GREAT NEWS !!! All the fight will be over soon ??? !!! :-))
student13
<pairamblr@gmail.com>cheers
st13
----------------------
Humans will be extinct within 100 years, says Australian scientist
PTI, Jun 20, 2010, 11.52am IST
Article
Comments (13)
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/Humans-will-be-extinct-within-100-years-says-Australian-scientist/articleshow/6070347.cms
Tags:Australia|Scientist|extinct|humans
LONDON: An Australian scientist, who helped eradicate smallpox from
the world, has created a new sensation by predicting that the human
race will be extinct within the next 100 years.
Professor Frank Fenner, emeritus professor of microbiology at the
Australian National University, has claimed that the human race will
be unable to survive a population explosion and "unbridled
consumption".
"Homo sapiens will become extinct, perhaps within 100 years," Fenner
said. "A lot of other animals will, too."
"It's an irreversible situation. I think it's too late. I try not to
express that because people are trying to do something, but they keep
putting it off."
He said that since humans have entered an unofficial scientific period
known as the Anthropocene -- the time since industrialisation -- we
have had an effect on the planet that rivals any ice age or comet
impact, the Daily Mail reported.
Fenner also blames the onset of climate change for the human race's
imminent demise.
He said: "Climate change is just at the very beginning. But we're
seeing remarkable changes in the weather already.
"We'll undergo the same fate as the people on Easter Island... The
Aborigines showed that without science and the production of carbon
dioxide and global warming, they could survive for 40,000 or 50,000
years.
"But the world can't. The human species is likely to go the same way
as many of the species that we've seen disappear."
Fenner, 95, has won awards for his work in helping eradicate the
variola virus that causes smallpox and has written or co-written 22
books.
In 1980, he announced the eradication of the disease to the World
Health Assembly and it is still regarded as one of the World Health
Organisation's greatest achievements.
However, Stephen Boyden, a colleague of Prof Fenner, said that while
there was deep pessimism among some ecologists, others had a more
optimistic view.
"Frank may well be right, but some of us still harbour the hope that
there will come about an awareness of the situation and, as a result
the revolutionary changes necessary to achieve ecological
sustainability," Boyden said.
Simon Ross, the vice-chairman of the Optimum Population Trust, said:
"Mankind is facing real challenges including climate change, loss of
bio-diversity and unprecedented growth in population."
Prof Fenner's chilling prediction echoes recent comments by Prince
Charles who last week warned of "monumental problems" if the world's
population continues to grow at such a rapid pace.
According to 2009 UN estimates, the current global population is 6.8
billion which can exceed to seven billion by the end of 2011.
Earlier, Prof Nicholas Boyle of Cambridge University had said that a
"Doomsday" moment will take place in 2014 -- and will determine
whether the 21st century is full of violence and poverty or will be
peaceful and prosperous.
In 2006, another esteemed academic, Prof James Lovelock, warned that
the world's population may sink as low as 500 million over the next
century due to global warming. He claimed that any attempts to tackle
climate change will not be able to solve the problem, merely buy us
time.
Rolf Schuler
<schulerrolf@googlemail.com>Enjoy
cheers
st13
----------------------
Humans will be extinct within 100 years, says Australian scientist
PTI, Jun 20, 2010, 11.52am IST
Article
Comments (13)
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/Humans-will-be-extinct-within-100-years-says-Australian-scientist/articleshow/6070347.cms
I'm afraid I have to agree with this - everyone, who was watching the social and all the other changes since industrialization began, has to agree with
******************************************************************************************************
I'm afraid I have to agree with this - everyone, who was watching the social and all the other changes since industrialization began, has to agree with it. Maybe it will need somewhat more than just 100 years (maybe!) but the Homo sapiens will be extincted in a geologically near future.
Rolf
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>Enjoy
cheers
st13
----------------------
Humans will be extinct within 100 years, says Australian scientist
PTI, Jun 20, 2010, 11.52am IST
"Anti-theism at it's best means holding religion to the same standard as everything else." --Dev
Timothy 1:4a
<canfanorama@gmail.com>Taken literally, I consider this prediction highly unlikely and
slightly ridiculous -- though atomic warfare could probably bring it
to pass.
However, I share his general pessimism. If he modifies his claim to
say that the population will drop by more than 90% within 100 years,
and that all of my own personal descendants will be dead, I say he has
more than half a chance of being right.
Overpopulation is a huge problem, and no one is showing any political
will to reduce our population growth nor our per capita consumption of
resources.
On Jun 20, 5:30 am, student13 <pairam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Enjoy
> cheers
> st13
> ----------------------
>
> Humans will be extinct within 100 years, says Australian scientist
> PTI, Jun 20, 2010, 11.52am IST
>
> Article
> Comments (13)
>
student13
<pairamblr@gmail.com>My first thoughts too were somewhat in the same lines, may be whoever
is left, fit to live in the conditions that has "evolved" due to
ecological/geographical/
and all the effects that is caused by the human beings that live and
the changes
that the system creates
But, then, are we trying to do our bit? Sad, as we all see, there is
very less
seriousness in the community, be it political, religious, social or
any other segment.
Even the great media is only interested in selling their Ad space/time
and increase
viewer-ship.
enjoy
cheers
st13
On Jun 20, 3:54 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>Trance,
My first thoughts too were somewhat in the same lines, may be whoever
is left, fit to live in the conditions that has "evolved" due to
ecological/geographical/
and all the effects that is caused by the human beings that live and
the changes
that the system creates
But, then, are we trying to do our bit? Sad, as we all see, there is
very less
seriousness in the community, be it political, religious, social or
any other segment.
muhammed Nk
<muhammedarimbra@gmail.com>Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>On Jun 22, 4:26 am, muhammed Nk <muhammedarim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> what i feel and which seems to be fit and correct is that human beings are
> going to suffer from what they had done ,have been/are doing ... there is
> no need of any religious books for this . one of the uncetainty laws of
> Newton certainly asserts
principle maybe you shouldn't be so certain.
> that 'for every action there is equal and opposite
> reaction' and if any body needs religious evidence for this it can also be
> stated.
> No wonder that the hot level of sun is rising every where in the world and
> each and every govt has been trying their best to find out proper solutions
> but i think , mankind will never be successful to prevent the inevitable end
> of the world ..
own extinction.
> Even though scientists are coming up with new amazing discoveries and
> these achievements , failing to control and find apt solutions for which has
> really been frightening us always.it is where we can find out the weakness
> of human beings and the power and strength of the creator.
creator.
muhammed Nk
<muhammedarimbra@gmail.com>i do need to make some clarifications and some true and reasonable statements.
Since Newton lived centuries before Heisenberg and his uncertainity
principle maybe you shouldn't be so certain.
I do. I need religious evidence for this, so please state it.
The world isn't going to end anytime soon; the danger we face is our
own extinction.
I think one of the weaknesses of human beings it to believe there is a
creator.
let me ask a simple question and expect reasonable answer.
Simon Ewins
<sjewins@gmail.com>> I do. I need religious evidence for this, so please state it.
>
> Bible , Quran and many holy religious books have given exact warning
> against the bad consequences which would definitely follow our bad
> actions.
They were all written by schizophrenics. I do not tend to trust the
validity of what schizophrenics have to tell me about the voices they
hear and the hallucinations they experience.
--
"Only that in you which is me can hear what I'm saying." [Baba Ram Dass]
"The observer, when he seems to himself to be observing a stone, is
really, if physics is to be believed, observing the effects of the stone
upon himself."
[Bertrand Russell ]
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>On Jun 22, 10:12 am, muhammed Nk <muhammedarim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > i do need to make some clarifications and some true and reasonable
> > statements.
>
> > Since Newton lived centuries before Heisenberg and his uncertainity
> > principle maybe you shouldn't be so certain.
>
>Though Newton lived centuries ago , his theories are still relevant and
> read and taught world wide learn and try to understand if not certain.
'for every action there is equal and opposite reaction.' I said that
is not an "uncertainty law" (I'm assuming you meant "uncertainty
principle," which is probably being generous). It was Heisenberg who
developed the uncertainty principle centuries after Newton was dead. I
know I'm probably quibbling, but I think it's a valid approach when
theists try to combine science with religion. You were confusing
Newton's Third Law of Motion with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle -
"please try to understand if not certain."
> > I do. I need religious evidence for this, so please state it.
>
> Bible , Quran and many holy religious books have given exact warning against
> the bad consequences which would definitely follow our bad actions.
against happening at all. Where are they?
> they
> state that '' As bad and inevitable result of the evil and sinful
> activities of human beings ,the oceans and the entire lands will be filled
> with calamities , tragedies......
with calamities and tragedies at all. Where are they?
> > The world isn't going to end anytime soon; the danger we face is our
> > own extinction.
>
> > the extinction of mankind is predicted as being result of serious changes
result of serious changes, too, but science has rational explanations
for our eventual extinction and you don't.
> in the nature and world ,which if happens subsequently will lead to the end
> of world. who can deny.. or be certain will not...
> > I think one of the weaknesses of human beings it to believe there is a
> > creator.
>
> > let me ask a simple question and expect reasonable answer.
>
> was/is it possible for a man to be born with out a father and mother?
> will any body believe if i say " the mobile was created or made accidentally
> and with out a maker?
> or there is no any inventor for radio, computer , TV and ......
> when sun rose in a morning mankind was surprised to see all these which were
> there with out anybody working behind them .
> IF reason works i think the answer must be 'NO'
> Then how foolish it is to belive that this vast and entire universe was
> created with out a creator !!!
like God/Allah.
muhammed Nk
<muhammedarimbra@gmail.com>First I appreciate the friend who corrected this law as being one of the laws of motion by Newton.
i dont know what he understands by calamities and tragedies .
And if we go through the history of world we can see that these kinds of tragedies and deaths of people have been doubled and multiplied by a large scale in the last decades than what had been happening before. can we deny ? But can we forsee or predict when and where we would be the victims?!
but science has rational explanations
for our eventual extinction and you don't.
Me.
> in the nature and world ,which if happens subsequently will lead to the end
> of world. who can deny.. or be certain will not...
this is not a reply using sense or reason but only a response for the purpose of saying something which fails to hit the target . i don't want to provoke any body but every body can understand the meaning of this kind of tones.
Yes.
> was/is it possible for a man to be born with out a father and mother?
i don't want to say any more . just to ask ''were you ''?
First you have to explain what "the mobile" is.
All those technologies have inventor/inventors.
> or there is no any inventor for radio, computer , TV and ......
That never happened.
> when sun rose in a morning mankind was surprised to see all these which were
> there with out anybody working behind them .
If this be your answer i want to ask my friend to go through and think about it for a while if the sense and thinking way is logical ,definitely wide thoughts and reasonalble links will give true answers
If reason exists then the answer must be "you're speaking gibberish."
i dont want to argue with any body for nothing .so ' no response'
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>On Jun 22, 2:33 pm, muhammed Nk <muhammedarim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > First I appreciate the friend who corrected this law as being one of the
> > laws of motion by Newton.
>
> Any way , let me express my views.
>
> > i dont know what he understands by calamities and tragedies .
>
> has not the world witnessed a lot of very unlucky incidents and natural
> calamities which claimed the lives of millions of people in the past years
> ,?
Earthquakes and the recent tsunami in the Indian Ocean are caused by
shifting geological plates. These plates have been moving for billions
of years, long before humans existed, so these tragedies *can't* be
caused by human behaviour. It isn't possible. It's insane to believe
that they do.
> Did n't we see the wrath of ocean
emotions. It cannot be wrathful. It's insane to believe that it can.
> in the form of tsunami which frigtenened
> wholeworld, and left many women as widows and many children fatherless and
> motherless?
unfortunately died for being in the wrong place at the wrong time
through no fault of their own.
> Don't we hear the news of small and large earthquakes or the threat of it in
> every part of world?
shifting. It would probably be a bad idea to do that even if we could.
The best we can do is study them scientifically so that we might be
able to predict them and get out of the way when they're about to
occur.
> has not our ears been fed up hearing these kinds of news often and we simply
> ignore it
> but really what excuse we have to do so .we think we are not victimes and
> those who suffered were unlucky and we have nothing to do with it . is this
> mentality right?
human behaviour. It's mentally wrong to think that the victims might
have deserved it because we were behaving badly.
> > And if we go through the history of world we can see that these kinds of
> > tragedies and deaths of people have been doubled and multiplied by a large
> > scale in the last decades than what had been happening before. can we deny ?
> > But can we forsee or predict when and where we would be the victims?!
>
> > but science has rational explanations
> > for our eventual extinction and you don't.
>
> can any body give such rational and all the more correct explanation of
> science for this eventual extinction which, as he argues, can not be
> explained by me?
adapt quickly enough, at some point the sun will expand and engulf the
earth, killing us all if we're still around (I doubt that we would
be), at some point a comet will hit the earth causing our extinction;
there are all sorts of scientifically valid possibilities. There are
no valid religious possibilities of our demise, since the religious
have no valid evidence that God/Allah even exists.
> let me plus that most of the scientific discoveries has only given
> approximate concepts rather than truth but by it we boast of being omni
> potent , powerful, and invincible and declare infront of the world that how
> wonderful creature man is !
"approximately" collides particles at close to the speed of light to
uncover the secrets of matter. The only people I hear who boast of
omnipotence and invincibility are theists when speaking of their
imaginary friend/God/Allah.
> Human beings are wonderful creatures but it is his thinking power and
> ability to assess things with common sense that makes him distinct from
> animals and other creatures. And if he fails to live as he is asked to do,he
> is not better than animals and other senseless species on earth.
don't think humans are better than animals - we ARE animals. I agree
that we are distinct from other species, just as other species are
distinct. That's why they're called "species."
> > > in the nature and world ,which if happens subsequently will lead to the
> > end
> > > of world. who can deny.. or be certain will not...
>
> > Me.
>
> > this is not a reply using sense or reason but only a response for the
> > purpose of saying something which fails to hit the target . i don't want to
> > provoke any body but every body can understand the meaning of this kind of
> > tones.
>
> > > was/is it possible for a man to be born with out a father and mother?
>
> > Yes.
> > i don't want to say any more . just to ask ''were you ''?
> > First you have to explain what "the mobile" is.
>
> Bear with me if any body did n't understand it is Mobile phone.
mentioned it.
