If interested in a simple explanation of the religions of the world
visit www.religious-information.com.

On Jan 19, 7:32*am, Tom wrote:
If interested in a simple explanation of the religions of the world
visitwww.religious-information.com.


A quote from one of the great muslim "'prophets" the Ayatolloh
Khomeinei.

A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby.
However, he should not penetrate vaginally, but sodomising the child
is acceptable. If a man does penetrate and damage the child then, he
should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl
will not count as one of his four permanent wives and the man will not
be eligible to marry the girl's sister... It is better for a girl to
marry at such a time when she would begin menstruation at her
husband's house, rather than her father's home. Any father marrying
his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven.
["Tahrirolvasyleh", fourth edition, Qom, Iran, 1990]

A man can have sex with animals such as sheep, cows, camels and so
on. However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He
should not sell the meat to the people in his own village, but selling
the meat to a neighbouring village is reasonable.

On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 06:06:49 -0800 (PST), sparky
wrote:

On Jan 19, 7:32*am, Tom wrote:
If interested in a simple explanation of the religions of the world
visitwww.religious-information.com.


A quote from one of the great muslim "'prophets" the Ayatolloh
Khomeinei.

[snippety snip]

All religion is superstitious nonsense. It's a tautology.

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA

Rich Webb wrote on Tue, 19 Jan 2010 09:22:13 -0500:
All religion is superstitious nonsense. It's a tautology.

Sadly the same can be said of science as well. Unlike to popular belief,
science never proves anything. All it provides is theories. And in time,
theories which is often replaced by other theories. And the cycles
repeats itself while never ending. And I find science as the broken
promise and is simply a failure.

And what is claimed as science isn't really science at all. As old
beliefs prevents true science from emerging. Also if there is no money
in it, those things are not researched. That is very poor science as
there are lots of things that could be learned that isn't.

Thus sad to say, science and religion has a lot in common actually.

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Xandros Linux (build 2007-10-19 13:03)

Van Chocstraw wrote on Tue, 19 Jan 2010 10:51:09 -0500:
On 01/19/2010 07:32 AM, Tom wrote:
If interested in a simple explanation of the religions of the world
visit www.religious-information.com.

Religion was a way to explain things when people knew nothing of the
universe.

Science knows nothing about the Universe either. They don't even know
what makes up most of the Universe. And because they don't understand,
they create stories of multiple dimensions to try to explain their
misunderstanding.

Sadly the Mayans understood the Universe far better than we do today.
How they figured all of this out without satellites and telescopes
remains a great mystery.

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Xandros Linux (build 2007-10-19 13:03)

On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 10:05:16 -0600, BillW50 wrote:

Rich Webb wrote on Tue, 19 Jan 2010 09:22:13 -0500:
All religion is superstitious nonsense. It's a tautology.

Sadly the same can be said of science as well.

Science is implicitly empirical, or "sensory," whereas religions are, by
definition, "non-sensory," at least until the Archangel Michael shows up
on the Larry King show to argue about the Super Bowl. Thus, nonsense.

Unlike to popular belief,
science never proves anything. All it provides is theories. And in time,
theories which is often replaced by other theories. And the cycles
repeats itself while never ending. And I find science as the broken
promise and is simply a failure.

Unless you're living in the bush and scavenging carrion for dinner,
you've been depending on science for your livelihood and health, so it's
hardly a failure. Nor is science's self-critical, self-correcting nature
a weakness.

And what is claimed as science isn't really science at all.

So, what is it that would be "really science?"

As old beliefs prevents true science from emerging.

"True science" being ... gastromancy? ololygmancy?

Also if there is no money
in it, those things are not researched.

See "Adam Smith" also "capitalism," or "the worst economic system,
except for all of the others." Not a perfect system, by any measure, but
burning bushes with better insight are scarce.

That is very poor science as
there are lots of things that could be learned that isn't.

I will admit of some curiosity here. What may some of these things be?

Thus sad to say, science and religion has a lot in common actually.

No, not really.

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA

BillW50 wrote in message ...
Rich Webb wrote on Tue, 19 Jan 2010 09:22:13 -0500:
All religion is superstitious nonsense. It's a tautology.

Sadly the same can be said of science as well. Unlike to popular belief,
science never proves anything. All it provides is theories. And in time,
theories which is often replaced by other theories. And the cycles
repeats itself while never ending. And I find science as the broken
promise and is simply a failure.

And what is claimed as science isn't really science at all. As old
beliefs prevents true science from emerging. Also if there is no money
in it, those things are not researched. That is very poor science as
there are lots of things that could be learned that isn't.

Thus sad to say, science and religion has a lot in common actually.

