it as
getting married -- you wouldn't marry the first people you met who are
interested in getting married too, would you?
Forming a circle, or a magical study group, is perhaps a better
first step. It can be on a relatively informal basis, and you and the
other participants can get to know each other while learning about the
Craft together (as a matter of fact, many covens are formed from study
groups). The fun of this is that you can meet more people who are
interested in what you're interested in, and you can all learn
together, and maybe even develop a tradition from the results of your
studies. (You can do this as a solitary, of course, but some people
do take more enjoyment in working with others. Once again, do what's
right for you.)
The steps for contacting people to form a coven are much the same
as finding other pagans and Witches in your area. A word of advice,
though: You may want to leave your last name off, or get a P.O. box.
Don't give out your number (unless you have an answering machine).
Advertising yourself as being interested in this sort of thing might
attract, shall we say, undesirables. Try writing such a notice so
that those who are probably interested in similar ideals will know
what you're talking about without attracting the attention of people
who aren't. Even though *we* know that we're perfectly ethical and
legitimate, not everyone else does.
24) What does Dianic mean?
Like everything else in neopaganism and the Craft, the term Dianic
is one that has several meanings. A majority of those who call
themselves Dianic are women that choose not to work with male energy
in their ritual, magic, or universe. They feel that they need
spiritual and psychic space filled with only women's energy.
Some Dianics are feminist Witches, both lesbian and heterosexual,
who often come to the Craft through feminism. Although these women
may be involved with men in one way or another, they agree that
religion has over-emphasized the male for the last several thousand
years, and therefore want to share their women's energy in women's
circles. They may or may not also be involved with the mainstream
pagan community, and they may or may not participate in magic and
ritual with men.
The most visible groups of Dianics are those who are lesbian
Dianics. They are generally not interested in revering any sort of
male deity or in working with men in circle. They choose to limit
their dependence on and acceptance of the male-defined world as much
as possible, and they do so not to exclude men but rather to celebrate
women and the feminine. For that reason many of them do not interact
much with the "mainstream" pagan community.
(There are also those who call themselves Dianic and who are not
like those described above, but who practice Witchcraft based on the
traditions found books like those of anthropologist Margaret Murray.
However, the term is more often meant to designate those practitioners
described in the first two paragraphs.)
25) Aren't women-only circles discriminatory?
Yes, women-only circles are discriminatory. So what? *ALL*
circles are somewhat discriminatory, even if the only discrimination
is that they'll evict preachers who disrupt the proceedings of the
circle.
If you're worried about being discriminatory in your own circle,
simply look at the circle as a group of friends. Then, the
discrimination is simply a limit on who you'll have as your friends,
which is undeniably a good thing.
If you're worried about being discriminated against, then you can
form your own circle, and you have the option to make it a men-only
circle. Why do you want to intrude into a social space where you're
not wanted?
If the participants are discussing business-related things
affecting you during their circle, then you have legal rights to be
allowed to participate, regardless of whether the discrimination is
gender-related or not. It would be good advice to avoid such topics
during circle. If you're worried that a circle from which you're
excluded is doing so, you can talk to a lawyer to find out what those
rights are and whether it will be wise and useful to pursue them.
Ultimately, though, you need to remember that some people feel
strongly that some mysteries are gender-related and therefore it is
not appropriate to have men (or women, depending) in attendance. It's
not a plot to keep you out or to make you feel bad, but rather quite
an ancient method of exploring certain mysteries that only apply to
one sex (e.g. menstruation).
26) Can/will you cast me a love spell/curse my enemies?
Can we? Probably. (Whether it might yield the desired result is
something else.) Will we? Not on your life, bucko.
Pagans and Witches usually believe in some form of what's called
the Witches' Rede: "As long as you harm no one, do what you will."
That isn't nearly as easy as it might sound. That means whatever
action you undertake, it can't harm anyone, including yourself.
Witches and pagans also believe in some form of the Law of Return:
"Whatever you do magically [or otherwise] will come back to you," some
say three times, some nine, some just say it will come back to you.
And it does. As Ursula K. LeGuin said, "You can't light a candle
without somewhere casting a shadow."
Most of us believe that it is wrong to use magical power to coerce
someone into doing something against his or her free will. Curses and
love spells are the most prevalent examples of manipulative magic.
Some Witches and pagans do believe that using one's powers in defense
(say, to assure a rapist's getting caught) is all right; others do
not. Those who do choose to work that kind of magic do so knowing
that it will come back to them, and are making an informed choice when
they decide to do so.
This makes it sound as if we spend our lives deciding whether to
curse or hex someone, when that's not true. Most of the time, our
spells and magical workings are for such things as healing the planet,
getting a job (or otherwise bringing prosperity into our lives),
healing (both ourselves and others), and spiritual empowerment.
Spells are really quite similar to prayer -- they just have more
Hollywood hoopla attached to them.
Besides, anything you do for yourself will work much better than a
spell or working done by someone else.
27. Is it okay if I...? Will I still be a pagan if I...?
Yes. Most pagans take a clearly anti-authorative (no one is your
superior) stance when it comes to other pagans' religious practices.
Ideally, we try to remember the relativity of our values.
One of the major advantages of neopaganism, is that it is defined
by you, and that is what makes it so empowering (making you feel your
own power). Nobody can tell you that you aren't a true neopagan,
because *you* decide what's right for *you*. There are no dogmas
(truth defined by an expert) in neopaganism, simply because there
couldn't possibly be any expert who knows better than you what feels
right for you. Many pagans also appreciate the Discordian catma
(related to dog-ma :) "Any Discordian is expressedly forbidden to
believe what she reads." We also like the paradox in this cuddly
catma.
You are encouraged to share your new ideas and inventions with us,
but a statement along with a request for comments will probably give
you more informative replies than asking your fellow netters for
permission to do what is right for you. A "Am I still okay if I..."
question will probably leave you with dozens of responses containing
the most frequently given piece of advice on alt.pagan: Do what feels
right for you. If what you really want is to hear that you are okay,
please turn to alt.support.
28) I am a pagan and I think I am being discriminated against because
of my religion. What should I do?
First of all, don't panic. Are you really being discriminated
against, or are things happening to you that would happen no matter
what your religious beliefs were? Not to belittle religious
discrimination because of course it happens, but you want to be sure
that's what is going on before you take measures based on that
assumption.
If, after looking at the situation objectively, you feel that you
are being treated the way you are *specifically because of your
religion*, then there are groups you can contact who specialize in
giving assistance in just this very thing. One is Circle Network,
whose address is given above. Another is AMER (Alliance of Magical
and Earth Religions), and they can be reached at am...@lectrickblue.com
or from addresses on several hobbyist networks including FIDONET as
well.
28) What one thing would most pagans probably want the world to know
about them?
The answer included here comes from Margot Adler's excellent book
_Drawing Down the Moon: Witches, Druids, Goddess-Worshippers and Other
Pagans in America Today_ (the revised edition). If after reading this
FAQ, you want to learn even more about modern paganism, we highly
recommend this book. It is available in most bookstores and in many
libraries.
"We are not evil. We don't harm or seduce people. We are not
dangerous. We are ordinary people like you. We have families, jobs,
hopes, and dreams. We are not a cult. This religion is not a joke.
We are not what you think we are from looking at T.V. We are real.
We laugh, we cry. We are serious. We have a sense of humor. You
don't have to be afraid of us. We don't want to convert you. And
please don't try to convert us. Just give us the same right we give
you -- to live in peace. We are much more similar to you than you
think."
-- Margot Adler, _Drawing Down the Moon_, p.453.
AFTERWORD
The creators of this FAQ want to thank the readers of alt.pagan for
their input in compiling the questions. We will be more than happy to
revise it to include the points of view from other readers. If you
would like to add information to this FAQ, please send email to
bans...@wixer.bga.com with your proposed addition.
Thank you and Blessed Be!
**References**
_Drawing Down the Moon_, Margot Adler, Beacon Press.
_To Know_, Jade, Delphi Press.
This file is available via anonymous Internet FTP to the host
ftp.cc.utexas.edu (128.83.186.19), in the directory /pub/amadeus.
--
-----Susan Harwood Kaczmarczik---------...@wixer.bga.com-----
"The hart he loves the high wood, the hare she loves the hill;
The Knight he loves his bright sword; the Lady -- loves her will."
Doug O'Neal
> In His Name (ALLAH) , Be He (ALLAH) Glorified!
> There is Nothing But Glorifies His (ALLAH's) Praise.
> In The Name Of Allah, The Compassionate, The Merciful
In other words, the One Really Big Dude
> 1.. How many atheists are there (current estimate)
> 2.. Are all leading scientists atheists
> 3.. If not did they become enlightened with atheism
> when they discovered the workings of the environment.
> 4.. Were most inventions and dicoveries made by atheists.
Heck, no. Einstein was a Jew who commented "I believe in Spinoza's
God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists." Johannes
Kepler was extremely religious, and was powerfully motivated by his
desire to understand the mind of God, and God's plan for the universe.
The medieval Arabic scholars responsible for the preservation of ancient
Greek science (and some pretty good work of their own) were probably
Moslem, devout to some degree or other. Subramanyan Chandrasekhar,
practicing Hindu, developed much of modern stellar evolution theory in
the middle of this century.
Personally, I'm kind of a naturalistic pagan, and my beliefs about
the universe and our place in it inspire me to keep learning about
science.
> 5.. Do atheists trust the works of theist scientists
I know quite a number of scientists who are practicing Christians or
Jews. As for Einstein and Kepler, their work has stood the test of
time, and has been found to describe nature well. That's all you need.
They were great thinkers who were inspired to search for the mysterious,
which they identified with their own visions of God. All scientists, all
searchers, have different names for that mysterious and wonderful part
of nature, but it inspires us all. The scientific community is one of
the most tolerant groups of people in the world. We respect people not
because of their race or religion, but based on whether they do good
scientific work.
> 6.. Ideally how would you want your bodies handled
> ( I get the impression you would want them recycled
> as that is the scientific trend)
Haven't really thought about it too much. I definitely don't want to
be preserved and have my body sit around dead for a long time.
> Regards,
> Munir.
Doug
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Cela est bien dit, repondit Candide, mais il faut cultiver notre jardin."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kay Vee Oh Seven
>Munir K Nayyar (mkna...@athena.mit.edu) wrote:
>: 1.. How many atheists are there (current estimate)
>
>I'm afraid I can't help you on that point. I'd suggest an almanac,
>although they probably just have an "unaffiliated" listing.
Well, according to _The World Almanac And Book of Facts 1994_ under world
religions they have
Atheists (Mid 1992)
Africa 316,000
Asia 161,414,000
Europe 17,604,000
L. America 3,224,000
N. America 1,319,000
Oceania 535,000
U.S.S.R. 55,898,000
-----------
World 240,310,000
Not my fault if the numbers don't add up.