> > > or there is no any inventor for radio, computer , TV and ......
>
> > All those technologies have inventor/inventors.
>
> > > when sun rose in a morning mankind was surprised to see all these which
> > were
> > > there with out anybody working behind them .
>
> > That never happened.
>
> If this be your answer i want to ask my friend to go through and think about it for a > while if the sense and thinking way is logical ,definitely wide thoughts and
> reasonalble links will give true answers
> > If reason exists then the answer must be "you're speaking gibberish."
> > i dont want to argue with any body for nothing .so ' no response'
>
> The curse and failure of men in this century is nothing other than his
> feeling inside himself that he is the mightiest in the world and nothing can
> defeat him ..
> but have we ever been able to prevent death or can we if it
> comes in any shape ?
Thank you, scientific research! Good thing we don't still have the
religious trying to cast demons out of us to cure us when we get
sick...
> how weak a creature man is !
> let us always hope for the
> best and work for that.
opinion of what is "best."
Max
<assent@pcfin.net>There's only so many resources that can go around and if these
resources are held by too few, then war it is.
Something has to give.
On Jun 20, 5:30 pm, student13 <pairam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Enjoy
> cheers
> st13
> ----------------------
>
> Humans will be extinct within 100 years, says Australian scientist
> PTI, Jun 20, 2010, 11.52am IST
>
> Article
> Comments (13)
>
muhammed Nk
<muhammedarimbra@gmail.com>These plates have been moving for billions
of years, long before humans existed
If he has this true opinion which I agree with, let me ask why such tsunamis or continuous and shifting earthquakes and these kinds of tragedies were not so common in the past and why they have been multiplied in recent years or last century? If this scientific explanation is hundred percentages correct what justification science can present for this phenomena. As you saw so you reap…
The ocean is an inanimate object and is not capable of having
emotions. It cannot be wrathful. It's insane to believe that it can.
I regret for applying the expression of an emotional term for the ocean because I failed to identify his disability to understand the poetic imagination. Were all poets also theists and believers? This response make me think so.
No. We saw a natural disaster in which hundreds of thousands of people
unfortunately died for being in the wrong place at the wrong time
through no fault of their own.
Alas ! who can explain how the ‘place’ and ‘time’ became wrong ?
The best we can do is study them scientifically so that we might be
able to predict them and get out of the way when they're about to
occur.
It will happen only in our dreams. This is why this scientist predicted the extinction of mankind. Believe the scientist at least.
> has not our ears been fed up hearing these kinds of news often and we simply
> ignore it
I don't know anyone who ignores earthquakes and tsunamis.
What I meant is that as these kinds of news are hitting headlines and the catastrophes are repeatedly happening , men tend to see them simple and only the victims are suffering for long ,though other people share their thoughts for sometime . We have the similar news the next day ,and that is the big news for us and conveniently or unknowingly we forget the former .This is the explanation for my words
It's mentally wrong to think earthquakes and tsunamis are caused by
Human behaviour. It's mentally wrong to think that the victims might
have deserved it because we were behaving badly.
Who can say we or they were wrong doers or behaving badly? The real justice is not possible in this mortal world...
At some point our environment will change to the point where we can't
adapt quickly enough, at some point the sun will expand and engulf the
earth, killing us all if we're still around (I doubt that we would
be), at some point a comet will hit the earth causing our extinction;
there are all sorts of scientifically valid possibilities. There are
no valid religious possibilities of our demise, since the religious
have no valid evidence that God/Allah even exists.
How long we have been trying and many scientists worked for long but how many experiments have failed or wanted to shift or change the strategy and confess the defeat.
The entire universe itself is the real evidence for the existence of a single and almighty God . if man applies his mind in the real and logical way and thinks in the systematic creation and arrangements of all minute and major things in the world he will automatically be humble and agree with the reality . That is what the common sense demands from men. What I have to say is that science never opposes religion but gives only strong support for religious teachings and predictions.
I don't share your contempt for the other species on earth, and I
don't think humans are better than animals - we ARE animals. I agree
that we are distinct from other species, just as other species are
distinct. That's why they're called "species."
I never have felt contempt for animals or species but the distinct qualities and abilities by which we human beings are blessed with have definitely given men a unique place in the order of living organisms on earth. We should respect the soul of each life , there should never be difference between that of man or animal but this is never contradictory to what I stated . Man should apply his mind and understand the facts with open eyes and hearts which if locked it is very difficult to unlock.
Regards,,,
Simon Ewins
<sjewins@gmail.com>> If he has this true opinion which I agree with, let me ask why such
> tsunamis or continuous and shifting earthquakes and these kinds of
> tragedies were not so common in the past and why they have been
> multiplied in recent years or last century?
Better news coverage.
--
"Only that in you which is me can hear what I'm saying." [Baba Ram Dass]
"A thorough reading and understanding of the Bible is the surest path to
atheism."
[Donald Morgan]
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>On Jun 23, 4:37 am, muhammed Nk <muhammedarim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> These plates have been moving for billions
> of years, long before humans existed
>
> If he has this true opinion which I agree with,
> let me ask why such tsunamis
> or continuous and shifting earthquakes and these kinds of tragedies were not
> so common in the past and why they have been multiplied in recent years or
> last century?
years. We have devices that record them now even when they're in
uninhabited areas, we can communicate globally now so people in
England know when there's an earthquake in China or a volcano in
Washington State. We're not superstitious (some of us, anyway), so we
don't misinterpret the earth shaking as being God's wrath anymore. In
short, since we can accurately identify earthquakes and volcanoes the
rate of incidence may appear to have increased when it hasn't.
> If this scientific explanation is hundred percentages correct
> what justification science can present for this phenomena.
increasing is due to irrational, superstitious religious belief, which
unfortunately still lingers.
> As you saw so you reap…
don't have much impact on rational people.
> The ocean is an inanimate object and is not capable of having
> emotions. It cannot be wrathful. It's insane to believe that it can.
>
> I regret for applying the expression of an emotional term for the ocean
> because I failed to identify his disability to understand the poetic
> imagination.
arguing that tsunamis are caused by God/Allah, so I pointed out that
inanimate objects don't have emotions, which is a metaphorical way of
saying that inanimate objects don't channel the emotions of deities.
> Were all poets also theists and believers?
> This response make me think so.
surprised.
> No. We saw a natural disaster in which hundreds of thousands of people
> unfortunately died for being in the wrong place at the wrong time
> through no fault of their own.
>
> Alas ! who can explain how the ‘place’ and ‘time’ became wrong ?
tsunami." The time was "when the naturally caused gigantic tsunami
occurred."
> The best we can do is study them scientifically so that we might be
> able to predict them and get out of the way when they're about to
> occur.
>
> It will happen only in our dreams.
comprehension, I'm not about to believe your ability to predict
scientific achievments. You probably would have been one of those guys
who said that humans would never fly.
> This is why this scientist predicted the
> extinction of mankind. Believe the scientist at least.
to eventually become extinct because God/Allah is mad at us. There is
no scientific (valid) evidence for that.
> > has not our ears been fed up hearing these kinds of news often and we
> > simply ignore it
>
> I don't know anyone who ignores earthquakes and tsunamis.
>
> What I meant is that as these kinds of news are hitting headlines and the
> catastrophes are repeatedly happening , men tend to see them simple and only
> the victims are suffering for long ,though other people share their thoughts
> for sometime . We have the similar news the next day ,and that is the big
> news for us and conveniently or unknowingly we forget the former .This is
> the explanation for my words
has happened the countries around the Indian Ocean basin have improved/
installed a tsunami warning system. This would never have happened if
people had simply "forgot" about it. And I'm sure funding for
geologists to research ways to better predict these seismic events has
increased as a result. You're wrong.
> It's mentally wrong to think earthquakes and tsunamis are caused by
> Human behaviour. It's mentally wrong to think that the victims might
> have deserved it because we were behaving badly.
>
> Who can say we or they were wrong doers or behaving badly?
evil so God/Allah is sending us earthquakes and tsunamis. That is the
crux of your argument, in fact. How can you possibly forget this?
> The real justice is not possible in this mortal world...
operate under the rule of law.
> > At some point our environment will change to the point where we can't
> > adapt quickly enough, at some point the sun will expand and engulf the
> > earth, killing us all if we're still around (I doubt that we would
> > be), at some point a comet will hit the earth causing our extinction;
> > there are all sorts of scientifically valid possibilities. There are
> > no valid religious possibilities of our demise, since the religious
> > have no valid evidence that God/Allah even exists.
>
> How long we have been trying and many scientists worked for long but how
> many experiments have failed or wanted to shift or change the strategy and
> confess the defeat.
scientific method. Finding out what fails is just as useful as finding
out what succeeds. There is no need to change the strategy from the
scientific method since the scientific method works. There is no
defeat to confess, despite your eagerness to see science defeated.
> The entire universe itself is the real evidence for the existence of a
> single and almighty God .
that contradicts religious creation myths.
> if man applies his mind in the real and logical
> way and thinks in the systematic creation and arrangements of all minute and
> major things in the world he will automatically be humble and agree with
> the reality.
> That is what the common sense demands from men. What I have to
> say is that science never opposes religion but gives only strong support for
> religious teachings and predictions.
of years, and that all species have common ancestors. Religion says
that God magically and instantaneously popped people into existence,
and that the first human male gave birth to the first human female,
who was a fully formed adult female at that, by the magic extraction
of one of his ribs. Science opposes religion on all these counts.
> I don't share your contempt for the other species on earth, and I
> don't think humans are better than animals - we ARE animals. I agree
> that we are distinct from other species, just as other species are
>> distinct. That's why they're called "species."
>
> I never have felt contempt for animals
called the other animals "senseless" when in fact most of them share
the same five senses we do (the mammals), some have senses that we
don't (like a bat's radar), and some have the same senses but they are
better developed (a dog's sense of smell).
> or species but the distinct qualities
> and abilities by which we human beings are blessed with have definitely
> given men a unique place in the order of living organisms on earth.
possess (I won't say "blessed," because that implies that someone gave
them their qualitites and abilities, when in fact they evolved) give
pigs a unique place in the order of living organisms on earth.
> We should respect the soul of each life ,
after calling them "senseless," you first have to prove that living
things *HAVE* souls before I'll respect it. Until then I'll just
continue to respect life for what it is, but thanks for the spiritual
advice.
> there should never be difference
> between that of man or animal
between the different types of animals. That's how biologists
distinguish the different species.
> but this is never contradictory to what I
> stated .
lack of scientific understanding.
> Man should apply his mind and understand the facts with open eyes
> and hearts which if locked it is very difficult to unlock.
> Regards,,,
Duke of Omnium
<duke.of.omnium@gmail.com>On Jun 23, 6:11 am, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:
> This is another reason why we have this thing called war!
>
> There's only so many resources that can go around and if these
> resources are held by too few, then war it is.
stupid, and love means nothing in some strange quarters."
student13
<pairamblr@gmail.com>defeat him ..but have we ever been able to prevent death or can we if
it
comes in any shape ? how weak a creature man is ! let us always hope
for the
best and work for that."
population" !
If you prevent death, then what are you going to do to feed/shelter/
cloth all those who are here, and
the new comers? What are its effects on the eco system ? Is it not a
pity that we do not
wish to give space for others after we live our life for some time?
why are you against this beautiful
system that nature has got?
And you complain " how weak a creature man is!! " you really think
so? On the other hand
I thought how "creative" a creature is this human being!! Using the
available resources, he
develops so many things and add to that how wonderfully imaginative he
is to have created
the greatest "creation" that this planet has seen - created by
man :" God / Gods !! "
what more do you need?
enjoy
cheers
st13
TLC
<tlc.terence@gmail.com>religious End Of The Worlders or the atheist End Of The Worlders?
Mankind has managed to evolve, adapt life styles and develop in much
worse conditions than can be expected and if this means having to
adapt to worse conditions and a smaller population then we will do it.
End Of The Worlders should read about human history.
student13
<pairamblr@gmail.com>is this about theism or atheism?
The ones who has stated, are scientists.
And they base their statements on the basis of the studies they
make. One can think of adapting only if there are conditions that
help
to adapt. what evolves might get a different name - who knows?
What these scientists say is about "extinction". That is not
just living with a small or smaller population. Hence a matter for
further study
and who knows, what comes out of such studies could be totally
different from
what is being discussed now. So, I doubt if there is anything boring
or dismal
about this issue. On the basis of available info, the situation is
developing into
a difficult one - as per those scientists.
enjoy
cheers
st13
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>On Jun 24, 8:02 am, TLC <tlc.tere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't know who are the most pessimistically boring and dismal, the
> religious End Of The Worlders or the atheist End Of The Worlders?
I agree with what you say in the next paragraph, and I think we've got
a long ways to go. But somewhere in the future we will become extinct.
I think it will be the distant future.
muhammed Nk
<muhammedarimbra@gmail.com>
They were common in the past and they haven't mulitplied in recent
years. We have devices that record them now even when they're in
uninhabited areas, we can communicate globally now so people in
England know when there's an earthquake in China or a volcano in
Washington State. We're not superstitious (some of us, anyway), so we
don't misinterpret the earth shaking as being God's wrath anymore. In
short, since we can accurately identify earthquakes and volcanoes the
rate of incidence may appear to have increased when it hasn't.
UN Responds to Tsunami Disaster “What happened
on 26 December 2004 was an uprecedented, global catastrophe.
It requires unprecedented, global response.”
Secretary-General Kofi Annan Statement in Jakarta,
Indonesia, 6 January 2005
Yes ,how things happen? There are basically four ways we can try to answer this question. Using the powers of observation and applying the scientific methodology, but science can tell us how the phenomenon happens but is unable to predict its timing, nor can it predict who would survive or who would not. We can use the power of the mind, or psychic powers, again this will fall short, and may only succeed in allow its practitioners "flights of fantasy". You can also try to use the power of reason and philosophize but the accuracy of any prediction and the ability to predetermine survival will be flawed. Or per chance we can use revelation from the Holy Scriptures, again all we will be able to learn is that the phenomenon of earthquake and volcanoes exists and they happen, not when and who would survive.
> As you saw so you reap…
Dire warnings based on irrational, superstitious religious belief
don't have much impact on rational people.