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Xandros Linux (build 2007-10-19 13:03)

Monkeys and humans also have alot in common, but the differences put us
worlds apart.
The only thing that religion and science have in common is that, they both
try to provide an explanation for the world around us. Science at least
tries to explain the natural world with theories to support the reasoning ,
whereas religion turns everything into a supernatural explanation, and then
threatens you with hell if you don't believe it. Science is a threat to
religion, and that is why religion has a long history of persecuting anyone
that dares to question their viewpoint. Religion has, and always will, be a
roadblock to scientific discovery. The two have nearly nothing in common.
As far as the Mayans are concerned, it would have been impossible for them
to accumulate the amount of knowledge that we have now. The tools didn't
exist, and I would be very surprised if the world's space agencies would
have bothered to launch space probes if all they needed to do was consult
the Mayan science journals.

Rich Webb wrote on Tue, 19 Jan 2010 11:50:24 -0500:
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 10:05:16 -0600, BillW50 wrote:

Rich Webb wrote on Tue, 19 Jan 2010 09:22:13 -0500:
All religion is superstitious nonsense. It's a tautology.
Sadly the same can be said of science as well.

Science is implicitly empirical, or "sensory," whereas religions are,
by
definition, "non-sensory," at least until the Archangel Michael shows
up
on the Larry King show to argue about the Super Bowl. Thus, nonsense.

I have no problems what is often said against religion. But I do have a
problem when somehow science is supposedly any better. In many ways, I
find it much worse.

Unlike to popular belief,
science never proves anything. All it provides is theories. And in
time,
theories which is often replaced by other theories. And the cycles
repeats itself while never ending. And I find science as the broken
promise and is simply a failure.

Unless you're living in the bush and scavenging carrion for dinner,
you've been depending on science for your livelihood and health, so
it's
hardly a failure. Nor is science's self-critical, self-correcting
nature a weakness.

You mean like increased cancer rates, increased diabetic rates, most of
the world is dying from starvation, etc.? And every month, there is a
new ad on TV saying if you have taken so and so drug, call our lawyers
office for a class action lawsuit. It is becoming more and more clear,
taking drugs (chemicals) can be very dangerous to your health. And this
is supposed to be helpful? And it seems like the goal of doctors is to
put paitents on as many drugs as they can. And strangely enough, the
ones who pushes the most gets kickbacks from the drug companies.

Also People have been living to 80's and 90's for thousands of years.
The claim that science is helping people live longer isn't really true,
now is it? Sure, some people maybe living now do to science who would be
dead otherwise. But the opposite is also true. Some are dead today do to
medical science who would be alive today if nothing was done.

And what about this global warming stuff? NASA reports that all of the
planets in the solar system is warming up. So how is man made pollution
causing the other planets to warm up? And why is most of the planet
actually is getting cooler? Science isn't adding up at all. Plain common
sense says something is wrong! Yet nobody sees the red flags popping up.
Why is that?

And what is claimed as science isn't really science at all.

So, what is it that would be "really science?"

A true peer reviewed science would be a great start. What we have now is
nothing but a big joke. People who know better can't challenge any of
it. As only a very small group of people control it all. And if you are
in that small group, you must play ball or you are out. And if you speak
the truth, you lose all of your funding and become an outcase. It is
really a sick system if you ask me.

As old beliefs prevents true science from emerging.

"True science" being ... gastromancy? ololygmancy?

Also if there is no money
in it, those things are not researched.

See "Adam Smith" also "capitalism," or "the worst economic system,
except for all of the others." Not a perfect system, by any measure, but
burning bushes with better insight are scarce.

The whole world economic system is headed for a total collapse. It is a
terrible system. Those that has worked hard all of their lives are
headed to lose everything they worked hard for. And this is a good thing?

That is very poor science as
there are lots of things that could be learned that isn't.

I will admit of some curiosity here. What may some of these things be?

Here is how science (or the truth in time) works.

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second,
it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. --
Arthur Schopenhauer -- German philosopher (1788 - 1860)

Now history shows this is indeed correct. Now wouldn't it make more
sense to checkout anything that is ridiculed or violently opposed,
instead of automatically discounting it? Thus we wouldn't have to go for
decades or hundreds of years in ignorance? Now doesn't that make a lot
more sense?

Thus sad to say, science and religion has a lot in common actually.

No, not really.

Both systems are based on beliefs. Neither proves anything. Worse,
science pretends it doesn't do so. Which means that science is the great
pretender and religion doesn't pretend what it is about. But it doesn't
mean I agree with religion either. And I see science as just another
religion that pretends to be not one.