This makes it the sixth largest group (of 16 groups and one "others") in the
world. (About 1/4th the number of Muslims and 1/8th the number of Christians).
--
Munir K Nayyar
There is Nothing But Glorifies His (ALLAH's) Praise.
In The Name Of Allah, The Compassionate, The Merciful
Dear Mark,
I admit I know very little, I am willing to pay the price
i.e making a fool of myself in order to learn.
For e.g in the recent month the most important lesson I
learnt was the consequences of PW.
It is a doubters approach
Now my faith by the grace of God is stronger and on much
more sure footing then PW.
If I put my face where you suggest I would gain nothing
This critique(all) has served the purpose of opposing wind
which has taken me yet higher.
for e.g It has given me only a slight taste of what the
prophets must have experienced when people molested,
abused, threw dirt, hurt, not listened, made fun,
called them delusioned, magicans, soothsayers, mad,
epilictic(sp), Lunatic, poet, devils, and slandered
them.
A bunch of you are learned enough to relate to what I
mean if not look at life of any prophet e.g first few
years of Islam or 950 years of Noah in which he managed
only to convert only 70 people.
We nowadays do not have the value of religion because
we got it conveyed to us in our comfortable lifestyle
If you want to find God be humble and charitable step down
from the pedestal of pride, and arrogance.
Only God can Guide and knows, but I feel your will never
find God by the type of proofs you are looking for, the type
of debate you indulge in.
And lastly and mostly I am thankfull to God Almighty
Who taught man What he knew not.
Regards,
Munir.
mark
>Dear Mark,
Which one? Kindly learn how to use your bloody newsreader, and include
contextual quotes (I *assume* you know what that means) so we know who
you're talking to, and what you're responding to.
<snip>
>For e.g in the recent month the most important lesson I
>learnt was the consequences of PW.
PW?
>for e.g It has given me only a slight taste of what the
>prophets must have experienced when people molested,
<etc. snipped>
Identifying with the prophets? Not a little arrogance, here?
>
>If you want to find God be humble and charitable step down
>from the pedestal of pride, and arrogance.
*ARGH!*
We keep trying to tell you, you are crossposting to alt.pagan & alt.atheism,
and most of us ARE NOT INTERESTED in looking for your God: we do NOT
believe in him. Instead, he appears to be an inadequate (at least) answer.
>Only God can Guide and knows, but I feel your will never
>find God by the type of proofs you are looking for, the type
>of debate you indulge in.
We can't look any way that is appropriate for *us*, we have to throw out
everything we are, and become just like you, and believe the same *way*
that you do.
Right.
I thought y'all believed in free will. *YOU* sure don't appear to, since
you want us to become clones of you. You're as bad as an funnymentalist
Xian, arrogant, hypoctritical, and a lousy reflection of the true values
of your religion.
>
Followups have been redirected to the appropriate newsgroup.
mark
mark
>Dear Mark,
Which one? Kindly learn how to use your bloody newsreader, and include
contextual quotes (I *assume* you know what that means) so we know who
you're talking to, and what you're responding to.
<snip>
>For e.g in the recent month the most important lesson I
>learnt was the consequences of PW.
PW?
>for e.g It has given me only a slight taste of what the
>prophets must have experienced when people molested,
<etc. snipped>
Identifying with the prophets? Not a little arrogance, here?
>
>If you want to find God be humble and charitable step down
>from the pedestal of pride, and arrogance.
*ARGH!*
We keep trying to tell you, you are crossposting to alt.pagan & alt.atheism,
and most of us ARE NOT INTERESTED in looking for your God: we do NOT
believe in him. Instead, he appears to be an inadequate (at least) answer.
>Only God can Guide and knows, but I feel your will never
>find God by the type of proofs you are looking for, the type
>of debate you indulge in.
We can't look any way that is appropriate for *us*, we have to throw out
everything we are, and become just like you, and believe the same *way*
that you do.
Right.
I thought y'all believed in free will. *YOU* sure don't appear to, since
you want us to become clones of you. You're as bad as an funnymentalist
Xian, arrogant, hypoctritical, and a lousy reflection of the true values
of your religion. Certainly this kind of bigoted, small-minded arguement
is not representative of the scholars that made the name of Islam bright,
all during what are called the Middle Ages, when Xianity was not much more
than a bunch of ignorant louts, fighting Pagans and each other at every
opportunity. iIt is not the kind of thinking that invented the zero, or
created great universities. It *is* the kind of thinking that makes the
name of Islam thought of as it is today, in the West, where the names
of Khomeini and the Sheikh that inspired the bombing of the World Trade
Towers are *far* more easily brought to mind, than Islam's glories of
years past.
Munir, go away, until you can do a better job of representing your religion.
And then, display some manners, as well.
Mary Lee
|> In His Name (ALLAH) , Be He (ALLAH) Glorified!
|> There is Nothing But Glorifies His (ALLAH's) Praise.
|>
|> In The Name Of Allah, The Compassionate, The Merciful
|>
|> Dear Mark,
|>
|> I admit I know very little, I am willing to pay the price
|> i.e making a fool of myself in order to learn.
|>
|> For e.g in the recent month the most important lesson I
|> learnt was the consequences of PW.
(Newsgroups line trimmed)
And what is a "PW"?
|> It is a doubters approach
"PW" is a doubter's approach?
|> Now my faith by the grace of God is stronger and on much
|> more sure footing then PW.
Well, that's nice. Is PW a person? Is there any reason you're
cross-posting to alt.pagan? Or alt.atheism for that matter?
|> If I put my face where you suggest I would gain nothing
|> This critique(all) has served the purpose of opposing wind
|> which has taken me yet higher.
You get high from opposing wind?
|> for e.g It has given me only a slight taste of what the
|> prophets must have experienced when people molested,
|> abused, threw dirt, hurt, not listened, made fun,
|> called them delusioned, magicans, soothsayers, mad,
|> epilictic(sp), Lunatic, poet, devils, and slandered
|> them.
Well, some folks get off on being abused (masochists).
If you set yourself up (say, for example, proselytizing
to those who do not wish to be proselytized to) ...
then you are responsible for the consequences of your
actions.
|> A bunch of you are learned enough to relate to what I
|> mean if not look at life of any prophet e.g first few
|> years of Islam or 950 years of Noah in which he managed
|> only to convert only 70 people.
|> We nowadays do not have the value of religion because
|> we got it conveyed to us in our comfortable lifestyle
So the reason you're posting is for proselytizing (converting, trying
to brainwish, etc.) ..., and you have been sent the FAQ, so
you *do* know how that is responded to, at least on alt.pagan.
|>
|> If you want to find God be humble and charitable step down
|> from the pedestal of pride, and arrogance.
Didn't know he/she/it/they is/was/were lost. (I know, I know,
it's not original.)
|> Only God can Guide and knows, but I feel your will never
|> find God by the type of proofs you are looking for, the type
|> of debate you indulge in.
In general, religion requires faith, not proof. Which is, of
course, why, when one person is arguing on faith and the other
person is arguing on logic, they're arguing apples and
oranges.
|>
|> And lastly and mostly I am thankfull to God Almighty
|> Who taught man What he knew not.
God didn't know what God taught you?
|>
|> Regards,
|>
|> Munir.
One last time: Munir, you can worship however (or whether) you choose.
Please grant us the same right. The more you proselytize over here,
the more you're going to get flamed. But then, perhaps you enjoy
getting flamed.
Mary Lee
****************************************************************************
Anyone who thinks that Mother Nature doesn't have a sense of humor
should come live in the country for a while.
****************************************************************************
chi kim
: There is Nothing But Glorifies His (ALLAH's) Praise.
: In The Name Of Allah, The Compassionate, The Merciful
I have a question about the meaning of the above line that you put in
your posts. It seems to me that it would mean that you are some sort
of spokesperson for Allah. I doubt it's your intention, but that's the
impression I'm getting.
Doug O'Neal
> In His Name (ALLAH) , Be He (ALLAH) Glorified!
> There is Nothing But Glorifies His (ALLAH's) Praise.
> In The Name Of Allah, The Compassionate, The Merciful
> Dear Mark,
(Deletia)
> It is a doubters approach
> Now my faith by the grace of God is stronger and on much
> more sure footing then PW.
I could criticize that statement if I knew what PW is.
(More deletia)
> for e.g It has given me only a slight taste of what the
> prophets must have experienced when people molested,
> abused, threw dirt, hurt, not listened, made fun,
> called them delusioned, magicans, soothsayers, mad,
> epilictic(sp), Lunatic, poet, devils, and slandered
> them.
Gee, calling someone a poet, it seems to me, would be a
pretty nice compliment. "Lovers and madmen have such seething
brains, such shaping fantasies, that apprehend more than cool
reason ever comprehends ... the lover, the lunatic, the
poet ... are of imagination all compact". (Shakespeare, A
Midsummer Night's Dream)
> A bunch of you are learned enough to relate to what I
> mean if not look at life of any prophet e.g first few
> years of Islam or 950 years of Noah in which he managed
> only to convert only 70 people.
Well, I haven't converted anybody, but I'm reasonably secure in
my belief system (though not so secure as to stop trying to figure
stuff out).
> If you want to find God be humble and charitable step down
> from the pedestal of pride, and arrogance.
> Only God can Guide and knows, but I feel your will never
> find God by the type of proofs you are looking for, the type
> of debate you indulge in.
(A) It's neither pride nor arrogance to look for a belief system
that fits your own personal views and experiences of the world.
(B) As you imply, religious/philosophical belief is based on
faith, and is inherently both unprovable and unfalsifiable.
Our faiths go in a different direction than yours. And besides,
philosophical debate is fun, and any religion that discourages
that is not a religion for me.
> And lastly and mostly I am thankfull to God Almighty
> Who taught man What he knew not.
What about woman?
> Regards,
> Munir.
Doug
Munir K Nayyar
There is Nothing But Glorifies His (ALLAH's) Praise.
In The Name Of Allah, The Compassionate, The Merciful
You write,
:And what is a "PW"?
I did not know too untill recently, It is Pascal Wagner
Do not ask any more that is what I know.
:You get high from opposing wind?
Yes, somethings in life are free
:Didn't know he/she/it/they is/was/were lost. (I know, I know,
:it's not original.)
Believe me for some it is.
:God didn't know what God taught you?
Who taught man(people) What he( people)knew not.
Regards,
Munir.
Jaguar
>
>You Write,
>:It's easy to invent a God (or several) for these reasons.