Let’s see, Time will definitely prove who were correct, my friend, Time is moving forward not backward and never will go back. What ever lingers will definitely one day be proved. We need not have an argument on these issues but before things happen, it is reasonable to take precautionary steps for everything, and that is what rational people do who ever they may be.
You weren't using this expression in a poetic context. You were
arguing that tsunamis are caused by God/Allah, so I pointed out that
inanimate objects don't have emotions, which is a metaphorical way of
saying that inanimate objects don't channel the emotions of deities.
> Were all poets also theists and believers?
No.
These kinds of expressions were in the reports of Newspapers. I don’t think any Newspaper giving reports in poems or there could be such context. Prejudices will only provoke people to think and express opinions based on such perspectives only, irrespective of what is true and applicable to the mind and who is the addressee.
> This response makes me think so.
You've already demonstrated how irrational you are, so I'm not
surprised.
No comments. ’ Men may construe things after their fashion’ (shakespeare)
I can. The place was "in the path of a naturally caused gigantic
tsunami." The time was "when the naturally caused gigantic tsunami
occurred."
It does not express how those happened to be at the wrong place and the wrong time and why nobody could warn them of things like tsunami may happen at that time. Why no any calendar in the world marked it as a red letter day? Let me express my condolescence for those unlucky victims.
Sorry, you've already demonstrated your lack of scientific
comprehension, I'm not about to believe your ability to predict
scientific achievments. You probably would have been one of those guys
who said that humans would never fly.
Sorry, I am not among them. I am one of the persons who have strong desire
in mind to see that the men who, thanks to scientific achievements,
can fly in the sky like birds and swim in the water like fish,
how great it would have been if he could walk on earth like a real man!
> This is why this scientist predicted the
> extinction of mankind. Believe the scientist at least.
I do, but don't get excited. Scientists aren't saying that we're going
to eventually become extinct because God/Allah is mad at us. There is
no scientific (valid) evidence for that.
No religion says that men are going to eventually become extinct because god is mad at us. But only that all human beings are subject to death, as everybody agrees with (some of us, any way) .But for everything there shall be any reason and that could be different in case of the deaths of all.
Ah. I disagree. Take the Boxing Day tsunami, for example. Since that
has happened the countries around the Indian Ocean basin have improved/
installed a tsunami warning system. This would never have happened if
people had simply "forgot" about it. And I'm sure funding for
geologists to research ways to better predict these seismic events has
increased as a result. You're wrong.
All governments and scientists are trying their best to save the life of maximum people before another disaster happens, by installing warning systems and taking such precautionary steps, I don’t disagree. They are really praiseworthy and the benefit of our scientific progress. But let me ask how successful we have been?(scientific laboratories are still active and their experiments are going on, let us hope for good and useful results) and what are the general human expression that comes out when we hear such news or when a lot of people are reported dead ,other than helplessness , sympathy , voices of cry and mourning.
> It's mentally wrong to think earthquakes and tsunamis are caused by
> Human behaviour. It's mentally wrong to think that the victims might
> have deserved it because we were behaving badly.
> Who can say we or they were wrong doers or behaving badly?
You, for one. Remember? You were going on about how we're sinful and
evil so God/Allah is sending us earthquakes and tsunamis. That is the
crux of your argument, in fact. How can you possibly forget this?
To explain what I told (Who can say we or they were wrong doers or behaving badly?)
, we can not decide who were behaving badly, them or us? It does not mean nobody is …
> The real justice is not possible in this mortal world...
Real justice occurs thousands of times a day in societies which
operate under the rule of law.
Thanks to rules and regulations in each country, a lot of people get justice from the court. But we can never ignore thousands of cases world wide for innocents being jailed, fined and punished and the criminals being acquitted and enjoying free life. Does any day pass with out the reports of such cases in different corners of the world?
Let me put one simple question as I see it relevant for this context.
A) A person who killed another one person.
What should a court which operates under the rule of law decide in this case?
What is the maximum punishment the court can give the murderer other than killing him in return?
B) Another person who killed 10 persons.
What should a court which operates under the rule of law decide in this case?
What is the maximum punishment the court can give this murderer other than killing him in return?
Will this punishment be equal for killing 10 persons and will it be real justice?
Are both these cases equal and not different?
Does not such incidents happen every where in the modern world?
For Killing one person the punishment can be equally executed.
But for killing 10, can we kill a person 10 times?
Dear friends. This is not for an argument. We should apply our reason in such cases and compare things with past, present and we should find time to read the pages of history .There are a lot of things for us to learn.
Then think what the real justice in such cases is and where the victims will get it. Does not such a person deserve equal punishment for his crime ?
Science says that humans evolved from earlier life forms over billions
of years, and that all species have common ancestors. Religion says
that God magically and instantaneously popped people into existence,
and that the first human male gave birth to the first human female,
who was a fully formed adult female at that, by the magic extraction
of one of his ribs. Science opposes religion on all these counts.
At least, May I suggest to completely understand what science has to say .
And Is there any contradiction between what science told centuries back?
And Is the case same in the views of different scientists? What Darwin opined? and how often his theories are opposed due to scientific inventions of human genes, DNA and chromosomes? Were not there long and heated debates in USA and other countries on this issue between the scientists? And are all scientists having the same opinion? This discussion demands from us long pages.
I never have felt contempt for animals
You expressed contempt for animals when you said "...if he fails to
live as he is asked to do, he
is not better than animals and other senseless species on earth." You
called the other animals "senseless" when in fact most of them share
the same five senses we do (the mammals), some have senses that we
don't (like a bat's radar), and some have the same senses but they are
better developed (a dog's sense of smell).
> or species but the distinct qualities
> and abilities by which we human beings are blessed with have definitely
> given men a unique place in the order of living organisms on earth.
Right, just as the distinct qualities and abilities by which pigs
possess (I won't say "blessed," because that implies that someone gave
them their qualitites and abilities, when in fact they evolved) give
pigs a unique place in the order of living organisms on earth.
Besides it being hilarious that you say we should respect animals just
after calling them "senseless," you first have to prove that living
things *HAVE* souls before I'll respect it. Until then I'll just
continue to respect life for what it is, but thanks for the spiritual
advice.
> there should never be difference
> between that of man or animal
Man *is* a type of animal, and there will always be differences
between the different types of animals. That's how biologists
distinguish the different species.
I want to ask here kindly is there such a thing which is called ‘common sense’ which distinguishes man from other animals?
If agree, let me say that this is the sense which, I told, animals do not have. That means animals do not have the common sense which can only come with the thinking ability(hence the term ‘senseless’) .The sense organs which men possess are the same in case of other animals as well .Biologists are right here.
Even science has the opinion that man is a unique creation.
> but this is never contradictory to what I
> stated .
You've stated a lot of things, all of which demonstrate a fundamental
lack of scientific understanding.
defeat him ..but have we ever been able to prevent death or can we if
it
comes in any shape ? how weak a creature man is ! let us always hope
for the
best and work for that."
Muhammed, you want to prevent death? The problem is also of "over
population" !
If you prevent death, then what are you going to do to feed/shelter/
cloth all those who are here, and
the new comers? What are its effects on the eco system ?
Simon Ewins
<sjewins@gmail.com>> Let�s see, Time will definitely prove who were correct, my friend, Time
> is moving forward not backward and never will go back. What ever lingers
> will definitely one day be proved. We need not have an argument on these
> issues but before things happen, it is reasonable to take precautionary
> steps for everything, and that is what rational people do who ever they
> may be.
It would be rational to hide from goblins and to avoid going under
bridges for fear of trolls and ogres?
How much time do you spend each day in avoiding trolls, ogres and goblins?
How much time do you spend each day worrying about and hiding from
asteroids? And those are real.
It is a waste of time to hide from or worry about things and dangers
that do not exist. Doing so is not rational, it is irrational.
Got it?
--
"Only that in you which is me can hear what I'm saying." [Baba Ram Dass]
"Almost every wise saying has an opposite one, no less wise, to balance it."
[Santayana, Essays]
TLC
<tlc.terence@gmail.com>No, I don't count you as an atheist End Of The Worlder. Although, I
some times wonder if quite a few atheists have not rid themselves of
all the religious indoctrination, given to them as children, and are
just as willing to accept a world ending if given a coat of maybe
science.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>On Jun 24, 8:23 am, muhammed Nk <muhammedarim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> They were common in the past and they haven't mulitplied in recent
>
> years. We have devices that record them now even when they're in
>
> uninhabited areas, we can communicate globally now so people in
>
> England know when there's an earthquake in China or a volcano in
>
> Washington State. We're not superstitious (some of us, anyway), so we
>
> don't misinterpret the earth shaking as being God's wrath anymore. In
>
> short, since we can accurately identify earthquakes and volcanoes the
>
> UN Responds to Tsunami Disaster “What happened
>
> It requires unprecedented, global response.”
dramatically over the years. Tsunamis of that magnitude have occurred
throughout the geological history of the earth, it's just that humans
weren't around to record most of them, and when there was, there were
fewer humans available to become victims.
> Secretary-General Kofi Annan Statement in Jakarta,
>
> Indonesia, 6 January 2005
>
> methodology, but science can tell us how the phenomenon happens but is
> unable to predict its timing,
> nor can it predict who would survive or who
> would not.
likely die. If science learns to predict these geological events it
can warn people to get out of the way. I know that science is able to
predict when volcanoes will erupt with some degree of accuracy - when
Mount Saint Helens blew up most of the local had left.
In other words, you're wrong.
> We can use the power of the mind, or psychic powers, again this
> will fall short, and may only succeed in allow its practitioners "flights of
> fantasy".
volcanoes, and tsunamis are caused by God/Allah punishing humans for
being evil sinners. In other words, you are using your mental powers
to project intelligent motives onto natural events, which is a flight
of fantasy.
> You can also try to use the power of reason
> and philosophize
Philosophy is what you are doing. You are applying religious
philosophy ("God/Allah cause all things to happen") and applying it to
volcanoes, earthquakes, and tsunamis. The problem here is that your
philosophy is not reasonable.
> but the accuracy of any prediction and the ability to predetermine survival will
> be flawed.
been absolutely ineffectual.
> Or per chance we can use revelation from the Holy Scriptures,
> again all we will be able to learn is that the phenomenon of earthquake and
That is the flight of fantasy approach, which is irrelevant and
ineffectual to predicting when natural disasters will strike and for
helping people survive them.
> > > As you saw so you reap…
>
> > Dire warnings based on irrational, superstitious religious belief
> > don't have much impact on rational people.
>
Time has already proved that you have no valid evidence that God/Allah
exists, and that there is no significant difference between the life
of a believer and the life of an atheist.
> Time is
> moving forward not backward and never will go back. What ever lingers will
> definitely one day be proved. We need not have an argument on these issues
> but before things happen, it is reasonable to take precautionary steps for
> everything, and that is what rational people do who ever they may be.
never happen, and there is no evidence that God/Allah will punish
humans for being evil sinners, so rational people don't waste their
time on senseless activities like appeasing gods.
> > You weren't using this expression in a poetic context. You were
> > arguing that tsunamis are caused by God/Allah, so I pointed out that
> > inanimate objects don't have emotions, which is a metaphorical way of
> > saying that inanimate objects don't channel the emotions of deities.
> > > Were all poets also theists and believers?
>
> > No.
>
> These kinds of expressions were in the reports of Newspapers.
don't know what you're referring to. It would work much better if you
stopped editing things out.
> I don’t think
> any Newspaper giving reports in poems or there could be such context.
> Prejudices
> will only provoke people to think and express opinions based on such
> perspectives only, irrespective of what is true and applicable to the mind
> and who is the addressee.
conversation out of context.
> > > This response makes me think so.
>
> > You've already demonstrated how irrational you are, so I'm not
> > surprised.
>
> No comments. ’ Men may construe things after their fashion’ (shakespeare)
> > I can. The place was "in the path of a naturally caused gigantic
> > tsunami." The time was "when the naturally caused gigantic tsunami
> > occurred."
>
> It does not express how those happened to be at the wrong place and the
> wrong time and why nobody could warn them of things like tsunami may happen
> at that time.
Like "they were born there and lived there during the time frame of
the tsunami," or "they were visisting there and happened to be there
when the tsunami hit." Nobody could warn them because they didn't have
proper warning systems (we already discussed this), which they have
installed since that disaster. Even then it may not be enough to save
everybody if another tsunami hit the Indian Ocean basin, but it's much
more effective than praying to God/Allah.
> Why no any calendar in the world marked it as a red letter
> day?
> Let me express my condolescence for those unlucky victims.
they deserved it. That's because you said that earthquakes/volcanoes/
tsunamis are caused by God/Allah punishing evil sinners. So your
condolences are pretty empty.
> > Sorry, you've already demonstrated your lack of scientific
> > comprehension, I'm not about to believe your ability to predict
> > scientific achievments. You probably would have been one of those guys
> who said that humans would never fly.
>
> Sorry, I am not among them. I am one of the persons who have strong desire
>
> in mind to see that the men who, thanks to scientific achievements,
>
> can fly in the sky like birds and swim in the water like fish,
>
> how great it would have been if he could walk on earth like a real man!
> > > This is why this scientist predicted the
> > > extinction of mankind. Believe the scientist at least.
>
> > I do, but don't get excited. Scientists aren't saying that we're going
> > to eventually become extinct because God/Allah is mad at us. There is
> > no scientific (valid) evidence for that.
>
> No religion says that men are going to eventually become extinct because
> god is mad at us.
> But only that all human beings are subject to death, as
> everybody agrees with (some of us, any way) .But for everything there shall
> be any reason and that could be different in case of the deaths of all.
> > has happened the countries around the Indian Ocean basin have improved/
> > installed a tsunami warning system. This would never have happened if
> > people had simply "forgot" about it. And I'm sure funding for
> > geologists to research ways to better predict these seismic events has
> > increased as a result. You're wrong.
>
> All governments and scientists are trying their best to save the life of
> maximum people before another disaster happens, by installing warning
> systems and taking such precautionary steps, I don’t disagree. They are
> really praiseworthy and the benefit of our scientific progress. But let me
> ask how successful we have been?
longer we live (on average).
> (scientific laboratories are still active
> and their experiments are going on, let us hope for good and useful results)
> and what are the general human expression that comes out when we hear such
> news or when a lot of people are reported dead ,other than helplessness ,
> sympathy , voices of cry and mourning.
happening again. And we also hear the voices of people like you who
think that these people deserved what happened to them, which I think
is just awful.
