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
--
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.
Enjoy
cheers
st13
----------------------
Humans will be extinct within 100 years, says Australian scientist
PTI, Jun 20, 2010, 11.52am IST
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.
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.
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 ]
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'
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,,,
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]
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.
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]
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.
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)
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.
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,,
> 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,,,
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]