>
>and easy to believe in one
>believe in one and less not to believe in one
>Also it can be deduced that there is more probability
>of existence of one than not
>THIS IMPLIES that the concept is much clearer than
>being vague or ambiguious
>because he already made everything clear
>and he does not need us(He is independent we are dependent)
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Munir.
Ah, but you have forgotten the
which god/goddess and which name for diety
argument that humans have been squabbling about for
centuries.
Jaguar
Jaguar
>There is Nothing But Glorifies His (ALLAH's) Praise.
>
>In The Name Of Allah, The Compassionate, The Merciful
>
>
>I admit I know very little, I am willing to pay the price
>i.e making a fool of myself in order to learn.
>
>For e.g in the recent month the most important lesson I
>learnt was the consequences of PW.
>Now my faith by the grace of God is stronger and on much
>more sure footing then PW.
>This critique(all) has served the purpose of opposing wind
>which has taken me yet higher.
>prophets must have experienced when people molested,
>abused, threw dirt, hurt, not listened, made fun,
>called them delusioned, magicans, soothsayers, mad,
>epilictic(sp), Lunatic, poet, devils, and slandered
>them.
>mean if not look at life of any prophet e.g first few
>years of Islam or 950 years of Noah in which he managed
>only to convert only 70 people.
>we got it conveyed to us in our comfortable lifestyle
>
>from the pedestal of pride, and arrogance.
>Only God can Guide and knows, but I feel your will never
>find God by the type of proofs you are looking for, the type
>of debate you indulge in.
>
>Who taught man What he knew not.
>
>
>Munir.
So you feel martyred because people have not dropped all thier
religious beliefs (or lack of) and converted to
worshipping the divine by the name you use and the way you do?
Hmmmmm........
Shall we abandon our faith (or lack of) and take up yours
just to make you happy? Just to conform to your book?
The divine is happy with the way I do things now.
So why do you have a problem with it?
Jaguar
one of the alt.pagan kitties
Peter V.Vorobieff
In article <2kh9qm$e...@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu> ba...@wam.umd.edu (Jaguar) writes:
>Munir K Nayyar <mkna...@athena.mit.edu> wrote:
[snip]
>>for e.g It has given me only a slight taste of what the
>>prophets must have experienced when people molested,
>>abused, threw dirt, hurt, not listened, made fun,
>>called them delusioned, magicans, soothsayers, mad,
>>epilictic(sp), Lunatic, poet, devils, and slandered
>>them.
Fellas, don't throw any more shit at this critter.
Don't let it get its fun for free.
>So you feel martyred because people have not dropped all thier
>religious beliefs (or lack of) and converted to
>worshipping the divine by the name you use and the way you do?
>Hmmmmm........
> Shall we abandon our faith (or lack of) and take up yours
>just to make you happy? Just to conform to your book?
Naah - it's being martyred what keeps it happy.
[Masochist]
Torture me, puh-leeze!
[Sadist]
Nyaah, I won't, heh-heh-heh...
Matthew Teague
"Pascal's Wager". Anyways, i could be wrong, but Pascal's Wager fits
contextually.
=========
Matt Teague
C3PO: Sir, the odds of surviving a direct assault against
an Imperial Star Destroyer is....
Han + Leia: SHUT UP!!!!
Saman
(Chris Woodward (PSY)) writes...
:>In article <2k9fpe$f...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> mkna...@athena.mit.edu
:>>In His Name (ALLAH) , Be He (ALLAH) Glorified!
:>>There is Nothing But Glorifies His (ALLAH's) Praise.
:>>
:>>In The Name Of Allah, The Compassionate, The Merciful
:>>
:>>Dear Atheists,
:>>Forgive me if these querries have been made before,
:>>I would appreciate some answers.
:>>2.. Are all leading scientists atheists
:>
:>Not at all. All leading scientists know enough, however,
:>to keep their religious and scientific lives separate.
True science is the study of Creation, true religion is the study of the
Creator. All science and no religion leads to materialism and all religion
and no science leads to superstition (paraphrased from the Baha'i Writings).
"Knowledge is the true treasury of man."
- Baha'u'llah (1817-1892)
---------------------------------
Saman Ahmadi
e-mail: s0a...@zeus.tamu.edu
---------------------------------
Doug O'Neal
> >4.. Were most inventions and dicoveries made by atheists.
> Hard to say. Very few inventors and discoverers had enough
> time on their hands to declare their religious beliefs.
That's hardly true. Kepler, Newton, and Einstein, to name
three, all wrote quite a bit about their religious viewpoints.
Doug
Jim Hogan
>In article <2kag46$9...@suntan.eng.usf.edu>, wood...@luna.ec.usf.edu.
>(Chris Woodward (PSY)) writes...
>:>In article <2k9fpe$f...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> mkna...@athena.mit.edu
>(Munir K Nayyar) writes:
>:>>In His Name (ALLAH) , Be He (ALLAH) Glorified!
I lost all respect for Allah once I heard that he lured that
poor, innocent Jackson boy to his mosque with an inflatable
chimpanzee.
>:>> [.....]
>:>>2.. Are all leading scientists atheists
>:>
>:>Not at all. All leading scientists know enough, however,
>:>to keep their religious and scientific lives separate.
>True science is the study of Creation, true religion is the study of the
>Creator. All science and no religion leads to materialism and all religion
>and no science leads to superstition (paraphrased from the Baha'i Writings).
Just wondering, is there a way to establish specific, perhaps
week-long, periods where we invite (perhaps with something like
POST.TO.AA.FAST) all varieties of the religiously delusional to
post here and GET IT OUT OF THEIR SYSTEM? Sort of like pledge
week on PBS/NPR.
> "Knowledge is the true treasury of man."
> - Baha'u'llah (1817-1892)
Yeah, sure.
>---------------------------------
>Saman Ahmadi
>e-mail: s0a...@zeus.tamu.edu
>---------------------------------
'Course they'd have to sign a pledge not to post religio-babble
during the remainder of the year.
Jim
Kamal Southall
Jim Hogan <ji...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>s0a...@zeus.tamu.edu (Saman) writes:
->>In article <2kag46$9...@suntan.eng.usf.edu>, wood...@luna.ec.usf.edu.
->>(Chris Woodward (PSY)) writes...
->>:>In article <2k9fpe$f...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>
mkna...@athena.mit.edu >>(Munir K Nayyar) writes:
->>:>>In His Name (ALLAH) , Be He (ALLAH) Glorified!
->I lost all respect for Allah once I heard that he lured that
->poor, innocent Jackson boy to his mosque with an inflatable
->chimpanzee.
What the %#$^&%^ are you talking albout Michal Jackson is a
Jehovah's witness NOT a Muslim
Or is this souposed to be hummer ? Um it's not funny go home
boy work on your wit a little more and THEN come back.
->>:>>2.. Are all leading scientists atheists
->>:>Not at all. All leading scientists know enough, however,
->>:>to keep their religious and scientific lives separate.
->>True science is the study of Creation, true religion is the study of the
->>Creator. All science and no religion leads to materialism and all religion
->>and no science leads to superstition (paraphrased from the Baha'i
->>Writings).
I agree with statement 1, but not exactly with statement two.
->Just wondering, is there a way to establish specific, perhaps
->week-long, periods where we invite (perhaps with something like
->POST.TO.AA.FAST) all varieties of the religiously delusional to
->post here and GET IT OUT OF THEIR SYSTEM? Sort of like pledge
>week on PBS/NPR.
What albout those who delusioned with atheism, a much more serious
disease.
->> "Knowledge is the true treasury of man."
->> - Baha'u'llah (1817-1892)
->Yeah, sure.
Actualy it is what good is a rich idiot, or a poor one, think.
->'Course they'd have to sign a pledge not to post religio-babble
->during the remainder of the year.
Atheistic babble is much more annoying.
Saman
(Jim Hogan) writes...
:>s0a...@zeus.tamu.edu (Saman) writes:
:>
:>>In article <2kag46$9...@suntan.eng.usf.edu>, wood...@luna.ec.usf.edu.
:>>(Chris Woodward (PSY)) writes...
:>>:>In article <2k9fpe$f...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> mkna...@athena.mit.edu
:>>(Munir K Nayyar) writes:
:>>:>>In His Name (ALLAH) , Be He (ALLAH) Glorified!
:>
:>I lost all respect for Allah once I heard that he lured that
:>poor, innocent Jackson boy to his mosque with an inflatable
:>chimpanzee.
>
Did I miss something? If this a joke I don't get;
please be kind and elaborate...
:>>:>>2.. Are all leading scientists atheists
:>>:>
:>>:>Not at all. All leading scientists know enough, however,
:>>:>to keep their religious and scientific lives separate.
>
:>>True science is the study of Creation, true religion is the study of the
:>>Creator. All science and no religion leads to materialism and all religion
:>>and no science leads to superstition (paraphrased from the Baha'i Writings).
>
:>Just wondering, is there a way to establish specific, perhaps
:>week-long, periods where we invite (perhaps with something like
:>POST.TO.AA.FAST) all varieties of the religiously delusional to
:>post here and GET IT OUT OF THEIR SYSTEM? Sort of like pledge
:>week on PBS/NPR.
>
If you don't like a thread you can place it in your kill file.
>> "Knowledge is the true treasury of man."
>> - Baha'u'llah (1817-1892)
>
:>Yeah, sure.
>
At least we agree on something. But seriously why do you have a problem
with the above statment. Is it wrong? Is it wrong because the Person
who wrote it claimed to be sent by God? I'm really curious.
:>'Course they'd have to sign a pledge not to post religio-babble
:>during the remainder of the year.
>
:>Jim
I don't think that even staunch atheists dismiss all relgious writings as
"babble". This is after all talk.relgion.misc. Is this not the proper
place to post views and information on religion?
regards,
Robert Knowles
>FROM: Saman <s0a...@zeus.tamu.edu>
>
>In article <2kag46$9...@suntan.eng.usf.edu>, wood...@luna.ec.usf.edu.
>(Chris Woodward (PSY)) writes...
>:>In article <2k9fpe$f...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> mkna...@athena.mit.edu
>(Munir K Nayyar) writes:
>:>>In His Name (ALLAH) , Be He (ALLAH) Glorified!
>:>>There is Nothing But Glorifies His (ALLAH's) Praise.
>:>>
>:>>In The Name Of Allah, The Compassionate, The Merciful
>:>>
>:>>Dear Atheists,
>:>>Forgive me if these querries have been made before,
>:>>I would appreciate some answers.
>
>:>>2.. Are all leading scientists atheists
>:>
>:>Not at all. All leading scientists know enough, however,
>:>to keep their religious and scientific lives separate.
>
>True science is the study of Creation, true religion is the study of the
>Creator. All science and no religion leads to materialism and all religion
>and no science leads to superstition (paraphrased from the Baha'i Writings).