> > > It's mentally wrong to think earthquakes and tsunamis are caused by
> > > Human behaviour. It's mentally wrong to think that the victims might
> > > have deserved it because we were behaving badly.
> > > Who can say we or they were wrong doers or behaving badly?
>
> > You, for one. Remember? You were going on about how we're sinful and
> > evil so God/Allah is sending us earthquakes and tsunamis. That is the
> > crux of your argument, in fact. How can you possibly forget this?
>
> To explain what I told (Who can say we or they were wrong doers or behaving
> badly?)
>
> , we can not decide who were behaving badly, them or us? It does not mean
> nobody is …
being punishment for the bad behaviour of humans. I think you're
wrong, and you certainly have no evidence to support your claims.
> > > The real justice is not possible in this mortal world...
>
> > Real justice occurs thousands of times a day in societies which
> > operate under the rule of law.
>
> Thanks to rules and regulations in each country, a lot of people get justice
> from the court.
> But we can never ignore thousands of cases world wide for
> innocents being jailed, fined and punished and the criminals being acquitted
> and enjoying free life.
ensuring that all people get justice.
> Does any day pass with out the reports of such cases
> in different corners of the world?
justice?
> Let me put one simple question as I see it relevant for this context.
>
> A) A person who killed another one person.
>
> What should a court which operates under the rule of law decide in this
> case?
> What is the maximum punishment the court can give the murderer other than
> killing him in return?
> B) Another person who killed 10 persons.
>
> What should a court which operates under the rule of law decide in this
> case?
> What is the maximum punishment the court can give this murderer other than
> killing him in return?
> Will this punishment be equal for killing 10 persons and will it be real
> justice?
it will be equal for killing one or ten people. And it will be real
justice - the murderer will never be free again.
> Are both these cases equal and not different?
> Does not such incidents happen every where in the modern world?
> For Killing one person the punishment can be equally executed.
>
> But for killing 10, can we kill a person 10 times?
> Dear friends. This is not for an argument.
> We should apply our reason in
> such cases and compare things with past, present and we should find time to
> read the pages of history .
and punishment that humanity has invented.
> There are a lot of things for us to learn.
> Then think what the real justice in such cases is and where the victims will
> get it.
victims get justice when the murderer loses all freedom.
> Does not such a person deserve equal punishment for his crime ?
death, if making the murderer suffer is what you're seeking, because
he has to sit in prison wishing he were free. If you simply execute
him his suffering will be over. Personally, just removing him from the
streets is all I require, and I think we can learn a lot about these
people by having psychologists study them, and help identify these
kinds of people before the murder in the future.
> > Science says that humans evolved from earlier life forms over billions
> > of years, and that all species have common ancestors. Religion says
> > that God magically and instantaneously popped people into existence,
> > and that the first human male gave birth to the first human female,
> > who was a fully formed adult female at that, by the magic extraction
> of one of his ribs. Science opposes religion on all these counts.
>
> At least, May I suggest to completely understand what science has to say .
>
> And Is there any contradiction between what science told centuries back?
> And Is the case same in the views of different scientists? What Darwin
> opined? and how often his theories are opposed due to scientific inventions
> of human genes, DNA and chromosomes?
Darwin's theory of evolution, they don't oppose it.
> Were not there long and heated debates
> in USA and other countries on this issue between the scientists?
there are a few religious quacks who argue for Creationism, which has
been debunked.
> And are all
> scientists having the same opinion?
debate within the scientific community about whether or not evolution
is fact.
> This discussion demands from us long
> pages.
> > > I never have felt contempt for animals
>
> > You expressed contempt for animals when you said "...if he fails to
> > live as he is asked to do, he
> > is not better than animals and other senseless species on earth." You
> > called the other animals "senseless" when in fact most of them share
> > the same five senses we do (the mammals), some have senses that we
> > don't (like a bat's radar), and some have the same senses but they are
> > better developed (a dog's sense of smell).
> > > or species but the distinct qualities
> > > and abilities by which we human beings are blessed with have definitely
> > > given men a unique place in the order of living organisms on earth.
>
> > Right, just as the distinct qualities and abilities by which pigs
> > possess (I won't say "blessed," because that implies that someone gave
> > them their qualitites and abilities, when in fact they evolved) give
> > pigs a unique place in the order of living organisms on earth.
>
> > >We should respect the soul of each life ,
> > Besides it being hilarious that you say we should respect animals just
> > after calling them "senseless," you first have to prove that living
> > things *HAVE* souls before I'll respect it. Until then I'll just
> > continue to respect life for what it is, but thanks for the spiritual
> > advice.
>
> > there should never be difference
> > between that of man or animal
between the human animal and all the other animals, but your statement
doesn't make sense.
> > Man *is* a type of animal, and there will always be differences
> > between the different types of animals. That's how biologists
> > distinguish the different species.
>
> I want to ask here kindly is there such a thing which is called ‘common
> sense’ which distinguishes man from other animals?
antelope runs away from a lion instead of trying to reason with it, a
bear doesn't suddenly decide to become a vegan for ethical reasons.
> If agree, let me say that this is the sense which, I told, animals do not
> have. That means animals do not have the common sense which can only come
> with the thinking ability(hence the term ‘senseless’) .
more common sense per square inch than humans, because they don't
waste their time on senseless activities like religion (but even that
is debatable, since it's been shown that other animals can engage in
behaviour that shows a kind of belief).
> The sense organs
> which men possess are the same in case of other animals as well .Biologists
> are right here.
>
> Even science has the opinion that man is a unique creation.
Creator. Science is of the opinion that we evolved naturally.
> > > but this is never contradictory to what I
> > > stated .
>
> > You've stated a lot of things, all of which demonstrate a fundamental
> > lack of scientific understanding.
>
> No comments
>
> Muhammed NK: "feeling inside himself that he is the mightiest in the
> world and nothing can
> defeat him ..but have we ever been able to prevent death or can we if
> it
> comes in any shape ?
not. Science has helped us prolong life via medical advances, religion
has done nothing in this area.
> how weak a creature man is !
resilient.
> let us always hope
> for the
> best and work for that."
> > Muhammed, you want to prevent death? The problem is also of "over
> > population" !
> > If you prevent death, then what are you going to do to feed/shelter/
> > cloth all those who are here, and
> > the new comers? What are its effects on the eco system ?
>
> dear friend ,
> please don't misinterpret what i say and kindly ask for explanation if u
> fails to understand me
> i never told that we want to prevent death but what i meant throuh the
> questiion (have we ever been able to prevent death or can we ?)was that the
> anwer is' no' and we can not prevent it even if what ever progress science
> may make.
> Also i agree with your opinion about the creativity of men and the wonders
> he was able to achieve
> but the weaker side of ourselves can not be neglected .
> That is how we approach each thing . we should see the positives and
> negatives .
> Regards,
volcanoes, and tsunamis are punishment from God/Allah.
Jelrak TB
<jelrak@gmail.com>destroying all of humanity could be...?
1) Greater amount of arable land for northern countries
2) Less energy required for heating
3) Greater efficiency and operable range of desalinization plants
4) Increased wind speed = improved performance of wind turbines
5) Greater precipitation = more cloud cover = more solar energy
reflected back into space = lower incidence of skin cancers
6) More evaporation = greater humidity = faster plant growth
7) Potentially increased desire for people to build and live [deeper]
underground, which could free up even more arable land
8) etc...
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>On Jun 24, 8:35 am, TLC <tlc.tere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Neil,
>
> No, I don't count you as an atheist End Of The Worlder.
> Although, I
> some times wonder if quite a few atheists have not rid themselves of
> all the religious indoctrination, given to them as children, and are
> just as willing to accept a world ending if given a coat of maybe
> science.
time. While I'd like to see us clean up our mess as much as the next
guy (and possibly because I live in a still fairly pristine part of
the world), I notice a certain apocalyptic hysteria that sometimes
accompanies environmental issues. Religious upbringing, or at least a
hangover from being a religious culture for so long, might be at the
root of this mentality. Like you said, I think we can, and will, solve
the problems that are at least human in origin before we make
ourselves to go extinct.
> On 24 June, 16:22, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 24, 8:02 am, TLC <tlc.tere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I don't know who are the most pessimistically boring and dismal, the
> > > religious End Of The Worlders or the atheist End Of The Worlders?
>
> > I hope you're not referring to me as an atheist "End of the Worlder."
> > I agree with what you say in the next paragraph, and I think we've got
> > a long ways to go. But somewhere in the future we will become extinct.
> > I think it will be the distant future.
>
> > > Mankind has managed to evolve, adapt life styles and develop in much
> > > worse conditions than can be expected and if this means having to
> > > adapt to worse conditions and a smaller population then we will do it.
>
> > > End Of The Worlders should read about human history.- Hide quoted text -
>
Muslim By Nature
<shakshak-87@hotmail.com>in quran GOD says:: [22:1] O people, you shall reverence your Lord,
for the quaking of the Hour is something horrendous.
[22:2] The day you witness it, even a nursing mother will discard her
infant, and a pregnant woman will abort her fetus. You will see the
people staggering, as if they are intoxicated, even though they are
not intoxicated. This is because GOD's retribution is so awesome.
so there will be in the day of judgment a pregnant women,,so tell me
what on earth that this doc says that we'll extinct.
this is a prove and I blieve in it.
and for the fighting.. there is NO PEACE in earth becuase god made it
like this so people will be longing to be in paradise which there will
be the real peace.
Max
<assent@pcfin.net>And the smarter we reckon we become, the more deadly the weaponry
becomes and the more effective we become at killing others. So really,
our evolutionary journey simply highlights the fact that humans can
kill each other in more clever ways than we did 100 years ago.
Such a contradiction is that the smarter we become, the better we are
at killing each other! Ipso facto, the dumber you are, the less able
you are to kill effectively
Not to kill too many where there is no more left to kill mind you, but
just enough to keep your own bit of dirt or retaining access to
resources that you've put a fence around.
Have we not evolved as an animal that has to kill one another for
reasons of self preservation and the continuity of one's own genes?
Survival of the fittest perhaps!
muhammed Nk
<muhammedarimbra@gmail.com> Since the person (assuming he's guilty) never gets out of prison, yes,
it will be equal for killing one or ten people. And it will be real
justice - the murderer will never be free again.
Let me express my disagreement to: life of 10 people can be equal to the life of one person if he is given continuous life imprisonment with out parole.
I have another question here. if he dies after one year,(for example), after being given lifelong imprisonment with out parole ,as told, can any body prevent him and say ‘no’ it is not time for you to die , you have to be alive for another 30 or 40 years to be equally punished for your crimes?. Can our courts and Judges do this?
Then let me ask if a suicide bomber kills 100 of people and he is died on the spot .How the real justice could be done in this case? The person is not alive here to accept punishment; after all he is the murderer of 100 people. Do not our laws and reason want this murderer be punished?.
Don’t we hear and see the wet eyes of disappointed mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, sons ….. who lost their beloved ones (because some body killed them)and are compelled to suffer lifelong pain until death? Do n’t they have right for real justice and to have a peaceful life?
These examples provide a reasonable way to thinking people to believe that there should be another life where all people shall be assembled and judged based on their actions and shall be given real justice.
That is what Quran says ‘‘All of you shall die and shall be given rewards or punishments on the Day of Judgment (based on his life and activities on earth),If any body was lucky to be away from Hell and was sent to Paradise he is the winner . The worldly life is nothing other than goods of cheating,…..’’
"What is the life of this world but amusement and play? But verily the Home in the Hereafter, that is life indeed, it they but knew." (Surah Al-Ankabut)
There are debates about the details of evolution, but there is no
debate within the scientific community about whether or not evolution
is fact.
> This discussion demands from us long
> pages.
You're not a scientist.
Definitely I am not. You are right. But don’t we have what scientists told us and informed us regarding it? Can’t we have a discussion up on that? Discussions of these kinds are happening everywhere, and all participants are not scientists, definitely.
Man *IS* an animal. Do you not understand this? There is a difference
between the human animal and all the other animals, but your statement
doesn't make sense.
(The sense organs which men possess are the same in case of other animals as well)
it is part of which i wrote before.The use of term ‘other ‘means that man is also an animal. If I don’t mean that I would have told ‘’in case of animals as well’’.’ Other’ gives the meaning ‘’ Animals excluding man’’. OK...
I was only giving explanation on that power by which human beings were able to make wonders in the current of history; they managed to climb the ladders of progress. The men whose ancestors once were living in forest and hunting the animals for existence ,later stages of his life saw major changes .He began to wear clothes .we know what our nomad forefathers used as cloths and what changes it underwent in later times . All these extraordinary achievements we managed to do while those animals like lion, dog, tiger etc. still continue to live in the same way as they lived centuries back. What distinct quality helped man to do all these? Agree or disagree, there is definitely difference between Man and other animals in this sense. People having common sense will definitely agree.
I think other animals show what we would call "common sense." An
antelope runs away from a lion instead of trying to reason with it, a
bear doesn't suddenly decide to become a vegan for ethical reasons
no ,this is not the common sense.
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>> Since the person (assuming he's guilty) never gets out of prison, yes,
> it will be equal for killing one or ten people. And it will be real
> justice - the murderer will never be free again.
>
> Let me express my disagreement to: life of 10 people can be equal to the
> life of one person if he is given continuous life imprisonment with out
> parole.
crime again, commensurate with the severity of their crime. A society
that seeks revenge is just as barbaric as the criminal. A society that
seeks punishment and attenmpts rehabilitation is civilized. I prefer a
civilizeds society to a barbaric one. You can disagree all you like,
but the trend over time is to become more civilized. Fanatsizing that
God/Allah punishes someone 10 times for murder is simply bloodthirsty.
In the real world, one life sentence = 10 life sentences.
> I have another question here. if he dies after one year,(for example),
> after being given lifelong imprisonment with out parole ,as told, can any
> body prevent him and say ‘no’ it is not time for you to die , you have to be
> alive for another 30 or 40 years to be equally punished for your crimes?.
> Can our courts and Judges do this?
can be barbarians, is the society that imprisons them any better than
the prisoners if they act like barbarians too?
> Then let me ask if a suicide bomber kills 100 of people and he is died on
> the spot .How the real justice could be done in this case?
> The person is not
> alive here to accept punishment; after all he is the murderer of 100 people.
> Do not our laws and reason want this murderer be punished?.
fantasizing about a magic being (like Allah/God) who would carry out
their *emotional* desires for revenge. I fully understand the emotions
involved, but it is not reasonable to seek to punish a guy who is
already dead.
> Don’t we hear and see the wet eyes of disappointed mothers, fathers, wives,
> husbands, sons ….. who lost their beloved ones (because some body killed
Of course. That's why we make laws to protect them, and work towards
establishing a civilized society.
> Don’t they
And a big step towards a peaceful life comes with the separation of
church and state, which is something the theocracies of the Middle
East haven't figured out yet, by and large.
> These examples provide a reasonable way to thinking people to believe that
> there should be another life where all people shall be assembled and judged
> based on their actions and shall be given real justice.
seek revenge on your behalf in the afterlife. It is simply delusions
brought about by strong emotions. You don't know that the magic being
exists, and you don't know that there is an afterlife.
> That is what Quran says ‘‘All of you shall die and shall be given rewards or
> punishments on the Day of Judgment (based on his life and activities on
> earth),If any body was lucky to be away from Hell and was sent to Paradise
> he is the winner . The worldly life is nothing other than goods of
> cheating,…..’’
reason, as I just described. Religions take advantage of emotional
people to control them and to take their wealth. You are just being
gullible if you believe that magic beings exist.
> "What is the life of this world but amusement and play? But verily the Home
> in the Hereafter, that is life indeed, it they but knew." (Surah Al-Ankabut)
talking about murder and car bombings, for fuck's sake. And you have
no valid evidence that there *is* a "hereafter." So your quote is
meaningless.
> > There are debates about the details of evolution, but there is no
> > debate within the scientific community about whether or not evolution
> > is fact.
>
> This discussion demands from us long
> pages.
> > You're not a scientist.
>
> Definitely I am not. You are right. But don’t we have what scientists told
> us and informed us regarding it?
scientists (evolutionists, in this case) say.
> Can’t we have a discussion up on
> that?
school, because you don't know the first thing about science (subset
evolution).
> Discussions
> of these kinds are happening everywhere, and all participants are not
> scientists, definitely.
are when one of the participants in the discussion is willfully
ignorant. So the discussion should really be, why is that person
willfully ignorant? And the answer almost always is because they are
religious.
> > Man *IS* an animal. Do you not understand this? There is a difference
>> between the human animal and all the other animals, but your statement
> > doesn't make sense.
>
> animals*as well)
No they aren't. Other animals have different senses than humans.
Humans have different senses than other animals. There is great
variation among species. Some animals are blind, humans have sight.
Some animals have radar, humans don't. The list is endless. This is an
example of what I was just talking about - you don't have enough
scientific knowledge to argue science, talking to you is like teaching
a 7 year old in a school.
> it is part of which i wrote before.The use of term ‘other ‘means that man is
> also an animal. If I don’t mean that I would have told ‘’in case of animals
> as well’’.’ Other’ gives the meaning ‘’ Animals excluding man’’. OK...
> I was only giving explanation on that power by which human beings were able
> to make wonders in the current of history; they managed to climb the ladders
> of progress.
to make them possible. I'm simplifying the evolutionary process (we
also evolved vocal cords for speech, opposable thumbs, bipedalism,
etc), but the point is that evolution is a natural process (no God/
Allah required) and that we aren't superior to other animals, just
different. The other animals that have survived are just as successful
as us, and guaranteed there are other animals (organisms, at least)
that will outlast us. Isn't survivability the greatest measure of
success?
> The men whose ancestors once were living in forest and hunting
> what changes it underwent in later times . All these extraordinary
> achievements we managed to do while those animals like lion, dog, tiger etc.
> still continue to live in the same way as they lived centuries back. What
> distinct quality helped man to do all these?
> Agree or disagree, there is
> definitely difference between Man and other animals in this sense. People
> having common sense will definitely agree.
are one species of animal, we have definite differences, but we are
still a type of animal.
> > I think other animals show what we would call "common sense." An
> > antelope runs away from a lion instead of trying to reason with it, a
> > bear doesn't suddenly decide to become a vegan for ethical reasons
>
> no ,this is not the common sense.
makes sense for them to run away from lions if they don't want to be
eaten (and they don't). Hence it is common sense.
xeno
<69blacklab@gmail.com>On Jun 20, 7:01 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Overpopulation is a huge problem
Wait a minute. Is that a foregone conclusion or what? Is it
overpopulation or is it economic mismanagement?
xeno
<69blacklab@gmail.com>On Jun 22, 12:19 am, student13 <pairam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But, then, are we trying to do our bit?
What? Play three card molly with the garbage? OK, recycling is a good
thing.
But isn't our economic machine the problem?
xeno
<69blacklab@gmail.com>On Jun 22, 4:26 am, muhammed Nk <muhammedarim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> what i feel and which seems to be fit and correct is that human beings are
> going to suffer from what they had done ,have been/are doing ...
That's fatalistic, isn't it? What's the point of that? It's counter-
productive. Find a problem, find a solution.
> mankind will never be successful to prevent the inevitable end
> of the world ..
Yeah, but it isn't inevitable that the end of the world will mean the
end of human beings, ( or what human beings may become in a distant
future.)
> we can never neglect the negative sides of all
> these achievements
The negative side of things is the impetus to finding positive
solutions for things. That's inescapable.
xeno
<69blacklab@gmail.com>On Jun 22, 10:12 am, muhammed Nk <muhammedarim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bible , Quran and many holy religious books have given exact warning against
> the bad consequences which would definitely follow our bad actions.
> Then how foolish it is to belive that this vast and entire universe was
> created with out a creator !!!
irrelvant, isn't it? You got to put out the fire or you'll end up
losing all your shit.
xeno
<69blacklab@gmail.com>On Jun 22, 11:27 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> They were all written by schizophrenics.
Not necessarily. Was P.T. Barnum, a schizophrenic?
xeno
<69blacklab@gmail.com>On Jun 22, 11:53 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > IF reason works i think the answer must be 'NO'
> If reason exists then the answer must be "you're speaking gibberish."
That's the solution here. Someone can reason that the world has a
creator. Another person can reason otherwise.
xeno
<69blacklab@gmail.com>On Jun 22, 4:03 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> They're natural tragedies, and not caused by "evil and sin."
"Sin" & "evil" are just fancy buzz words for mistakes casted in a
mystical, mythical haze. Just like there are no real acts of god,
there are no transgressions against gods, just transgressions between
people.
Timothy 1:4a
<canfanorama@gmail.com>On Jun 23, 6:11 am, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:
> This is another reason why we have this thing called war!
>
> There's only so many resources that can go around and if these
> resources are held by too few, then war it is.
>
Let's start with the laws and cultural taboos against birth control.
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>instance, having sex out of wedlock. I don't see how it's a sin
because no one has valid evidence that God exists, and I don't see
how it's a mistake even if God doesn't exist.
Timothy 1:4a
<canfanorama@gmail.com>are using far more resources than are sustainable.
Things could improve a lot with better use of existing technology and
with improved technology that's in our grasp, but unrestricted
population growth always ends badly.
Why do any of us need 7 billion other people, to the detriment of the
natural world?
muhammed Nk
<muhammedarimbra@gmail.com>The main blunder that a person can do to himself is to think that he is all about every thing and reason and rational power is his own personal property. Such people even do not have thought of having the same for other people as well, thus he is living in fool’s paradise.
To find reason in everything and decide for one’s own cause has yielded only negative effects, though these people fail to understand it and while they come to recognize this reality it will be too late and irrecoverable.
Let me repeat what I told before. Before things happen, it is reasonable to take precautionary steps for everything, and that is what rational people do who ever they may be.
> You weren't using this expression in a poetic context. You were
> > arguing that tsunamis are caused by God/Allah, so I pointed out that
> > inanimate objects don't have emotions, which is a metaphorical way of
> > saying that inanimate objects don't channel the emotions of deities.
> > > Were all poets also theists and believers?
>
> > No.
>
> These kinds of expressions were in the reports of Newspapers.
What kinds of expressions? You keep editing the conversation, and I
don't know what you're referring to. It would work much better if you
stopped editing things out.
> I don’t think
> any Newspaper giving reports in poems or there could be such context.
> Prejudices
> will only provoke people to think and express opinions based on such
> perspectives only, irrespective of what is true and applicable to the mind
> and who is the addressee.
I don't know what you're talking about because you edited the
conversation out of context.
It is not editing .what ever term we make use of we should be careful about it. When I wrote ‘wrath of ocean’ you told ocean is an inanimate and cannot have emotions .true, but I told it can be seen as part of poetic imagination. Your response: it was not used in a poetic context. Then I replied: this kind of expressions and use of emotions were there in Newspaper reports about these tsunamis and earthquakes and nobody thinks there is a poetic context. You had no answer there .This is where you told I am editing and it should be stopped. What kind of response it is. it is what irrational and cowards do to take what one told out of context and interpret it as he thinks . I was just following the lines of this conversation, not editing, but when you had nothing to answer you told I should stop this, it is not reasonable and it is not an evidence for the existence of God.
What those who boast themselves being people of reason supposed to do is to answer based on reason and give straight forward replies and not to take sentences out of context and misinterpret it and create confusions.
They were in the wrong place at the wrong time for various reasons.
Like "they were born there and lived there during the time frame of
the tsunami," or "they were visisting there and happened to be there
when the tsunami hit." Nobody could warn them because they didn't have
proper warning systems (we already discussed this), which they have
installed since that disaster. Even then it may not be enough to save
everybody if another tsunami hit the Indian Ocean basin, but it's much
more effective than praying to God/Allah.
How a man of reason (who thinks himself to be, while not...) can become so irrational to express these kinds of contradictory blunders.. …
Your own words (You've stated a lot of things, all of which demonstrate a fundamental lack of scientific understanding) are staring at you. So make sure that nothing acts as a boomerang, before you use it.
You've already demonstrated how irrational you are, so I'm not
> > surprised.
>
> No comments. ’ Men may construe things after their fashion’ (shakespeare)
That's a comment.
No religion says that men are going to eventually become extinct because
> god is mad at us.
Yes they do. What do you think the Rapture is all about?
No. What I have written is what religions say. God is never mad at all people but at the wrong doers only. It means he may punish them but not that we all become instinct because god is mad at us.
You are wrong
It is must to underline ‘May’ (he may punish) in my words. It is right because God may forgive the criminals by his mercy and if he punishes it is his justice.
You mean we're all supposed to agree with you without thinking?
If every object he uses and sees has any purpose like there is a reason for why we use Mobile phones, cars ,Aircondition, USB , Computers ,Internet and ……
his life should have a purpose and target .. Man should find out it. Scientific achievements should not make him blind. If it happens , it is where his failure begins.
regards,,
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>On Jun 28, 3:06 am, muhammed Nk <muhammedarim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The main blunder that a person can do to himself is to think that he is all
> about every thing and reason and rational power is his own personal
> property. Such people even do not have thought of having the same for other
> people as well, thus he is living in fool’s paradise.
science, specifically) does not mean that they think other people are
irrational and ignorant.
> To find reason in everything and decide for one’s own cause has yielded only
> negative effects, though these people fail to understand it and while they
> come to recognize this reality it will be too late and irrecoverable.
> Let me repeat what I told before. Before things happen, it is reasonable to
> take precautionary steps for everything, and that is what rational people do
> who ever they may be.
you?
> > You weren't using this expression in a poetic context. You were
>
> > > > > > arguing that tsunamis are caused by God/Allah, so I pointed out that
> > > > > > inanimate objects don't have emotions, which is a metaphorical way of
> > > > > > saying that inanimate objects don't channel the emotions of deities.
> > > > > Were all poets also theists and believers?
>
> > > > No.
>
> > > These kinds of expressions were in the reports of Newspapers.
>
> > What kinds of expressions? You keep editing the conversation, and I
> > don't know what you're referring to. It would work much better if you
> > stopped editing things out.
>
> > I don’t think
> > any Newspaper giving reports in poems or there could be such context.
> > > Prejudices
> > > will only provoke people to think and express opinions based on such
> > > perspectives only, irrespective of what is true and applicable to the mind
> > > and who is the addressee.
>
> > I don't know what you're talking about because you edited the
> > conversation out of context.
>
> It is not editing .
That's called "editing."
> what ever term we make use of we should be careful about
> it.
> When I wrote ‘wrath of ocean’ you told ocean is an inanimate and cannot
> have emotions .true, but I told it can be seen as part of poetic
> imagination. Your response: it was not used in a poetic context. Then I
> replied: this kind of expressions and use of emotions were there in
> Newspaper reports about these tsunamis and earthquakes and nobody thinks
> there is a poetic context. You had no answer there .
what you said. Now that you've explained what you meant, I'd like you
to point me to one news report that said the tsunami was caused by the
wrath of the ocean, even in a poetical way. I didn't see any reports
like that.
> This is where you told I
> am editing and it should be stopped.
> What kind of response it is. it is what
> irrational and cowards do to take what one told out of context and interpret
> it as he thinks . I was just following the lines of this conversation, not
> editing,
ed·it – verb (from dictionary.com)
1. to supervise or direct the preparation of (a newspaper, magazine,
book, etc.); serve as editor of; direct the editorial policies of.
2. to collect, prepare, and arrange (materials) for publication.
3. to revise or correct, as a manuscript.
4. to expunge; eliminate (often fol. by out ): The author has edited
out all references to his own family
Pay particular attention to entry number 4. You are editing. And no
one appointed you editor.
I also have to add in the > markers to show who is talking, because
the way you edit makes it hard to tell who is talking. I certainly
don't want anyone to think I'm responsible for what you say.
> but when you had nothing to answer you told I should stop this, it
> is not reasonable and it is not an evidence for the existence of God.
thread of conversation. If I'm in the middle of typing a reply I'll
lose what I've written if I have to go back and look for something
that you've edited out.
> What those who boast themselves being people of reason supposed to do is to
> answer based on reason and give straight forward replies and not to take
> sentences out of context and misinterpret it and create confusions.
don't take sentences out of context, or misinterpret them, or create
confusion. You are doing that when you edit the text.