>
> "Knowledge is the true treasury of man."
> - Baha'u'llah (1817-1892)
>
And the Bahai's haven't produced any good science or religion.
"And religion is still bullshit."
- Robert Knowles (in the 20th century)
Jim Hogan
in any groups other than a.a. (talk.origins, talk.religion.misc,
and alt.pagan, looks like) to which I've inadverdently cross-
posted. Gotta watch the newsgroups line.
s0a...@zeus.tamu.edu (Saman) writes:
>In article <2kk3lc$9...@news.u.washington.edu>, ji...@u.washington.edu
>(Jim Hogan) writes...
>:>s0a...@zeus.tamu.edu (Saman) writes:
>:>
>:>>In article <2kag46$9...@suntan.eng.usf.edu>, wood...@luna.ec.usf.edu.
>:>>(Chris Woodward (PSY)) writes...
>:>>:>In article <2k9fpe$f...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> mkna...@athena.mit.edu
>:>>(Munir K Nayyar) writes:
>:>>:>>In His Name (ALLAH) , Be He (ALLAH) Glorified!
>:>
>:>I lost all respect for Allah once I heard that he lured that
>:>poor, innocent Jackson boy to his mosque with an inflatable
>:>chimpanzee.
>>
>Did I miss something? If this a joke I don't get;
>please be kind and elaborate...
OK, since this has gone beyond a.a., I'll be kind and
elaborate.... I concede that all of the rumors about Allah
and Michael Jackson are just that - rumors. If I find out
any more, you'll be the first to know.
>> [....]
>>
>:>>True science is the study of Creation, true religion is the study of the
>:>>Creator. All science and no religion leads to materialism and all religion
>:>>and no science leads to superstition (paraphrased from the Baha'i Writings).
>>
>:>Just wondering, is there a way to establish specific, perhaps
>:>week-long, periods where we invite (perhaps with something like
>:>POST.TO.AA.FAST) all varieties of the religiously delusional to
>:>post here and GET IT OUT OF THEIR SYSTEM? Sort of like pledge
>:>week on PBS/NPR.
>>
>If you don't like a thread you can place it in your kill file.
But what do you think of the "pledge week" idea? Or perhaps
you share my cross-posting affliction and didn't mean to post
this religio-crea-science-babble to a.a. I understand.
>>> "Knowledge is the true treasury of man."
>>> - Baha'u'llah (1817-1892)
>>
>:>Yeah, sure.
>>
>At least we agree on something. But seriously why do you have a problem
>with the above statment. Is it wrong? Is it wrong because the Person
>who wrote it claimed to be sent by God? I'm really curious.
It just seemed pretty lame if "True science is the study of
creation" is what passes for knowledge.
>:>'Course they'd have to sign a pledge not to post religio-babble
>:>during the remainder of the year.
>>
>:>Jim
>I don't think that even staunch atheists dismiss all relgious writings as
>"babble".
Go ahead, poll me.
>This is after all talk.relgion.misc. Is this not the proper
>place to post views and information on religion?
At least we are brothers on some level, this being a.a. and all ;-)
>regards,
>---------------------------------
>Saman Ahmadi
>e-mail: s0a...@zeus.tamu.edu
>---------------------------------
Jim "Hey! Play _Ball of Confusion_ again!" Hogan
Robert Knowles
>FROM: Saman <s0a...@zeus.tamu.edu>
>
>
>:>'Course they'd have to sign a pledge not to post religio-babble
>:>during the remainder of the year.
>>
>:>Jim
>
>I don't think that even staunch atheists dismiss all relgious writings as
>"babble".
more like fairy tales.
>This is after all talk.relgion.misc.
and alt.atheism, talk.origins, alt.pagan (check the header).
>Is this not the proper
>place to post views and information on religion?
>
It depends on how you expect it to be received. For flames, this
is a pretty good choice of newsgroups.
Stryder
>In article <2k9fpe$f...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> mkna...@athena.mit.edu (Munir K Nayyar) writes:
>>In His Name (ALLAH) , Be He (ALLAH) Glorified!
>>There is Nothing But Glorifies His (ALLAH's) Praise.
>>
>>In The Name Of Allah, The Compassionate, The Merciful
>>
>>Dear Atheists,
>>Forgive me if these querries have been made before,
>>I would appreciate some answers.
>>
[snip]
>>
>>[ Do not get annoyed by the remark because Islam encourages
>>recycling also
>>1.. Use of human organs
>>2.. Not using coffins which increases lag of recycling time
>>3.. keeping graves of dirt only not building solid ones
>>so as not to waste land ]
That's great. We (western civilizations - oxymoron?) would benefit
greatly from such an attitude.
What about cremation? Is that practiced in Islamic societies? Seems
to me the cleanest, and in a way the most dignified, way to have your
remains disposed of.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Munir.
Likewise.
Lowell Morrison
Saman <s0a...@zeus.tamu.edu> wrote:
>
>True science is the study of Creation, true religion is the study of the
>Creator. All science and no religion leads to materialism and all religion
>and no science leads to superstition (paraphrased from the Baha'i Writings).
>
> "Knowledge is the true treasury of man."
> - Baha'u'llah (1817-1892)
Sure glad that you believe that Saman, however, It is quite at odds with
the normal definitions of Science, and perhaps the most common definition
of religion (start a church, attract some rubes, and get rich) that we
see today.
Science is the Study of our Physical Universe, "Creation" is but a small
part of the whole. Why can't I fly, the answer of "Gods Will" is most
unsatisfying, I want to know how he/she arrainged to "make it so", and
wether there are any loopholes. Come to think of it, science has found
quite a number of loopholes. (Watching the planes land at LAX from
my office window at this moment)..
The Study of Religion is the compalation of claims vs actions of the
protagonists of that religion, most interesting.
The True Religion, is God/dess's alone, what we are given are the most
that our small minds can hold, and there is no stricture that says
God/dess has to give the same bits and pieces to differnt peoples.
True Faith is believing in God/dess and practicing your relition the
best you know how, and having the tolerance to accept that others
practices or religion may have as much validity as yours, and still
having FAITH in your way.
All other is perversion at one level or another IMHO.....
--Uncle Wolf
Saman
I apologize for annoying the unrealted newsgroups.
In article <2ko364$4t...@oolong.la.locus.com>, low...@oolong.la.locus.com (Lowell Morrison) writes...
:>In article <24FEB199...@zeus.tamu.edu>,
:>Saman <s0a...@zeus.tamu.edu> wrote:
:>>
:>>True science is the study of Creation, true religion is the study of the
:>>Creator. All science and no religion leads to materialism and all religion
:>>and no science leads to superstition (paraphrased from the Baha'i Writings).
:>>
:>> "Knowledge is the true treasury of man."
:>> - Baha'u'llah (1817-1892)
:>>Saman Ahmadi
:>Sure glad that you believe that Saman, however, It is quite at odds with
:>the normal definitions of Science, and perhaps the most common definition
:>of religion (start a church, attract some rubes, and get rich) that we
:>see today.
>
:>Science is the Study of our Physical Universe, "Creation" is but a small
:>part of the whole. Why can't I fly, the answer of "Gods Will" is most
:>unsatisfying, I want to know how he/she arrainged to "make it so", and
:>wether there are any loopholes. Come to think of it, science has found
:>quite a number of loopholes. (Watching the planes land at LAX from
:>my office window at this moment)..
To figure why humans can not fly, one must study how humans function and
where they differ from birds - like you pointed out. I would still argue that
all science stems from trying to figure how we came to be and how the universe
came to be; what are things made from and did they form. (Wasn't this one
of the reasons for building the SSC?)
>
:>The Study of Religion is the compalation of claims vs actions of the
:>protagonists of that religion, most interesting.
:>
Good point.
:>The True Religion, is God/dess's alone, what we are given are the most
:>that our small minds can hold, and there is no stricture that says
:>God/dess has to give the same bits and pieces to differnt peoples.
>
Another good point.
:>True Faith is believing in God/dess and practicing your relition the
:>best you know how, and having the tolerance to accept that others
:>practices or religion may have as much validity as yours, and still
:>having FAITH in your way.
More good points.
:>All other is perversion at one level or another IMHO.....
:>
:>--Uncle Wolf
:>
I agree with that too.
The SysAdmin
> :>'Course they'd have to sign a pledge not to post religio-babble
> :>during the remainder of the year.
> >
> :>Jim
>
> I don't think that even staunch atheists dismiss all relgious writings as
> "babble". This is after all talk.relgion.misc. Is this not the proper
> place to post views and information on religion?
Please take a look at the newsgroups line on this thread and you will see
that it is (unfortuantely) proliferating on alt.pagan, among others. We
really get tired of this kind of 'babble' on a monthly (or weekly) basis.
Just because YOU are reading this on talk.religion.misc does not mean that
everyone came here looking for this junk.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Donal, SysAdmin of The Brewers' Witch BBS -- +1 713 272 7350 3 lines!
(Internet) do...@brewich.com (@work) bi...@sri.brewich.com
(CIS) 76460,1443 (Anon UUCP) login: nuucp
(SCA) Ld. Donal Dubh, IC of Dun Bruadair, B of The Stargate, K of Ansteorra
(Snail) 8880 Bellaire B-2 #139, Houston, TX 77036
***Public Access Unix--Multichat, Internet mail, Usenet news, Games & more***
Doug O'Neal
> I could not figure out how post this just to talk.relgion.misc - really. So
> I apologize for annoying the unrealted newsgroups.
No worries; otherwise I wouldn't have read it and had the chance to
comment...
(Stuff deleted)
> To figure why humans can not fly, one must study how humans function and
> where they differ from birds - like you pointed out. I would still argue that
> all science stems from trying to figure how we came to be and how the universe
> came to be; what are things made from and did they form. (Wasn't this one
> of the reasons for building the SSC?)
I disagree, on historical grounds, with your characterization of science.
For a long time science was mostly, if not entirely, descriptive.
That means that astronomers catalogued the stars, and watched the
motions of the planets and tried to figure out solar system models
(Ptolemy's, Copernicus's, etc.). Biologists observed behavior of
various plants and animals, did some dissection, and classified species.
Few if any evolutionary concepts were developed or applied. Why?
Because the scientists accepted, and had every reason to accept, the
prevailing theological model of how things came to be. Kepler, for
instance, "knew" that God created the universe; his motivation was
to describe what was on God's mind at creation, to figure out how the
world works now, because he "knew" where it came from.
The first shift of science away from primarily descriptive, towards
the incorporation of evolutionary concepts, happened about 200 years
ago. The first impetus was geological uniformitarianism, the idea that
structures we see on Earth today (mountains, coastlines, etc.) were
produced by the actions of slow but steady processes working over
unimaginable stretches of time. Later came Darwin's biological
evolution. As for astronomy, it wasn't until about the 1930's that we
started getting an idea that stars have births, lives, and deaths; and
the Big Bang model -- our modern idea that the universe as a whole
evolves -- wasn't widely accepted until about 30 years ago.
So the great old traditions of science were begun by people who loved
God's world and had a desire to describe that creation. (I'm Pagan, and
I appreciate the fact that a search for origins is a big part of modern
science, but it wasn't always that way.)
> :>The True Religion, is God/dess's alone, what we are given are the most
> :>that our small minds can hold, and there is no stricture that says
> :>God/dess has to give the same bits and pieces to differnt peoples.
> >
> Another good point.
I actually have trouble with the "all gods are one god" idea, but that's
another discussion. I also tend to cringe at phrases like "... small
minds ...", because we humans have done some pretty amazing things
in terms of understanding the universe around us, whether it be in
a scientific, religious, or aesthetic way.
> :>True Faith is believing in God/dess and practicing your relition the
> :>best you know how, and having the tolerance to accept that others
> :>practices or religion may have as much validity as yours, and still
> :>having FAITH in your way.
> More good points.
Indeed ... I would state it in a slightly different way: each conscious
being has the right and responsibility to relate to the cosmos in his/
her/its own way, and perhaps to find in that cosmos something to regard
as divine, and to recognize that the viewpoints of all other conscious
beings are equally unique and valid.
> regards,
> ---------------------------------
> Saman Ahmadi
> e-mail: s0a...@zeus.tamu.edu
> ---------------------------------
Doug
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Cela est bien dit, repondit Candide, mais il faut cultiver notre jardin."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Munir K Nayyar
There is Nothing But Glorifies His (ALLAH's) Praise.
In The Name Of Allah, The Compassionate, The Merciful
Dear Stryder,
:What about cremation? Is that practiced in Islamic societies? Seems
:to me the cleanest, and in a way the most dignified, way to have your
:remains disposed of.
1..No
2..I thought that would cause pollution(type of people that get cremated)
might damage the ozone layer.
3.. A lot of worms would lose their food.
4.. You would destroy the elements which can get back in the system.
(that is why I said coffins increase this lag time to 600 hundred
years)
Regards,
Munir.
Saman
>In article <26FEB199...@zeus.tamu.edu> s0a...@zeus.tamu.edu (Saman) writes:
>
>> I could not figure out how post this just to talk.relgion.misc - really. So
>> I apologize for annoying the unrealted newsgroups.
>
> No worries; otherwise I wouldn't have read it and had the chance to
> comment...
>
> (Stuff deleted)
>
>> To figure why humans can not fly, one must study how humans function and
>> where they differ from birds - like you pointed out. I would still argue that
>> all science stems from trying to figure how we came to be and how the universe
>> came to be; what are things made from and did they form. (Wasn't this one
>> of the reasons for building the SSC?)
>
:> I disagree, on historical grounds, with your characterization of science.
:> For a long time science was mostly, if not entirely, descriptive.
:> That means that astronomers catalogued the stars, and watched the
:> motions of the planets and tried to figure out solar system models
:> (Ptolemy's, Copernicus's, etc.). Biologists observed behavior of
:> various plants and animals, did some dissection, and classified species.
:> Few if any evolutionary concepts were developed or applied. Why?
:> Because the scientists accepted, and had every reason to accept, the
:> prevailing theological model of how things came to be. Kepler, for
:> instance, "knew" that God created the universe; his motivation was
:> to describe what was on God's mind at creation, to figure out how the
:> world works now, because he "knew" where it came from.
>
Their motivation may have been different but their science was trying- as
you say - figure out the mind of God at the time of creation. The only
difference is that they had an answer to who created the universe. Today
atheist would say that that question is "ill-formed" however the scientists
among them are still trying to figure how things work.
:> The first shift of science away from primarily descriptive, towards
:> the incorporation of evolutionary concepts, happened about 200 years
:> ago. The first impetus was geological uniformitarianism, the idea that
:> structures we see on Earth today (mountains, coastlines, etc.) were
:> produced by the actions of slow but steady processes working over
:> unimaginable stretches of time. Later came Darwin's biological
:> evolution. As for astronomy, it wasn't until about the 1930's that we
:> started getting an idea that stars have births, lives, and deaths; and
:> the Big Bang model -- our modern idea that the universe as a whole
:> evolves -- wasn't widely accepted until about 30 years ago.
:> So the great old traditions of science were begun by people who loved
:> God's world and had a desire to describe that creation. (I'm Pagan, and
:> I appreciate the fact that a search for origins is a big part of modern
:> science, but it wasn't always that way.)
I would that they were doing science without realizing the "bigger picture".
[some good points deleted]
> Doug
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"Cela est bien dit, repondit Candide, mais il faut cultiver notre jardin."
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
regards,
---------------------------------
Saman Ahmadi
e-mail: s0a...@zeus.tamu.edu
---------------------------------
" Knowledge is as wings to man's life, and a ladder for
his ascent. Its acquisition is incumbant upon everyone.
The knowledge of such sciences, however, should be acquired
as can profit the peoples of the earth, and not those
which begin with words and end with words. Great indeed is
the claim of scientists and craftsman on the peoples of the
world . . . In truth, knowledge is a veritible treasure for
man, and a source of glory, of bounty, of joy, of exaltation,
of cheer and gladness unto him."
Baha'u'llah (1817-1892)
David Aaron Tepper
>In His Name (ALLAH) , Be He (ALLAH) Glorified!
>There is Nothing But Glorifies His (ALLAH's) Praise.
>
>In The Name Of Allah, The Compassionate, The Merciful
>
>Dear Stryder,
>:What about cremation? Is that practiced in Islamic societies? Seems
>:to me the cleanest, and in a way the most dignified, way to have your
>:remains disposed of.
>
>1..No
>
>2..I thought that would cause pollution(type of people that get cremated)
>might damage the ozone layer.
Ummmmm... no CFC's in human beings, as far as I know. Some carbon
monoxide, maybe, but if the body is completely cremated it shouldn't
be too much of a problem.
>3.. A lot of worms would lose their food.
I'm not gonna touch this one. Anyone have any ideas on the
ecology of graveyards?
>4.. You would destroy the elements which can get back in the system.
>(that is why I said coffins increase this lag time to 600 hundred
>years)
You can't destroy elements, Munir. You can merely change them
to an unusable form (and I don't think cremation does even this).
Dave
--
____
\bi/ Assume nothing; I don't speak for anyone other than myself.
\/ Expect anything! E-mail welcome; flames go to /dev/null.
Rob Winters
[snip]
: for e.g It has given me only a slight taste of what the
: prophets must have experienced when people molested,
: abused, threw dirt, hurt, not listened, made fun,
: called them delusioned, magicans, soothsayers, mad,
: epilictic(sp), Lunatic, poet, devils, and slandered
: them.
The prophets were probably never dismissed as rude and ignorant
college students without the decency to follow the rules outlined
for Usenet posting, either.
: A bunch of you are learned enough to relate to what I
: mean if not look at life of any prophet e.g first few
: years of Islam or 950 years of Noah in which he managed
: only to convert only 70 people.
Ah, and you hope to do much better by ignoring the charters of
as many newsgroups as possible? Why, that Noah didn't have so
much as a Commodore 64 and a 300 baud modem. You've got T1 or
better to the whole Internet, so you'll be tight with Allah in
no time flat.
Proseletyzing is *such* an ugly business, no matter who is doing it.
/// Rob
William Allen Hux
lified and intelligible picture of the world. He then tries to some extent
to substitute this cosmos of his for the world of experience, and thus to
overcome it... He makes this cosmos and its construction the pivot of his
emotional life in order to find in this way the peace and serenity which he
cannot find in the narrow whirlpool of personal experience.
... The supreme task... is to arrive at those universal laws from which the
cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to
these laws; only intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience,
can reach them...."
Guess who said this? Albert Einstein!
*** Intuition? Sympathy? Strange words for
*** the origin of scientific knowledge - Robert M. Pirsig
Zen & the Art of Motorcycle
Maintenance
-Allen Hux
al...@cis.ufl.edu
Bruce Salem
It is easy to leave out, here, the idea that scientific laws must
stand up to rather brutal tests of correspondance with a body of accumlating
emperical data, and that ocassionally some scientist's fantesy about how
nature ought to be gets a wake up call by how nature actually is found to
be....back to the drawing board.
--
!! Just my opinions, maybe not those of my sponsor. !!
Lowell Morrison
Saman <s0a...@zeus.tamu.edu> wrote:
>I could not figure out how post this just to talk.relgion.misc - really. So
>I apologize for annoying the unrealted newsgroups.
Since I don't read talk.religion.misc, I am appreceative of being able to
respond to a post directed to me. <grin>.....
>
>In article <2ko364$4t...@oolong.la.locus.com>,
>low...@oolong.la.locus.com (Lowell Morrison) writes...
<<Deletions>>
>>Science is the Study of our Physical Universe, "Creation" is but a small
>>part of the whole. Why can't I fly, the answer of "Gods Will" is most
>>unsatisfying, I want to know how he/she arrainged to "make it so", and
>>wether there are any loopholes. Come to think of it, science has found
>>quite a number of loopholes. (Watching the planes land at LAX from
>>my office window at this moment)..
>
>
>To figure why humans can not fly, one must study how humans function and
>where they differ from birds - like you pointed out. I would still argue that
>all science stems from trying to figure how we came to be and how the universe
>came to be; what are things made from and did they form. (Wasn't this one
>of the reasons for building the SSC?)
>
When "Science" was invented they were concerned with such mundane things
as finding more ore, of making stronger swords to smite those
who Religion said was your enemy, making cooking pots, carving stones
to build the pyrimids. Back then they were not strongly concerned with
Creation, why that was religion, and to question that would make them
heritics...... Later, but still long ago, many did look at creation,
and were persicuited for their troubles, some even burned as witches.
Today, the look at "Creation" is basically for an "extention" of
knowlege of the physical Universe, and this only for the addtional
knowlege that might take us in the a Scientific Future.
The SSC, while answering some of the questions about the "Mechanics
of Creation", will give us far more information on Energy Systems
to take us into the Next 2000 years....
<Saman agreed with all the further points I made. What is this
world comming too<chortle>>
--Uncle Wolf
William Allen Hux
> It is easy to leave out, here, the idea that scientific laws must
>stand up to rather brutal tests of correspondance with a body of accumlating
>emperical data, and that ocassionally some scientist's fantesy about how
>nature ought to be gets a wake up call by how nature actually is found to
>be....back to the drawing board.