> > They were in the wrong place at the wrong time for various reasons.
> > Like "they were born there and lived there during the time frame of
> > the tsunami," or "they were visisting there and happened to be there
> > when the tsunami hit." Nobody could warn them because they didn't have
> > proper warning systems (we already discussed this), which they have
> > installed since that disaster. Even then it may not be enough to save
> > everybody if another tsunami hit the Indian Ocean basin, but it's much
> > more effective than praying to God/Allah.
>
> How a man of reason (who thinks himself to be, while not...) can become so
> irrational to express these kinds of contradictory blunders.. …
> > It does not express how those happened to be at the wrong place and the
> > wrong time
the tsunami," or "they were visisting there and happened to be there
when the tsunami hit.
> at that time.
If you hadn't edited the conversation I could show where *you* laughed
at the thought of scientists being able to predict these things.
> > > Why no any calendar in the world marked it as a red letter
> > > day?
> > I didn't see any religious calendars predicting it either.
> ?
> I did not claim that religious calendars do predict it and you should not
> have asked it because the religious claims are clear that it is God’s own
> decision and if anything happens, it is He who decides. So religious
> calendar shall never predict it.
become an atheist?
> But those who decide everything by reason
> and boast of being scientific in every thing should have proper answers for
> this.
figured out how to predict exactly when earthquakes will occur - yet.
But in the meantime scientists have figured out lots of useful
information about what causes earthquakes (and it isn't God/Allah),
what areas are more likely to be hit with earthquakes, how to measure
earthquakes, etc., whereas the religious have offered absolutely
nothing helpful in this regard.
> That is why I asked.
>
> Your own words (You've stated a lot of things, all of which demonstrate a
> fundamental lack of scientific understanding) are staring at you. So make
> sure that nothing acts as a boomerang, before you use it.
> > > > You've already demonstrated how irrational you are, so I'm not
> > > > surprised.
>
> > > No comments. ’ Men may construe things after their fashion’ (shakespeare)
>
> > That's a comment.
> Comment is what one uses on his own. This is called ‘borrowing’ or
> ‘quoting’.
com·ment – noun (from dictionary.com)
1. a remark, observation, or criticism: a comment about the weather.
Nowhere does the dictionary say that a comment can't be a borrowed
quote.
> > > No religion says that men are going to eventually become extinct because
> > > god is mad at us.
>
> > Yes they do. What do you think the Rapture is all about?
>
> No. What I have written is what religions say. God is never mad at all
> people but at the wrong doers only. It means he may punish them but not that
> we all become instinct because god is mad at us.
the bad people (God is mad at them because they don't believe in him)
on earth to perish (go extinct). So humans become extinct - there are
none left on earth. That is a religious belief. So you are wrong,
there *are* religions that say man is going men are eventually going
to become extinct because god is mad at us.
> You are wrong
You are.
> It is must to underline ‘May’ (he may punish) in my words. It is right
> because God may forgive the criminals by his mercy and if he punishes it is
> his justice.
tsunami a few years ago were criminals who were being justly punished?
> > > Dear friends. This is not for an argument.
>
> > You mean we're all supposed to agree with you without thinking?
> I never meant it.
> What I thought is that the man who is having thinking
> power should think and make use of his brain power which if not used shall
> become stagnant.
power?
> That is how men with full freedom should lead his life.
> Only then he can find out the real target of life. Man has to find out
> answers for three important questions. Where from he came?
> For what purpose he came?
> And where he goes?
Eventual extinction.
> If every object he uses and sees has any purpose like there is a reason for
> why we use Mobile phones, cars ,Aircondition, USB , Computers ,Internet and
> ……
communication, for multiple uses, for multiple uses respectively.
> his life should have a purpose and target .
target should be? Why should someone have the same purpose and target
as you?
> Man should find out it.
decides that working at the 7/11 night shift makes them happy?
> Scientific achievements should not make him blind.
a metaphorical, poetical sense.
> If it happens , it is where his
> failure begins.
inspire me, particularly since you don't seem to understand science in
the first place.
xeno
<69blacklab@gmail.com>On Jun 27, 2:49 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It's debatable a lot of the time that they're even mistakes. Take, for
> instance, having sex out of wedlock. I don't see how it's a sin
> because no one has valid evidence that God exists, and I don't see
> how it's a mistake even if God doesn't exist.
contingent. If it's a mistake it doesn't necessarily signify something
terrible. If it did there's a solution somewhere for it.
xeno
<69blacklab@gmail.com>On Jun 27, 3:06 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In 2010, overpopulation is a huge problem - foregone conclusion. We
> are using far more resources than are sustainable.
usage is unsustainable. That's what makes the issue of overpopulation
questionable because it's a misapprehension of the problem.
> Why do any of us need 7 billion other people, to the detriment of the
> natural world?
many people.
xeno
<69blacklab@gmail.com>> about every thing and reason and rational power is his own personal
> property.
requirement.
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>On Jun 28, 12:34 pm, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2:49 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It's debatable a lot of the time that they're even mistakes. Take, for
> > instance, having sex out of wedlock. I don't see how it's a sin
> > because no one has valid evidence that God exists, and I don't see
> > how it's a mistake even if God doesn't exist.
>
> God, schmod. Whether sex out of wedlock is a mistake or not is
> contingent.
> If it's a mistake it doesn't necessarily signify something
> terrible.
fire for eternity.
> If it did there's a solution somewhere for it.
skeptical that God exists or that sex out of wedlock is a mistake.
xeno
<69blacklab@gmail.com>On Jun 28, 1:38 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It is contingent upon God existing.
in things are within actions.
> It might be a terrible mistake if God burns the offender in a lake of
> fire for eternity.
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>On Jun 28, 4:59 pm, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 28, 1:38 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It is contingent upon God existing.
>
> It's got nothing to do with a god in the first place. The good & bad
> in things are within actions.
thinks that the good and bad in things has *everything* to do with God/
Allah. In other words, I agree with you (more or less).
> > It might be a terrible mistake if God burns the offender in a lake of
> > fire for eternity.
>
> Well, divine justice is a fantasy. I wouldn't worry abt it.
atheist. But I am worried about those who believe in divine justice,
who can do some fairly destructive things in the name of their
fantasies.
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>> > First I appreciate the friend who corrected this law as being one of the
> > laws of motion by Newton.
>
> Any way , let me express my views.
>
> > i dont know what he understands by calamities and tragedies .
>
> has not the world witnessed a lot of very unlucky incidents and natural
> calamities which claimed the lives of millions of people in the past years
> ,?
> Did n't we see the wrath of ocean in the form of tsunami which frigtenened
> wholeworld, and left many women as widows and many children fatherless and
> motherless?
> Don't we hear the news of small and large earthquakes or the threat of it in
> every part of world?
> has not our ears been fed up hearing these kinds of news often and we simply
> ignore it .
> but really what excuse we have to do so .we think we are not victimes and
> those who suffered were unlucky and we have nothing to do with it . is this
> mentality right?
Yes, since there were earthquakes and tsunamis before there were
people, which would not be possible if earthquakes and tsunamis are
caused by people.
> > And if we go through the history of world we can see that these kinds of
> > tragedies and deaths of people have been doubled and multiplied by a large
> > scale in the last decades than what had been happening before. can we deny ?
> > But can we forsee or predict when and where we would be the victims?!
The population has doubled in the last few decades. Be that as it may,
how do you figure that these tragedies have been multiplied by a large
factor?
> > but science has rational explanations
> > for our eventual extinction and you don't.
>
> can any body give such rational and all the more correct explanation of
> science for this eventual extinction which, as he argues, can not be
> explained by me?
Only if you don't know any science.
> let me plus that most of the scientific discoveries has only given
> approximate concepts rather than truth but by it we boast of being omni
> potent , powerful, and invincible and declare infront of the world that how
> wonderful creature man is !
> Human beings are wonderful creatures but it is his thinking power and
> ability to assess things with common sense that makes him distinct from
> animals and other creatures. And if he fails to live as he is asked to do,he
other senseless species?
* Jain saints supposedly asked that we live without eating onions
Timothy 1:4a
<canfanorama@gmail.com>When I was born, the world had less than half of today's people and
was already stretching its resources. When my grandfather was born, it
was less than half of that. Go back a few more generations and the
population was under a billion, a level at which today's technology
could just about support everyone at a North American level of energy
expenditure and resource depletion.
If you have a way to SOLVE the problem without reducing the
population, by all means let's implement it. But the PROBLEM is too
many people, using too many resources per capita.
Timothy 1:4a
<canfanorama@gmail.com>On Jun 22, 5:33 pm, muhammed Nk <muhammedarim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > First I appreciate the friend who corrected this law as being one of the
> > laws of motion by Newton.
>
> Any way , let me express my views.
>
> > i dont know what he understands by calamities and tragedies .
>
> has not the world witnessed a lot of very unlucky incidents and natural
> calamities which claimed the lives of millions of people in the past years
> ,?
> Did n't we see the wrath of ocean in the form of tsunami which frigtenened
> wholeworld, and left many women as widows and many children fatherless and
> motherless?
> Don't we hear the news of small and large earthquakes or the threat of it in
> every part of world?
atomic energy.
But big tsunamis are not new. We have a tendency to see the disasters
in our own lifetimes as bigger than those of the past, but (after
allowing for the extra people living in the area) they are not.
The biggest tsunami in my lifetime happened in 1958. Luckily it
happened in a very remote place, and almost no one was hurt.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/tsunami_history.html
The biggest earthquake/volcano/tsunami we know about in the last
100,000 years was Toba, which had worldwide effects and may have
nearly wiped out the human race. Note that Toba (and Krakatoa!)
occurred in Indonesia, like the 2004 tsunami. It has been a very
active part of the world throughout human existence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory
There are plenty of other active areas, too. Yellowstone Park, in the
USA, had super-volcano explosions about 150,000 and 70,000 and 13,800
years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_Caldera
> has not our ears been fed up hearing these kinds of news often and we simply
> ignore it .
> but really what excuse we have to do so .we think we are not victimes and
> those who suffered were unlucky and we have nothing to do with it . is this
> mentality right?
>
> > tragedies and deaths of people have been doubled and multiplied by a large
> > scale in the last decades than what had been happening before. can we deny ?
> > But can we forsee or predict when and where we would be the victims?!
>
> > for our eventual extinction and you don't.
>
> can any body give such rational and all the more correct explanation of
> science for this eventual extinction which, as he argues, can not be
> explained by me?
> approximate concepts rather than truth but by it we boast of being omni
> potent , powerful, and invincible and declare infront of the world that how
> wonderful creature man is !
> Human beings are wonderful creatures but it is his thinking power and
> ability to assess things with common sense that makes him distinct from
> animals and other creatures. And if he fails to live as he is asked to do,he
> is not better than animals and other senseless species on earth.
>
>
>
>
>
> > end
> > > of world. who can deny.. or be certain will not...
>
> > Me.
>
> > this is not a reply using sense or reason but only a response for the
> > purpose of saying something which fails to hit the target . i don't want to
> > provoke any body but every body can understand the meaning of this kind of
> > tones.
>
> > > was/is it possible for a man to be born with out a father and mother?
>
> > Yes.
> > i don't want to say any more . just to ask ''were you ''?
>
> > First you have to explain what "the mobile" is.
>
> Bear with me if any body did n't understand it is Mobile phone.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > or there is no any inventor for radio, computer , TV and ......
>
> > All those technologies have inventor/inventors.
>
> > > when sun rose in a morning mankind was surprised to see all these which
> > were
> > > there with out anybody working behind them .
>
> > That never happened.
>
> > If this be your answer i want to ask my friend to go through and think
> > about it for a while if the sense and thinking way is logical ,definitely
> > wide thoughts and reasonalble links will give true answers
> > If reason exists then the answer must be "you're speaking gibberish."
>
> > The curse and failure of men in this century is nothing other than his
>
> feeling inside himself that he is the mightiest in the world and nothing can
> defeat him ..but have we ever been able to prevent death or can we if it
> comes in any shape ? how weak a creature man is ! let us always hope for the
> best and work for that.
xeno
<69blacklab@gmail.com>On Jun 28, 5:09 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I was arguing with a theist who thinks that the good and bad in things has
> *everything* to do with God/Allah.
with people as well?
Wouldn't this person agree that what's a problem with this alleged god
can also be a problem
for people in his/her own estimation? Isn't that a common ground at
least?
> But I am worried about those who believe in divine justice,
> who can do some fairly destructive things in the name of their
> fantasies.
things.
Some people on here are concerned abt overpopulation. Well, regardless
what religion one believes or not, that's a common problem. If it is
in fact a problem, that effects us all. If a big asteroid is going to
hit the planet we would have to come up with a practical solution for
that as well, right?
Also, a lot of things that are done in the name of metaphysical
entities, if you will, really have a more earthly basis. Call me a
cynic, but all societies that are at war depend upon the sacrifice of
the youths, so to speak. I dunno. Maybe you can see what I'm driving
at here.
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>On Jun 29, 12:34 pm, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 28, 5:09 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I was arguing with a theist who thinks that the good and bad in things has
> > *everything* to do with God/Allah.
>
> Is it now? Wouldn't this person agree that good & bad things has to do
> with people as well?
> Wouldn't this person agree that what's a problem with this alleged god
> can also be a problem
> for people in his/her own estimation? Isn't that a common ground at
> least?
avenging actions of inanimate objects like the ocean.
> > But I am worried about those who believe in divine justice,
> > who can do some fairly destructive things in the name of their
> > fantasies.
>
> Not unless we can develop some consensus on practical grounds abt
> things.
religious fantasies whether there is concensus about practical things
or not.
> Some people on here are concerned abt overpopulation. Well, regardless
> what religion one believes or not, that's a common problem.
name of their religious fantasies.
> If it is
> in fact a problem, that effects us all. If a big asteroid is going to
> hit the planet we would have to come up with a practical solution for
> that as well, right?
> Also, a lot of things that are done in the name of metaphysical
> entities, if you will, really have a more earthly basis.
> Call me a
> cynic, but all societies that are at war depend upon the sacrifice of
> the youths, so to speak. I dunno. Maybe you can see what I'm driving
> at here.
nothing to do with religion? That these acts are really some sort of
unconscious drive to cull the herds?