>
Remember, also, that NO scientific "law" can EVER be proven true, _only_
disproved. Thus, all of our current scientific laws may really be hooey,
and the correct experiments which prove the laws false just haven't been
thought up yet. Einstein (in the quote I clipped out) was simply stating
this underlying concept, that it requires faith to believe even the "truth"
of the scientific method. We thought Newton's laws were a good deal till
they were shown quite false, certainly the current "laws" will eventually
be shown to fail as well, to be supplanted by some new "truth." Science,
indeed, requires an unsettling degree of "faith."
Andy Peters
[...]
: Guess who said this? Albert Einstein!
: *** Intuition? Sympathy? Strange words for
: *** the origin of scientific knowledge - Robert M. Pirsig
: Zen & the Art of Motorcycle
: Maintenance
Strange? Not really. I would say that intuition and sympathy are
indeed two of the most important prerequisites to becoming an
excellent scientist (not that I am one; but I can recognize one).
Consider intuitions to be the mutation of the scientific process:
intuitive ideas are the variation - the fodder for the rest of the
process. This variation still has to be subjected to the selection
process of experimentation and peer review, however. Okay. That's my
silly analogy from the day.
Did your statement have some relevance, Mr. Hux?
: -Allen Hux
: al...@cis.ufl.edu
--
--Andy (adpe...@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu)
"Zen Tacos: The not-one taco to have
when you're having more than not-two"
Mex-Econo Restaurant, Kitty Hawk, NC
Stryder
>1..No
Hmm... good philosophy.
I want to make a comment here while I'm in "civil" mode. I don't disrespect
your culture - that would make me a bigot because I'm not that familiar with
what your culture IS, so any disrespect would be based on preconceptions.
However, when it comes to fundamentalist religion of any kind, I have no
good words to say. I view any religion as basically a denial of truth. So
you will probably see much more abrasive language coming from me.
Please don't mistake that as a disrespect for you personally, or the way
you live your life.
I'm reminded of an incident years ago, where a Christian(tm) helped me
tremendously. I thanked him, and he said "don't thank me, thank Jesus".
I replied to him that I did not believe in Jesus(tm), and therefore was
giving the thanks to him. I told him he could do what he pleased with
my thanks, including passing them on to Jesus(tm).
I would say the same thing here - I can respect the life of a person, and
the actions thereof, or not respect it, again based on actions. But I
give the responsibility to the person living the life - I don't respect
your burial traditions because they come from Allah, I respect them because
they come from intelligent and thoughtful human beings.
In the same respect, I hold others responsible for their negative actions,
even though said others may claim that the motivation for their actions
came from Allah, or God, or Jesus, or New Age Spirits, or whatever. Since
I am quite certain that none of the aforementioned beings exist, I have no
one on whom to place the responsibility except the perpertrator of the
actions.
>Regards,
>Munir.
Peace, for the moment,
Stryder
A.X. Lias
: >
: Remember, also, that NO scientific "law" can EVER be proven true, _only_
: disproved. Thus, all of our current scientific laws may really be hooey,
: and the correct experiments which prove the laws false just haven't been
: thought up yet.
Exactly why I find science to be more reliable than religion. It's
self-correcting.
: Einstein (in the quote I clipped out) was simply stating
: this underlying concept, that it requires faith to believe even the "truth"
: of the scientific method. We thought Newton's laws were a good deal till
: they were shown quite false,
Your term "quite false" indicates a strange view. Newtons views are true
enough for 99% of the applications you'd want to use it for. The folks
at JPL who planed the tranjectories for the Voyagers were quite content
to use Newton's equations when ploting the course for their ships. Only
in the case of extreme acceleration, gravitation, or other exotic
conditions would you need to switch over to relativity. I think a better
way of looking at this would be to say that relativity didn't disprove
newtonian physics, it merely corrected for inaccurate assumtions and
refined its utility.
: certainly the current "laws" will eventually
: be shown to fail as well, to be supplanted by some new "truth."
I don't see the "certainly" in this at all. Science admits its blind
spots and corrects for them when possible, but the vast majority of
scientific progress has been to a cycle of refinement and correction of
small inaccuracies. I would be very surprised if any group of scientists
*ever* announced that gravity and the second law of thermodynamics were
absolutely kaput.
: Science,
: indeed, requires an unsettling degree of "faith."
Faith is holding a position regardless of the evidence. I've never found
a theists who would admit that *any* argument or evidence would change
their viewpoint. In fact one of the things I often hear theists say is,
"No matter what you say, I'll still believe in god!"
Science on the other hand is constantly revising its views in light of
appropriate evidence. These revisions are carefully done using
reproducibility and falsifiability as criteria and are usually small
revisions or corrections of the current knowledge, but they are revisions
none the less. This is the exact opposite of faith.
BTW: be careful not to confuse this with atheism. Atheism is a lack of belief
in a diety. Science does not even pretend to approach this subject.
--
Andrew Lias | anrw...@netcom.com
*-------------------*-------------------------------*----------------------*
"To hate man and worship God seems to be the sum of all creeds"
-- Robert G. Ingersol
mark
>s0a...@zeus.tamu.edu (Saman) writes:
>>In article <2kk3lc$9...@news.u.washington.edu>, ji...@u.washington.edu
>>(Jim Hogan) writes...
>>:>s0a...@zeus.tamu.edu (Saman) writes:
>>:>>In article <2kag46$9...@suntan.eng.usf.edu>, wood...@luna.ec.usf.edu.
>>:>>(Chris Woodward (PSY)) writes...
>>:>>:>In article<2k9fpe$f...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> mkna...@athena.mit.edu
>>:>>(Munir K Nayyar) writes:
>>:>poor, innocent Jackson boy to his mosque with an inflatable
>>:>chimpanzee.
>
>>Did I miss something? If this a joke I don't get;
>>please be kind and elaborate...
>
>OK, since this has gone beyond a.a., I'll be kind and
>elaborate.... I concede that all of the rumors about Allah
>and Michael Jackson are just that - rumors. If I find out
>any more, you'll be the first to know.
Hey! No fair! ->Tell us the rumor!<-
mark "rumor mongers want to know"
Lee Davidson
|> In article <2kudf9$f...@morrow.stanford.edu> sa...@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) writes:
|>
|>
|> > It is easy to leave out, here, the idea that scientific laws must
|> >stand up to rather brutal tests of correspondance with a body of accumlating
|> >emperical data, and that ocassionally some scientist's fantesy about how
|> >nature ought to be gets a wake up call by how nature actually is found to
|> >be....back to the drawing board.
|> >
|>
|> Remember, also, that NO scientific "law" can EVER be proven true, _only_
|> disproved.
This is Popper's famous dictum. It sounds plausible enough, if by "law" we
mean a purely universal statement, that is, a statement of the form
(for all x)(for all y)... P(x,y,...)
because, while we can't ever test the truth of P(x,y,...) for all possible
x, y,... we certainly might find *some* x, y,... for which P(x,y,...).
But scientific laws needn't be of this simple pure universal form. Take,
for example, a law of the form
(for all x)(there exists y)... P(x,y,...)
To falsify this, we need to find some x such that
not-(there exists y)...P(x,y,...)
or
(for all y)... not-P(x,y,...)
which, being of universal form, by Popper's dictum, cannot be verified.
One possible example of such a law? "For every fundamental particle there
is some other fundamental particle which is a constituent." To falsify this
law, we would have to find at least one fundamental particle such that
no constituent could ever be found -- clearly impossible to do with any
certainty, for how would we be assured that some experiment we hadn't
thought of would not someday yield the desired constituent?
Note that the negation of this is also unfalsifiable: "There exists some
fundamental particle without some other fundamental particle as a
constituent." To falsify this, we would have to verify the original
statement, which can never be verified.
Of course, Popper's dictum is entirely reasonable when we consider a
law such as Newton's universal law of gravitation. This is clearly the
sort of law for which an exhaustive verification is impossible, yet
the force of a single falsifying instance decisive.
So I don't think we want to say that NO scientific law can EVER be
proven true, _only_ disproved. Verification is always a problem,
of course, since laws are always at least partly universal. But
falsification is just as much of a problem for those laws that are
not purely universal.
--
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Lee Davidson | That all my own opinions are |
| davi...@nosdivad.metaphor.com | merely my own opinions isn't |
| Metaphor Inc. | merely my own opinion. |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
William Allen Hux
>
>Did your statement have some relevance, Mr. Hux?
>
>: -Allen Hux
>: al...@cis.ufl.edu
>
I myself forgot. Somebody mentioned something about science, treating it
like holy ground, and I feel this position is shaky (to say the least).
Steve Smith
Bruce Salem <sa...@pangea.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
> It is easy to leave out, here, the idea that scientific laws must
>stand up to rather brutal tests of correspondance with a body of accumlating
>emperical data, and that ocassionally some scientist's fantesy about how
>nature ought to be gets a wake up call by how nature actually is found to
>be....back to the drawing board.
"In science, it doesn't matter if you're wrong, as long as you're not stupid.
In business, it doesn't matter if you're stupid, as long as you're not wrong."
--SGS
--
Steve Smith Agincourt Computing
s...@access.digex.net (301) 681 7395
"Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense."
Wayne Throop
: Consider intuitions to be the mutation of the scientific process:
: intuitive ideas are the variation - the fodder for the rest of the
: process. This variation still has to be subjected to the selection
: process of experimentation and peer review, however. Okay. That's my
: silly analogy from the day.
Actually, not so silly an analogy, IMHO.
I think one reason that both science in general and evolution in
particular are so often misunderstood is because they share this
peculiar inverted nature to the way people "naturally" tend to
think about goals and adaptation and such.
Science isn't so much a "search for truth" as it is
a retreat from falsehood. Successful theories tend to be
the result of a lot of evidence that contradicted earlier theories.
Evolution isn't so much a "progress towards adaptation"
as it is a retreat from maladaption. Successful populations
tend to be the result of a lot of dead organisms at the other
end of the range of variability.
--
Wayne Throop throopw%sh...@concert.net
Andy Peters
merely taken bits of it from other people's responses and formatted it
so it's readable. Apologies if the attributions are wrong.
William Allen Hux (al...@beach.cis.ufl.edu) wrote:
: Remember, also, that NO scientific "law" can EVER be proven true, _only_
: disproved. Thus, all of our current scientific laws may really be hooey,
: and the correct experiments which prove the laws false just haven't been
: thought up yet.
: Einstein (in the quote I clipped out) was simply stating
: this underlying concept, that it requires faith to believe even the "truth"
: of the scientific method.
You are grossly misrepresenting the meaning of Einstein's statement:
>" Man tries to make for himself in the fashion that suits him best a simp-
>lified and intelligible picture of the world. He then tries to some extent
>to substitute this cosmos of his for the world of experience, and thus to
>overcome it... He makes this cosmos and its construction the pivot of his
>emotional life in order to find in this way the peace and serenity which he
>cannot find in the narrow whirlpool of personal experience.
This is an acknowlegement that the scientific process is a human
construct, and is not perfect. There is no statement of "faith"
inherent in this message. This segment of the quotation also explains
why, in Einstein's view, people still find the scientific
process worthwhile: because it provides an explanation for things
which goes beyond an individual's personal experience. Note that this
is not a statement about the reliability of the scientific method
itself, or of the conclusions drawn from it. It is merely one man's
explanation of why he finds science to be a fulfilling pursuit.
>... The supreme task... is to arrive at those universal laws from
>which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no
>logical path to these laws; only intuition, resting on sympathetic
>understanding of experience, can reach them...."
Here we have a statement about the way in which scientific knowledge
is advanced. Einstein says, and I agree, that any true leap forward
in scientific knowledge depends not on logical, straightforward
progression from the ideas and theories currently in place, but on
leaps of intuition taking the scientist outside the current sphere of
knowledge and into a new understanding.
Now, that may sound rather mystical, but it's a fair assessment of how
most truly new ideas in science come about. Note, as Bruce Salem and
I have already pointed out, that this isn't the end of it, however.
These new ideas must then be put up for rigorous testing by
experimentation and comparison with known phenomena. I would venture
to guess that the vast majority of such new ideas are rapidly
falsified. However, those few which are not will turn out to lead to
the great shifts in scientific thought.
: We thought Newton's laws were a good deal till
: they were shown quite false,
: certainly the current "laws" will eventually
: be shown to fail as well, to be supplanted by some new "truth."
Very possibly true. Do you have a point to make? Do you mean to
suggest that every time a new scientific idea comes along we should
clap our hands, then ignore it until another one comes along to take
its place? Just as Newton's laws led (and continue to lead) to a vast
array of fundamental understandings about the workings of the universe
(including the ideas which eventually partially supplanted them), so
will the current set of paradigms aid us immeasurably in our
understanding. And just as the new knowledge given by Newton's laws
wasn't invalidated when the new paradigm came about, so will the new
understandings given by the current state of science remain useful.
I think you're making a non-point. You are stating (it appears) that
there is a "problem" with science. However, you conveniently ignore
the fact that every new (and eventually, perhaps, supplanted) paradigm
offers up a wealth of useful, fundamental knowledge which remains
valid even when/if the paradigm is supplanted. This is true progress,
not the infinite treadmill of "truth" supplanting "truth" you seem to
believe it is.
: Science,
: indeed, requires an unsettling degree of "faith."
Bollocks. Even if the rest of your article weren't fatally flawed, it
would not offer a shred of evidence that science requires faith - it
would merely have demonstrated that scientific ideas change and that
this implies that science never leads to progress. Fortunately, you
were trivially correct on the first point, and just plain wrong on the
second.
Mark Towfiq
robert> And the Bahai's haven't produced any good science or religion.
I didn't know you thought there was such a thing as "good religion",
Robert! What would that look like to you?
--
Mark TOWFIQ tow...@Justice.Medford.MA.US
O SON OF BEING! Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have
ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not. This is My command
unto thee, do thou observe it.
-- Baha'u'llah, Arabic Hidden Words, #29
William Allen Hux
>
> : We thought Newton's laws were a good deal till
> : they were shown quite false,
> : certainly the current "laws" will eventually
> : be shown to fail as well, to be supplanted by some new "truth."
>Very possibly true. Do you have a point to make? Do you mean to
>suggest that every time a new scientific idea comes along we should
>clap our hands, then ignore it until another one comes along to take
>its place?
Jeez, I've gotten worked over for that one. Perhaps if I had omitted
the word "quite"? To me, if a law isn't true (for everything to which
it applies) then it is false. Useful, sometimes, but nevertheless
untrue. Did I say it should be ignored? Will you people please stop
_looking_ for stuff to flame that isn't explicitly stated? I never said
Newton's laws weren't useful. I never said ignore them. I never said
science is tedium. Jesus, I worked in a microKelvin laboratory (you
know, one of those really cold places where they examine quantum
mechanical properties of materials like copper and helium). If I
didn't like physics, wouldn't I avoid it like the plague?
So what's my point? It has very little to do with the Einstein quote.
That was a response to something else. My point is that the current structure,
the current set of glasses through which we view and interpret the world,
is modern science (in contrast to primitive mysticism). Thus we should
acknowledge it for what it is, a technique (and one perhaps equally useful
to us today as mysticism was back _then_) for interpretting our world, and one
which itself may one day be supplanted. The technique itself, not just the
laws and ideas it generated. I posted this argument because of the wide-
spread, unquestioning acceptance of science - if we can question the
existence of God, why can't we question the correctness of science? Just
because we have generated evidence in favor of certain ideas, all generated
_within_ the construct of science, only supports (and certainly cannot prove)
the idea that within the construct of science some things have not been
disproved. That does _not_ mean that science _isn't_ valuable. Furthermore,
it can be argued that mysticism was valuable. But in this forum, I think I
would have little trouble dismissing mysticism as a valid way of viewing the
world, but hell to pay if I try to confront modern science.
I just want you people to stop taking science for granted. You atheists
argue against theists who take God for granted. God is an idea, science is
an idea. God is a good enough explanation for events for some people,
science is good enough for others. Science has led to great progress for
mankind, religion has led to great progress for mankind. Religion has led
to wars, science has led to wars. They're different things, but they
accomplish many of the same goals and are revered with equal energy by
different (and same?) people. Show me evidence for God? The theist says
look at the stars, they were set in motion by Him. Show me evidence for
science? The scientist says look at Newton's equations, they show how
things move. Science "exists" just as much as God "exists." Science is
not the final word!
>I think you're making a non-point. You are stating (it appears) that
>there is a "problem" with science. However, you conveniently ignore
>the fact that every new (and eventually, perhaps, supplanted) paradigm
>offers up a wealth of useful, fundamental knowledge which remains
>valid even when/if the paradigm is supplanted. This is true progress,
>not the infinite treadmill of "truth" supplanting "truth" you seem to
>believe it is.
Well, I've just covered most of this ground, but by now I hope you see my
point. Yes, science is valuable. Yes, it answers some questions. Yes, we
move along a path within the construct of science - we "progress". But to
claim the construct of science is an unassailable entity (I just e-mailed
someone about this - I should of just posted that!) seems to me to require
faith in something - at least faith in yourself. Thus my next statement:
>
> : Science,
> : indeed, requires an unsettling degree of "faith."
>Bollocks. Even if the rest of your article weren't fatally flawed, it
>would not offer a shred of evidence that science requires faith - it
>would merely have demonstrated that scientific ideas change and that
>this implies that science never leads to progress. Fortunately, you
>were trivially correct on the first point, and just plain wrong on the
>second.
Now, I would really appreciate it if, when someone criticizes my work,
they would put in big asterisks **** FATAL FLAW **** right where the fatal
flaw is. I failed to notice where you said "this is where the error in your
argument is." In fact, I did not realize I had two points (and by two I mean
_exactly_ two)! Perhaps it would have been easier if I numbered everything.
I try not to post more than a paragraph or two at a time - thus I make a
point, and avoid the fluff I read in many philosophy works. Perhaps I
sacrifice rigidness of argument for this. I realize that by being on the
net I'm probably talking to a lot of techno-junkies (like myself) and thus
should expect a great deal of criticism for saying "our safe little science
oriented world may not be perfectly sound!"
This time I added tons of fluff because I'm supposed to be studying.
Allen
Andy Peters
: In article <CM39p...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> adpe...@bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
: >
: > : We thought Newton's laws were a good deal till
: > : they were shown quite false,
: > : certainly the current "laws" will eventually
: > : be shown to fail as well, to be supplanted by some new "truth."
: >Very possibly true. Do you have a point to make? Do you mean to
: >suggest that every time a new scientific idea comes along we should
: >clap our hands, then ignore it until another one comes along to take
: >its place?
: Jeez, I've gotten worked over for that one. Perhaps if I had omitted
: the word "quite"? To me, if a law isn't true (for everything to which
: it applies) then it is false. Useful, sometimes, but nevertheless
: untrue. Did I say it should be ignored? Will you people please stop
: _looking_ for stuff to flame that isn't explicitly stated?
Well, I'll certainly admit to "_looking_ for stuff ... that [wasn't]
explicitly stated" by you, 'cause if I didn't look for implicit stuff,
you said exactly nothing at all.
: I never said
: Newton's laws weren't useful. I never said ignore them. I never said
: science is tedium.
Then what you *did* say was nothing, nada, null. You wasted
everyone's time by reiterating the obvious.
: So what's my point? It has very little to do with the Einstein quote.
: That was a response to something else. My point is that the current structure,
: the current set of glasses through which we view and interpret the world,
: is modern science (in contrast to primitive mysticism). Thus we should
: acknowledge it for what it is, a technique (and one perhaps equally useful
: to us today as mysticism was back _then_) for interpretting our world, and one
: which itself may one day be supplanted. The technique itself, not just the
: laws and ideas it generated.
Ummm, and were you under the impression that there was anyone here who
didn't realize that?
[Deleted: blind acceptance of science, but if we can question the
existence of god, why not the scientific method? Atheists take
science for granted just like they accuse theists of taking god for
granted. "Science is not the final word."]
Gosh, it's a good thing that everyone here already realizes this
stuff. Almost every anti-creationist argument you see on
talk.origins, for instance, is essentially an argument solely against
those creationists who *try* to present their prattle as science (or
who try to disprove evolution, but it boils down to the same thing).
Almost no one on t.o bases his/her arguments on the assumption that
science is somehow inherently "superior" to religion or any other
approach to knowledge - the argument is against those liars and frauds
who try to represent the results of one such approach as the results
of another.
That said, my more direct response to the accusation that science is
seen as "the final word" is this: since you postulate that the error
in this way of thinking is that any approach to knowledge is likely to
change in mechanism, then I myself prefer to choose that approach
which already has ways to deal with such changes built in. That
approach is, of course, the scientific method.
[...]
: But to
: claim the construct of science is an unassailable entity [...]
I, for one, would like to see an example of such a claim in this
discussion.
: >Bollocks. Even if the rest of your article weren't fatally flawed, it
: >would not offer a shred of evidence that science requires faith - it
: >would merely have demonstrated that scientific ideas change and that
(1)^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: >this implies that science never leads to progress. Fortunately, you
(2)^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: >were trivially correct on the first point, and just plain wrong on the
: >second.
: Now, I would really appreciate it if, when someone criticizes my work,
: they would put in big asterisks **** FATAL FLAW **** right where the fatal
: flaw is. I failed to notice where you said "this is where the error in your
: argument is."