I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong about what you're getting at,
but if people become conscious that their religious beliefs are
senseless and abandon them, then they will stop sacrificing youths in
the name of their deity. We will no doubt find other reasons to go to
war, but at least one (major) motivation will have been eliminated. If
we eliminate the superficial causes one by one, eventually we will
only be left with "people go to war to cull the herd," and maybe then
we can address the real problem, if that is in fact the real problem.
In the meantime I'll work on the superficial problem of theism.
xeno
<69blacklab@gmail.com>On Jun 29, 1:43 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Ummm...that the destructive acts carried out in the name religion have
> nothing to do with religion?
means to a more earthly end.
> but if people become conscious that their religious beliefs are
> senseless and abandon them, then they will stop sacrificing youths in
> the name of their deity.
if you want to stop the sacrificing of youths.
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>like a good first step to me.
muhammed Nk
<muhammedarimbra@gmail.com>> The main blunder that a person can do to himself is to think that he is all
> about every thing and reason and rational power is his own personal
> property. Such people even do not have thought of having the same for other
> people as well, thus he is living in fool’s paradise.
Just because someone thinks that you are irrational and ignorant (of
science, specifically) does not mean that they think other people are
Irrational and ignorant.
No wonder. A person will tend to compare other people with him and think that they are like him while they are not. Thoughts decide who you are so be careful about what do you think.
> To find reason in everything and decide for one’s own cause has yielded only
> negative effects, though these people fail to understand it and while they
> come to recognize this reality it will be too late and irrecoverable.
Threatening people who disagree with you is barbaric.
Pardon, No body should think these being threatening words, just take as friendly suggestions.
> Let me repeat what I told before. Before things happen, it is reasonable to
> take precautionary steps for everything, and that is what rational people do
> who ever they may be.
Why would someone need to take precautionary steps when talking to
you?
Here everybody can understand who is making unwanted confusion? This is not what I told. Read my words above and where you get this meaning from? This is senseless indeed.
> It is not editing .
Yes, it is. You keep deleting large portions of the conversation.
That's called "editing."
If my corrections of your blunders can be called ‘editing’, No issue. Sensible people will agree with me.
> what ever term we make use of we should be careful about
> it.
I was careful to use the correct term, which is "editing."
If my corrections of your blunders can be called ‘editing’, that is it.
> This is where you told I
> am editing and it should be stopped.
Right. Stop editing the conversation. It makes it hard to follow.
> What kind of response it is. it is what
> irrational and cowards do to take what one told out of context and interpret
> it as he thinks . I was just following the lines of this conversation, not
> editing,
When you delete large chunks of text you are editing, by definition.
ed·it – verb (from dictionary.com)
1. to supervise or direct the preparation of (a newspaper, magazine,
book, etc.); serve as editor of; direct the editorial policies of.
2. to collect, prepare, and arrange (materials) for publication.
3. to revise or correct, as a manuscript.
4. to expunge; eliminate (often fol. by out ): The author has edited
out all references to his own family
Pay particular attention to entry number 4. You are editing. And no
one appointed you editor.
it is not ‘editing’ but’ editing -out’. Can’t you understand? There is difference between ‘give’ and ‘give up’. You lie but Dictionary does not.
I also have to add in the > markers to show who is talking, because
the way you edit makes it hard to tell who is talking. I certainly
don't want anyone to think I'm responsible for what you say.
I am responsible for what I say .but you can never wash your hands from what you have told. Words once told can not be taken back.
> > They were in the wrong place at the wrong time for various reasons.
> > Like "they were born there and lived there during the time frame of
> > the tsunami," or "they were visisting there and happened to be there
> > when the tsunami hit." Nobody could warn them because they didn't have
> > proper warning systems (we already discussed this), which they have
> > installed since that disaster. Even then it may not be enough to save
> > everybody if another tsunami hit the Indian Ocean basin, but it's much
> > more effective than praying to God/Allah.
>
> How a man of reason (who thinks himself to be, while not...) can become so
> irrational to express these kinds of contradictory blunders.. …
Which "contradictory blunders" do you mean? I don't see any.
Go back to what you have written and try to see the contradictory arguments which you can see if you read between the lines.
> and why nobody could warn them of things like tsunami may happen
> at that time.
Because people can't predict when tsunamis and earthquakes will occur.
If you hadn't edited the conversation I could show where *you* laughed
at the thought of scientists being able to predict these things.
It is not reasonable .what ever you have written, you can see there in the thread of this conversation. Go back and find it. It is not good to blame others for one’s folly.
What ever science has achieved has really made us proud and has made our life all the more easy. I never want to laugh at the scientists, and will never do. They are great persons to whom all of us are thankful. Let me salute them.
Here is explanation for what I told before (as I think it is what you are blaming me of editing out)
We respect scientists and all their achievements are praiseworthy. But here too, we cannot neglect the limits of everything. Scientists are not extraordinary people .Basically they are men like me and you. They die like you and I die; they eat like me and you, and all the human needs are the same in their case as well, the reason being what I told.
> > > Why no any calendar in the world marked it as a red letter
> > > day?
> > I didn't see any religious calendars predicting it either.
> ?
> I did not claim that religious calendars do predict it and you should not
> have asked it because the religious claims are clear that it is God’s own
> decision and if anything happens, it is He who decides. So religious
> calendar shall never predict it.
So if scientists can figure out a way to predict earthquakes, will you
become an atheist?
So you agree that what you told (I didn't see any religious calendars predicting it either) is baseless, And you take it back. I appreciate.
The question of becoming an atheist never rises here, as atheists think that reason can answer every thing and they adore scientists very much. Science is a good servant but a bad master. That is the explanation of what I told ‘scientific achievements should never make us blind’. Man never should make science his master. What ever science produced and discovered became great services given by science to men. We are thankful, and the valuable time scientist spent in their laboratories for these discoveries were really precious and that is why the world rewards them with Nobel and other famous Prizes every year.
> But those who decide everything by reason
> and boast of being scientific in every thing should have proper answers for
> this.
The proper answer, which I've already stated, is that science hasn't
figured out how to predict exactly when earthquakes will occur - yet.
But in the meantime scientists have figured out lots of useful
information about what causes earthquakes (and it isn't God/Allah),
what areas are more likely to be hit with earthquakes, how to measure
earthquakes, etc., whereas the religious have offered absolutely
nothing helpful in this regard.
It is not duty of religion to predict the time of earthquakes, where and when …
Meanwhile Mankind was blessed because The Al mighty created a number of persons who became scientists who were able to serve us in this regard.
> That is why I asked.
>
> Your own words (You've stated a lot of things, all of which demonstrate a
> fundamental lack of scientific understanding) are staring at you. So make
> sure that nothing acts as a boomerang, before you use it.
You have yet to make my words "boomerang" back at me.
You can decide.
> > > > You've already demonstrated how irrational you are, so I'm not
> > > > surprised.
>
> > > No comments. ’ Men may construe things after their fashion’ (shakespeare)
>
> > That's a comment.
> Comment is what one uses on his own. This is called ‘borrowing’ or
> ‘quoting’.
Which is still a comment.
com·ment – noun (from dictionary.com)
1. a remark, observation, or criticism: a comment about the weather.
Nowhere does the dictionary say that a comment can't be a borrowed
quote.
What I told is the literal definition of ‘comment’. Dictionary gives meaning and not definitions .That is why I told care should be taken before we use a term.
> > > No religion says that men are going to eventually become extinct because
> > > god is mad at us.
>
> > Yes they do. What do you think the Rapture is all about?
>
> No. What I have written is what religions say. God is never mad at all
> people but at the wrong doers only. It means he may punish them but not that
> we all become instinct because god is mad at us.
In the Rapture God takes all the good people up to Heaven and leaves
the bad people (God is mad at them because they don't believe in him)
on earth to perish (go extinct). So humans become extinct - there are
none left on earth. That is a religious belief. So you are wrong,
there *are* religions that say man is going men are eventually going
to become extinct because god is mad at us.
> You are wrong
You are.
Religious people are right people to say what ever is religious, not you. But you can say if you learn religions thoroughly. Your writings so far tell that your knowledge about religions is zero. Religious belief is that one day this world will come to an end and every body will be dead. It is not because god is mad at men but it was his old decision, and after men shall be given proper rewards or punishments based on their life in this world.
there *are* religions that say man is going men are eventually going
to become extinct because god is mad at us.
Tell me which religion says this? And what evidence you have?
> It is must to underline ‘May’ (he may punish) in my words. It is right
> because God may forgive the criminals by his mercy and if he punishes it is
> his justice.
So do you believe that all the people who died in the Boxing Day
tsunami a few years ago were criminals who were being justly punished?
No, let me explain.
People who died in the Boxing Day tsunami, it was god’s decision that they shall die on that day. They may include good and bad people. But after giving resurrection god will definitely reward the good people among them on the Day of Judgment. We know we all are not having the same reason for death. Some may die of cancer; some by accident, some by electric shock, some by heart attack, and some may have ordinary death. It does not mean all these are punishments. God’s decision and real judgment will definitely give good /innocent people rewards and punishments for the criminals and it is possible that He may forgive those by his mercy.
> > > Dear friends. This is not for an argument.
>
> > You mean we're all supposed to agree with you without thinking?
> I never meant it.
Why do you say what you don't mean?
> What I thought is that the man who is having thinking
> power should think and make use of his brain power which if not used shall
> become stagnant.
Do you think that only those who agree with you are using their brain
power?
I am not here to answer all your absurd arguments.
> That is how men with full freedom should lead his life.
What makes you qualified to tell others how to lead their lives?
It is suggestion. Tell me any different and sublime option which contradicts this view. I am ready to accept if reasonable.
> Only then he can find out the real target of life. Man has to find out
> answers for three important questions. Where from he came?
He evolved.
> For what purpose he came?
Lots of purposes, including, at a biological level, "to reproduce."
> And where he goes?
Eventual extinction.
What a peripheral and weak response it is! Same as the other kinds of animals?
Alas! When this man will understand the value of his life!
Have men come here to reproduce….? ……… .
I need explanation for ‘lots of purpose’ what are they..
This is not the answer really .and this can not be, never…
> If every object he uses and sees has any purpose like there is a reason for
> why we use Mobile phones, cars ,Aircondition, USB , Computers ,Internet and
> ……
Yes. To communicate, for transportation, for comfort, for
communication, for multiple uses, for multiple uses respectively.
> his life should have a purpose and target .
What qualifications do you have to judge what a person's purpose and
target should be? Why should someone have the same purpose and target
as you?
Because all of us are part of same living organism that is having some thing in common which is very important. That is why we should have purpose and target.
> Man should find out it.
Why should man do what you say? What makes you superior to someone who
decides that working at the 7/11 night shift makes them happy?
What kind of question is this? Is this the way to give proper answer?
Let me say open ‘’ I am not superior to anyone and I never thought it’’
I don’t know where he reads all these meaning from? ‘Man should find out it’ has no any hidden meaning. Me also is included in this Man and it is my duty to find out what the real purpose of my life is!
> Scientific achievements should not make him blind.
Religious beliefs shouldn't make people blind either, but they do. In
a metaphorical, poetical sense.
> If it happens , it is where his
> failure begins.
Your Chicken Little warnings about the dangers of science fail to
inspire me, particularly since you don't seem to understand science in
the first place.
I don’t warn you (neither chicken nor mutton).It is something which every body can understand by sublime use of common sense. No complex theories.
Regards,,,
Simon Ewins
<sjewins@gmail.com>> If my corrections of your blunders can be called �editing�, No issue.
> Sensible people will agree with me.
If you ever say anything sensible, I'm sure they will.
--
"Only that in you which is me can hear what I'm saying." [Baba Ram Dass]
"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly
what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear
and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There
is another theory which states that this has already happened."
[Douglas Adams]
Answer_42
<ipu.believer@gmail.com><snip>
> I also have to add in the > markers to show who is talking, because
> the way you edit makes it hard to tell who is talking. I certainly
> don't want anyone to think I'm responsible for what you say.
Don't worry, Neil... we can easily tell you two apart...
Some paragraphs are rational and well thought out, others are mainly
gibberish and superstitious and/or ill-informed claptrap...
__________________________________________
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in
one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
-- George Orwell
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>> > > The main blunder that a person can do to himself is to think that he is
> > > all about every thing and reason and rational power is his own personal
> > > property. Such people even do not have thought of having the same for
> > > other people as well, thus he is living in fool’s paradise.
>
> > Just because someone thinks that you are irrational and ignorant (of
> > science, specifically) does not mean that they think other people are
> > Irrational and ignorant.
>
> No wonder. A person will tend to compare other people with him and think
> that they are like him while they are not.
conclude that they are ignorant about science if, say, they think that
tsunamis, earthquakes, and volcanoes are caused by God/Allah, or if
they think that inanimate objects like the ocean can have emotions.
> Thoughts decide who you are so be
> careful about what do you think.
> > > To find reason in everything and decide for one’s own cause has yielded
> > > only negative effects, though these people fail to understand it and while they
> > > come to recognize this reality it will be too late and irrecoverable.
>
> > Threatening people who disagree with you is barbaric.
>
> Pardon, No body should think these being threatening words, just take as
> friendly suggestions.
science with comments like "It will be too late" and "be careful what
you think." It will be too late for what? Be careful of what? I'm just
stating a fact. You *are* ignorant of science.
> > > Let me repeat what I told before. Before things happen, it is reasonable
> > > to take precautionary steps for everything, and that is what rational people
> > > do who ever they may be.
> > Why would someone need to take precautionary steps when talking to
> > you?
>
> Here everybody can understand who is making unwanted confusion? This is not
> what I told. Read my words above and where you get this meaning from? This
> is senseless indeed.
"be careful," and "it will be too late," and "take precautionary
steps" in response. I got that meaning from your words.
> > > It is not editing .
>
> > Yes, it is. You keep deleting large portions of the conversation.
> > That's called "editing."
>
> If my corrections of your blunders can be called ‘editing’, No issue.
where are my "blunders"?
> Sensible people will agree with me.
agree with you.
> > > what ever term we make use of we should be careful about
> > > it.
>
> > I was careful to use the correct term, which is "editing."
>
> If my corrections of your blunders can be called ‘editing’, that is it.
cover up your mistakes.