Now, normally, being the mild-mannered guy I am, I would simply delete
this paragraph to keep the discussion as relevant as possible.
Feeling a bit cantankerous this evening, however, I offer this
response:
If you would go back and read my original post, you might notice that
*the entire post* was pointing out that your argument was nothing but
either one big error or one big trivium.
: In fact, I did not realize I had two points (and by two I mean
: _exactly_ two)!
Yes, I thought perhaps you hadn't realized that. That's why I spelled
it out for you in the paragraph you quoted above. You'll note that
now *I've* actually numbered them for *you*, in case you hadn't
figured out what they were.
: I realize that by being on the
: net I'm probably talking to a lot of techno-junkies (like myself) and thus
: should expect a great deal of criticism for saying "our safe little science
: oriented world may not be perfectly sound!"
Note that neither I, nor anyone else, has criticised you for saying
what you claim to have said. Instead, we've criticised you for saying
what you *did* say, or at least what little sense we could make of it.
Doug O'Neal
> robert> And the Bahai's haven't produced any good science or religion.
> I didn't know you thought there was such a thing as "good religion",
> Robert! What would that look like to you?
Although, give medieval Islamic society the credit it deserves for
doing some fine science, as well as preserving ancient greek writings.
--
> Mark TOWFIQ tow...@Justice.Medford.MA.US
> O SON OF BEING! Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have
> ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not. This is My command
> unto thee, do thou observe it.
> -- Baha'u'llah, Arabic Hidden Words, #29
Hey -- how come them old-time Arabs spoke in such convoluted English?
Doug
mark
>>" Man tries to make for himself in the fashion that suits him best a simp-
>>lified and intelligible picture of the world. He then tries to some extent
>>to substitute this cosmos of his for the world of experience, and thus to
>>overcome it... He makes this cosmos and its construction the pivot of his
>>emotional life in order to find in this way the peace and serenity which he
>>cannot find in the narrow whirlpool of personal experience.
>>... The supreme task... is to arrive at those universal laws from which the
>>cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to
>>these laws;only intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience,
>>can reach them...."
>>
>>Guess who said this? Albert Einstein!
>>*** Intuition? Sympathy? Strange words for
>>*** the origin of scientific knowledge - Robert M. Pirsig
>> Zen & the Art of Motorcycle
>> Maintenance
>
>stand up to rather brutal tests of correspondance with a body of accumlating
>emperical data, and that ocassionally some scientist's fantesy about how
>nature ought to be gets a wake up call by how nature actually is found to
>be....back to the drawing board.
>
Einstein quote that are *totally* unknown to most of the folks reading
this: the first, and most important, that when Einstein referred to
"pure deduction", he was referring to the *scientific* use-definition
of the word "deduction", the same way, for example, that Doyle had
Sherlock Holmes refer to it: as the logical accumulation of facts, and
deducing the causal relationship between events. Intuition, in this case,
refers to something closer to what most folks think of: that which leads
us to pay attention to something which may not be labelled with flashing
bells and ringing lights as The Most Important Thing To Look At.
mark
Tony Lawrence
: argue against theists who take God for granted. God is an idea, science is
: an idea. God is a good enough explanation for events for some people,
: science is good enough for others. Science has led to great progress for
: mankind, religion has led to great progress for mankind. Religion has led
: to wars, science has led to wars.
I can think of several religiously inspired wars, dozens in fact, and
I can think of thousands of examples of progress that science has caused.
Yet, in all seriousness, I cannot think of a single war caused by science.
Please enlighten me.
After that, please trot out your ideas of how religion has led to any
progress for mankind. I can think of several examples of religion
impeding progress, usually by refusing to recognize science, but I
am truly at a loss to think of any "great progress" from religion.
--
Tony
Mark Towfiq
>> O SON OF BEING! Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst
>> not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not.
>> This is My command unto thee, do thou observe it. -- Baha'u'llah,
>> Arabic Hidden Words, #29
doug> Hey -- how come them old-time Arabs spoke in such convoluted
doug> English?
This translation reflects the majestic tone of His Writings.
(BTW, Baha'u'llah wasn't an Arab; He was born in Persia. And since He
passed away only just over 100 years ago, I would hardly call that
"old-time".)
Regards,
Mark
--
Mark TOWFIQ tow...@Justice.Medford.MA.US
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." -- Baha'u'llah
Paul King
In article <2l5up5$n...@snoopy.cis.ufl.edu> al...@beach.cis.ufl.edu
(William Allen Hux) writes:
>In article <CM39p...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> adpe...@bio.indiana.edu
(Andy Peters) writes:
>>
>> : We thought Newton's laws were a good deal till
>> : they were shown quite false,
>> : certainly the current "laws" will eventually
>> : be shown to fail as well, to be supplanted by some new "truth."
>
>>Very possibly true. Do you have a point to make? Do you mean to
>>suggest that every time a new scientific idea comes along we should
>>clap our hands, then ignore it until another one comes along to take
>>its place?
>
> Jeez, I've gotten worked over for that one. Perhaps if I had omitted
>the word "quite"? To me, if a law isn't true (for everything to which
>it applies) then it is false. Useful, sometimes, but nevertheless
>untrue.
little use when evaluating quantitative laws.
Did I say it should be ignored? Will you people please stop
[DELETIA]
The technique itself, not just the
>laws and ideas it generated. I posted this argument because of the wide-
>spread, unquestioning acceptance of science - if we can question the
>existence of God, why can't we question the correctness of science?
There are differences between quaetioning an assumption, and questioning
a body of knowledge supported by a vast amount of evidence.
The "questioning" of science is usually rubbished because it is usually
an attempt to claim that science is no more reliable a source of knowledge
than religion. That claim is quite clearly and obviously false.
Just
>because we have generated evidence in favor of certain ideas, all
generated
>_within_ the construct of science, only supports (and certainly cannot
prove)
>the idea that within the construct of science some things have not been
>disproved. That does _not_ mean that science _isn't_ valuable.
Furthermore,
>it can be argued that mysticism was valuable. But in this forum, I think
I
>would have little trouble dismissing mysticism as a valid way of viewing
the
>world, but hell to pay if I try to confront modern science.
> I just want you people to stop taking science for granted. You
atheists
>argue against theists who take God for granted. God is an idea, science
is
>an idea.
Science is a body of knowledge, backed up by a whole mountain of evidence.
If any religion came even *close* to that amount of supporting evidence
then very few of us would be atheists.
God is a good enough explanation for events for some people,
>science is good enough for others. Science has led to great progress for
>mankind, religion has led to great progress for mankind. Religion has
led
>to wars, science has led to wars.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Name one.
They're different things, but they
>accomplish many of the same goals and are revered with equal energy by
>different (and same?) people. Show me evidence for God? The theist says
>look at the stars, they were set in motion by Him. Show me evidence for
>science? The scientist says look at Newton's equations, they show how
>things move. Science "exists" just as much as God "exists."
The difference is, of course, that the theist is making a a whole host of
unsupported assumptions, while the scientist is relying on evidence.
Science is
>not the final word!
>
>>I think you're making a non-point. You are stating (it appears) that
>>there is a "problem" with science. However, you conveniently ignore
>>the fact that every new (and eventually, perhaps, supplanted) paradigm
>>offers up a wealth of useful, fundamental knowledge which remains
>>valid even when/if the paradigm is supplanted. This is true progress,
>>not the infinite treadmill of "truth" supplanting "truth" you seem to
>>believe it is.
>
> Well, I've just covered most of this ground, but by now I hope you see
my
>point. Yes, science is valuable. Yes, it answers some questions. Yes,
we
>move along a path within the construct of science - we "progress". But
to
>claim the construct of science is an unassailable entity (I just e-mailed
>someone about this - I should of just posted that!) seems to me to
require
>faith in something - at least faith in yourself. Thus my next statement:
>
>>
>> : Science,
>> : indeed, requires an unsettling degree of "faith."
>
But much less faith than religion does. If you find the degree of faith
required by science to be "unsettling" you *must* be an atheist or
agnostic.
Paul K.
Mark Towfiq
>> I didn't know you thought there was such a thing as "good
>> religion", Robert! What would that look like to you?
robert> It would have to rhyme in all known languages.
Well, I'm sorry you don't want to have a serious discussion or
exchange of views.
BTW, the word for a follower of Baha'u'llah _is_ the same in all
known languages: "Baha'i". A perfect rhyme.
--
Mark TOWFIQ tow...@Justice.Medford.MA.US
O SON OF BEING! My love is My stronghold; he that entereth therein is safe and
secure, and he that turneth away shall surely stray and perish.
-- Baha'u'llah, Arabic Hidden Words, #9
Robert Knowles
>FROM: Mark Towfiq <tow...@Justice.Medford.MA.US>
>
>>>>>> "doug" == Doug O'Neal <on...@astro.psu.edu> writes:
>
>>> O SON OF BEING! Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst
>>> not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not.
>>> This is My command unto thee, do thou observe it. -- Baha'u'llah,
>>> Arabic Hidden Words, #29
>
>doug> Hey -- how come them old-time Arabs spoke in such convoluted
>doug> English?
>
> This translation reflects the majestic tone of His Writings.
>(BTW, Baha'u'llah wasn't an Arab; He was born in Persia. And since He
>passed away only just over 100 years ago, I would hardly call that
>"old-time".)
>
Hey, it's a bit tough for all us unbelievers to keep up with all the
recent offshoots of Islam. And it's not fair for them to use these
King James Bible phrases to trick us, either. Damn, you had us fooled
into thinking the Bahai's were an offshoot of the Mormons rather than
the Moslems.
Just as Islam was started by an Arab who was envious of Jewish prophets,
we now have the Bahai's started by an Iranian prophet, and the Ahmadiyahs
who were started by an Indian prophet. Once they understood how Islam
started (namely, by an Arab prophet who was snubbed by Jewish leaders),
then everyone wanted to get into the act. When are we going to get a
Southeast Asian offshoot of Islam? They've lived under Islam long
enough now to get the hang of this religion making business. I've even
got a name for them, if they want to use it: Papayans.
Robert Knowles
>FROM: Mark Towfiq <tow...@Justice.Medford.MA.US>
>
>>>>>> "robert" == Robert Knowles <p00...@psilink.com> writes:
>
>>> I didn't know you thought there was such a thing as "good
>>> religion", Robert! What would that look like to you?
>
>robert> It would have to rhyme in all known languages.
>
> Well, I'm sorry you don't want to have a serious discussion or
>exchange of views.
>
> BTW, the word for a follower of Baha'u'llah _is_ the same in all
>known languages: "Baha'i". A perfect rhyme.
But does it have a beat we can dance to?