> > > > > This is where you told I
> > > > > am editing and it should be stopped.
>
> > > > Right. Stop editing the conversation. It makes it hard to follow.
>
> > > What kind of response it is. it is what
> > > irrational and cowards do to take what one told out of context and
> > > interpret it as he thinks . I was just following the lines of this conversation, not
> > > editing,
>
> > When you delete large chunks of text you are editing, by definition.
> >
> > ed·it – verb (from dictionary.com)
> >
> > 1. to supervise or direct the preparation of (a newspaper, magazine,
> > book, etc.); serve as editor of; direct the editorial policies of.
> > 2. to collect, prepare, and arrange (materials) for publication.
> > 3. to revise or correct, as a manuscript.
>
> > Pay particular attention to entry number 4. You are editing. And no
> > one appointed you editor.
>
> it is not ‘editing’ but’ editing -out’.
> Can’t you understand?
Yes. Apparently you can't. Read the dictionary definition again.
> > There is difference between ‘give’ and ‘give up’.
"editing."
I am really puzzled why you're taking such offence about this. For one
thing, I asked you to stop doing it only because it makes the
conversation hard to follow when you change the format. It's hard to
tell who said what.
> You lie but Dictionary does not.
dictionary says.
> > I also have to add in the > markers to show who is talking, because
> > the way you edit makes it hard to tell who is talking. I certainly
> > don't want anyone to think I'm responsible for what you say.
>
> I am responsible for what I say .but you can never wash your hands from what
> you have told.
"the shifting of tectonic plates cause earthquakes, tsunamis, and
volcanoes" then you would be washing your hands of what you said
earlier, that these natural disasters are caused by God/Allah's wrath,
as far as I'm concerned.
> Words once told can not be taken back.
accomodating, forgiving, or flexible. Words can't be taken back if the
listener is an inflexible pedantic hardass prick.
> > > > They were in the wrong place at the wrong time for various reasons.
> > > > Like "they were born there and lived there during the time frame of
> > > > the tsunami," or "they were visisting there and happened to be there
> > > > when the tsunami hit." Nobody could warn them because they didn't have
> > > > proper warning systems (we already discussed this), which they have
> > > > installed since that disaster. Even then it may not be enough to save
> > > > everybody if another tsunami hit the Indian Ocean basin, but it's much
> > > > more effective than praying to God/Allah.
>
> > > How a man of reason (who thinks himself to be, while not...) can become so
> > > irrational to express these kinds of contradictory blunders.. …
>
> > Which "contradictory blunders" do you mean? I don't see any.
>
> Go back to what you have written and try to see the contradictory arguments
> which you can see if you read between the lines.
arguments point them out, and I'll either defend myself or agree with
you. If you can't do that I'll assume that you're lying.
> > > and why nobody could warn them of things like tsunami may happen
> > > at that time.
>
> > Because people can't predict when tsunamis and earthquakes will occur.
> > If you hadn't edited the conversation I could show where *you* laughed
> > at the thought of scientists being able to predict these things.
>
> It is not reasonable .what ever you have written, you can see there in the
> thread of this conversation. Go back and find it. It is not good to blame
> others for one’s folly.
either.
> What ever science has achieved has really made us proud and has made our
> life all the more easy. I never want to laugh at the scientists, and will
> never do. They are great persons to whom all of us are thankful. Let me
> salute them.
>
> Here is explanation for what I told before (as I think it is what you are
> blaming me of editing out)
might have written before.
> We respect scientists and all their achievements are praiseworthy. But here
> too, we cannot neglect the limits of everything. Scientists are not
> extraordinary people .Basically they are men like me and you. They die like
> you and I die; they eat like me and you, and all the human needs are the
> same in their case as well, the reason being what I told.
the idea that scientists might ever be able to predict earthquakes,
volcanoes, and tsunamis.
> > > > > > Why no any calendar in the world marked it as a red letter day?
> > > > > I didn't see any religious calendars predicting it either.
> > > >?
> > > > I did not claim that religious calendars do predict it and you should not
> > > > have asked it because the religious claims are clear that it is God’s own
> > > > decision and if anything happens, it is He who decides. So religious
> > > > calendar shall never predict it.
>
> > So if scientists can figure out a way to predict earthquakes, will you
> > become an atheist?
>
> So you agree that what you told (I didn't see any religious calendars
> predicting it either) is baseless, And you take it back. I appreciate.
> The question of becoming an atheist never rises here, as atheists think that
> reason can answer every thing and they adore scientists very much.
instance, you said that tsunamis, earthquakes, and volcanoes are
caused by God/Allah. Science has proved that they are caused by the
shifting of the earth's tectonic plates. The problem is that you
aren't using your reason. The problem is that you are attached to your
emotions - you "love" God/Allah, even though reason indicates that
they don't exist.
> Science is a good servant but a bad master.
> That is the explanation of what I told
> ‘scientific achievements should never make us blind’.
sky is falling.
> Man never should make science his master.
> *What ever science produced and discovered became great
> services given by science to men*. We are thankful, and the valuable time
> precious and that is why the world rewards them with Nobel and other famous
> Prizes every year.
>
> > >But those who decide everything by reason
> > >and boast of being scientific in every thing should have proper answers
> > > for this.
>
> > The proper answer, which I've already stated, is that science hasn't
> > figured out how to predict exactly when earthquakes will occur - yet.
> > But in the meantime scientists have figured out lots of useful
> > information about what causes earthquakes (and it isn't God/Allah),
> > what areas are more likely to be hit with earthquakes, how to measure
> > earthquakes, etc., whereas the religious have offered absolutely
> > nothing helpful in this regard.
>
> It is not duty of religion to predict the time of earthquakes, where and
> when …
earthquakes will happen? That is exactly what *you* did at the start
of this conversation. You were warning us that earthquakes (etc) are
increasing in frequency and strength because God/Allah is angry with
us for being so evil.
> Meanwhile Mankind was blessed because The Al mighty created a number of
> persons who became scientists who were able to serve us in this regard.
"The Almighty" created scientists. Until you do, I will continue to
believe that they were created by their parents and the secular
education system.
> > > That is why I asked.
>
> > Your own words (You've stated a lot of things, all of which demonstrate a
> > fundamental lack of scientific understanding) are staring at you. So make
> > sure that nothing acts as a boomerang, before you use it.
>
> You have yet to make my words "boomerang" back at me.
>
> You can decide.
> > > > > You've already demonstrated how irrational you are, so I'm not
> > > > > surprised.
>
> > > > No comments. ’ Men may construe things after their fashion’
>
> (shakespeare)
>
>
>
> > > That's a comment.
> > > Comment is what one uses on his own. This is called ‘borrowing’ or
> > > ‘quoting’.
>
> > Which is still a comment.
>
> > com·ment – noun (from dictionary.com)
>
> > 1. a remark, observation, or criticism: a comment about the weather.
>
> >Nowhere does the dictionary say that a comment can't be a borrowed
> > quote.
>
> What I told is the literal definition of ‘comment’. Dictionary gives meaning
> and not definitions .
dictionary defines words. That is its basic function.
> That is why I told care should be taken before we use a
> term.
> > > >> No religion says that men are going to eventually become extinct because
> > > > > god is mad at us.
>
> > > > Yes they do. What do you think the Rapture is all about?
>
> > > No. What I have written is what religions say. God is never mad at all
> > > people but at the wrong doers only. It means he may punish them but not
> > > that we all become instinct because god is mad at us.
>
> > In the Rapture God takes all the good people up to Heaven and leaves
> > the bad people (God is mad at them because they don't believe in him)
> > on earth to perish (go extinct). So humans become extinct - there are
> > none left on earth. That is a religious belief. So you are wrong,
> > there *are* religions that say man is going men are eventually going
> > to become extinct because god is mad at us.
>
> > You are wrong
>
> You are.
that involves humans going extinct.
> Religious people are right people to say what ever is religious, not you.
which is what we were talking about.
> But you can say if you learn religions thoroughly.
> Your writings so far
> tell that your knowledge about religions is zero.
extinct, so my knowledge of religion is greater than zero. You're
wrong, as usual.
> Religious belief is that
> one day this world will come to an end and every body will be dead.
predictions that the world will end, which I think means that they
don't believe it *will* ever end.
> It is not because god is mad at men but it was his old decision, and after men
> shall be given proper rewards or punishments based on their life in this
> world.
(Noah's Flood) because he was mad at all the evil sinners. Of course
that's why he's going to destroy is again - to destroy/torture the
evil sinners and to reward the loving believers by sending them to
Heaven. Which leaves no one left on earth. Which means that humans
have become extinct.
> > there *are* religions that say man is going men are eventually going
> > to become extinct because god is mad at us.
>
> Tell me which religion says this?
Rapture, for one.
> And what evidence you have?
come, and there are a series of popular books describing what will
happen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rapture_(Left_Behind)
I'm an atheist, I don't believe them, or you, or any other religion,
because none of you have any evidence to support your religious
beliefs.
> > > It is must to underline ‘May’ (he may punish) in my words. It is right
> > > because God may forgive the criminals by his mercy and if he punishes it
> > > is his justice.
>
> > So do you believe that all the people who died in the Boxing Day
> > tsunami a few years ago were criminals who were being justly punished?
>
> No, let me explain.
>
> People who died in the Boxing Day tsunami, it was god’s decision that they
> shall die on that day.
tsunami was caused by the shifiting of the earth's tectonic plates
deep on the ocean floor. There is indisputable evidence for this. You
have no evidence that the tsunami was "god's decision."
> They may include good and bad people. But after
> giving resurrection god will definitely reward the good people among them on
> the Day of Judgment.
floor, causing an earthquake that created a tsunami, and that hundreds
of thousands of people were indiscriminately caught in its wake, with
no consideration for their morality whatsoever.
> We know we all are not having the same reason for
> death. Some may die of cancer; some by accident, some by electric shock,
> some by heart attack, and some may have ordinary death. It does not mean all
> these are punishments. God’s decision and real judgment will definitely give
> good /innocent people rewards and punishments for the criminals and it is
> possible that He may forgive those by his mercy.
forgive anyone for anything.
> > > > > Dear friends. This is not for an argument.
>
> > > > You mean we're all supposed to agree with you without thinking?
> > > I never meant it.
>
> > Why do you say what you don't mean?
>
> > > What I thought is that the man who is having thinking
> > > power should think and make use of his brain power which if not used shall
> > > become stagnant.
>
> > Do you think that only those who agree with you are using their brain
> > power?
>
> I am not here to answer all your absurd arguments.
using their brain power when equated agreeing with you ("This is not
for argument") with using your brain power?
> > > That is how men with full freedom should lead his life.
>
> > What makes you qualified to tell others how to lead their lives?
>
> It is suggestion. Tell me any different and sublime option which contradicts
> this view.
talking about anymore.
> I am ready to accept if reasonable.
sense.
> > > Only then he can find out the real target of life. Man has to find out
> > > answers for three important questions. Where from he came?
>
> > He evolved.
>
> > > For what purpose he came?
>
> > Lots of purposes, including, at a biological level, "to reproduce."
>
> > > And where he goes?
>
> > Eventual extinction.
>
> What a peripheral and weak response it is! Same as the other kinds of
> animals?
be the same as other animals since we *are* a type of animal?
> Alas! When this man will understand the value of his life!
because I think that the human species will eventually go extinct?
> Have men come here to reproduce….? ……… .
Richard Dawkins. Fat chance that will ever happen.
> I need explanation for ‘lots of purpose’ what are they..
> This is not the answer really .and this can not be, never…
> > > If every object he uses and sees has any purpose like there is a reason
> > > for why we use Mobile phones, cars ,Aircondition, USB , Computers ,Internet
> > > and……
>
> > Yes. To communicate, for transportation, for comfort, for
> > communication, for multiple uses, for multiple uses respectively.
> > > his life should have a purpose and target .
>
> > What qualifications do you have to judge what a person's purpose and
> > target should be? Why should someone have the same purpose and target
> > as you?
>
> Because all of us are part of same living organism that is having some thing
> in common which is very important. That is why we should have purpose and
> target.
same purpose and target as *you.*
> > > Man should find out it.
>
> > Why should man do what you say? What makes you superior to someone who
> > decides that working at the 7/11 night shift makes them happy?
> What kind of question is this?
> Is this the way to give proper answer?
> Let me say open ‘’ I am not superior to anyone and I never thought it’’
men with full freedom should lead his life." What gives you the
authority to say how men should lead their lives?
> I don’t know where he reads all these meaning from? ‘Man should find
> out it’ has no any hidden meaning. Me also is included in this Man and
> it is my duty to find out what the real purpose of my life is!
you're superior to people who don't care about purpose?
> > > Scientific achievements should not make him blind.
>
> >Religious beliefs shouldn't make people blind either, but they do. In
> > a metaphorical, poetical sense.
>
> > If it happens , it is where his
> > failure begins.
>
> > Your Chicken Little warnings about the dangers of science fail to
> > inspire me, particularly since you don't seem to understand science in
> > the first place.
>
> I don’t warn you (neither chicken nor mutton).
magnitude of earthquakes, volcanoes, and tsunamis will increase
because we're offending God.
> It is something which every
> body can understand by sublime use of common sense.
tsunamis are caused by God.
> No complex theories.
Religion is a complex theory.
> Regards,,,
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>On Jun 30, 6:56 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 28, 11:57 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I also have to add in the > markers to show who is talking, because
> > the way you edit makes it hard to tell who is talking. I certainly
> > don't want anyone to think I'm responsible for what you say.
>
> LOL
>
> Don't worry, Neil... we can easily tell you two apart...
> Some paragraphs are rational and well thought out, others are mainly
> gibberish and superstitious and/or ill-informed claptrap...
This guy is a lulu. I like when he says "The Dictionary gives
meanings, not definitions!"
xeno
<69blacklab@gmail.com>On Jun 29, 6:39 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Stopping religious wars by convincing people to become atheists seems
> like a good first step to me.
it an illusion to believe that mere atheism is going to stop wars?
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>On Jun 30, 11:41 am, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 29, 6:39 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Stopping religious wars by convincing people to become atheists seems
> > like a good first step to me.
>
> Well, maybe that should be: stop instigating religious wars.
> But isn't it an illusion to believe that mere atheism is going to stop wars?