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Xandros Linux (build 2007-10-19 13:03)

bg wrote on Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:13:19 -0700:
BillW50 wrote in message ...
Rich Webb wrote on Tue, 19 Jan 2010 09:22:13 -0500:
All religion is superstitious nonsense. It's a tautology.
Sadly the same can be said of science as well. Unlike to popular belief,
science never proves anything. All it provides is theories. And in time,
theories which is often replaced by other theories. And the cycles
repeats itself while never ending. And I find science as the broken
promise and is simply a failure.

And what is claimed as science isn't really science at all. As old
beliefs prevents true science from emerging. Also if there is no money
in it, those things are not researched. That is very poor science as
there are lots of things that could be learned that isn't.

Thus sad to say, science and religion has a lot in common actually.

Monkeys and humans also have alot in common, but the differences put us
worlds apart.
The only thing that religion and science have in common is that, they both
try to provide an explanation for the world around us. Science at least
tries to explain the natural world with theories to support the reasoning ,
whereas religion turns everything into a supernatural explanation, and then
threatens you with hell if you don't believe it.

First, not all religions have a hell. And most religions would make
perfect sense to true science if other humans or whatever with advanced
technology and knowledge was playing the part of a god or gods.

Science is a threat to
religion, and that is why religion has a long history of persecuting anyone
that dares to question their viewpoint.

But science has its own horrors in the closet. As the truth takes
decades or hundreds of year to surface. And anybody who questions the de
facto science has their funding pulled and is an outcast and their life
ruined. Thus there is no true science going on at all, sad to say.

Religion has, and always will, be a
roadblock to scientific discovery. The two have nearly nothing in common.

There is no true science today. As science is nothing more than another
religion which pretends to not be a religion.

As far as the Mayans are concerned, it would have been impossible for them
to accumulate the amount of knowledge that we have now. The tools didn't
exist, and I would be very surprised if the world's space agencies would
have bothered to launch space probes if all they needed to do was consult
the Mayan science journals.

First the Mayans knew that the Earth would pass through the plane of the
Milky Way in 2012. Science was totally clueless about this fact until
about 10 years ago. And science today has no idea what the polarity
shift will cause us to go through. But the Mayans knew about this, how?

And what about the great pyramids? Sure we have theories how it was
done, but in practice none of the theories actually work. Yet there was
a nobody in the early 1900's who claimed to know the secret of the
pyramids and built Coral Castle (in Florida). He claimed (he weighed
less than 100 pounds) to know the secret. And he claimed it was easy to
find in libraries and anybody could discover how to do so. Yet today,
the secret has never been found.

All mysteries from the past would make total sense from two theories.

1) Mankind has had advanced technology in the past and then lost it.

2) Or advanced beings came here from some other place.

I can't see any other choices really. Although I admit I really don't
like the first two theories. But what else could explain it?

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Xandros Linux (build 2007-10-19 13:03)

On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:59:27 -0600, BillW50 wrote:

Here is how science (or the truth in time) works.

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second,
it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. --
Arthur Schopenhauer -- German philosopher (1788 - 1860)

Now history shows this is indeed correct. Now wouldn't it make more
sense to checkout anything that is ridiculed or violently opposed,
instead of automatically discounting it? Thus we wouldn't have to go for
decades or hundreds of years in ignorance? Now doesn't that make a lot
more sense?

Yes, they laughed at Galileo and they laughed at Columbus. But they also
laughed at Bozo the Clown. By the way, Columbus was wrong.

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA

Rich Webb wrote:
By the way, Columbus was wrong.

There are those who believe he knew what he was selling
was likely false but that he was a really good snake oil salesman.
He did get his gig financed.

On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:39:23 -0800 (PST), JeffM
wrote:

Rich Webb wrote:
By the way, Columbus was wrong.

There are those who believe he knew what he was selling
was likely false but that he was a really good snake oil salesman.
He did get his gig financed.

Heh. Quite possible, I suppose. Lucky for him (and the crews!) there was
something out there. Even given the (pretty close) size estimate that
Eratosthenes of Cyrene et al. came up with, their experiences in large
bodies of water may have lead to the not unreasonable expectation that
there would likely not be just one big ocean between the western
extremes of Europe and the eastern of Asia. Of course, if the Atlantic
and Pacific had been swapped ...

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA

Van Chocstraw wrote on Thu, 21 Jan 2010 09:22:31 -0500:
On 01/19/2010 11:15 AM, BillW50 wrote:
Van Chocstraw wrote on Tue, 19 Jan 2010 10:51:09 -0500:
On 01/19/2010 07:32 AM, Tom wrote:
If interested in a simple explanation of the religions of the world
visit www.religious-information.com.
Religion was a way to explain things when people knew nothing of the
universe.
Science knows nothing about the Universe either. They don't even know
what makes up most of the Universe. And because they don't understand,
they create stories of multiple dimensions to try to explain their
misunderstanding.

Sadly the Mayans understood the Universe far better than we do today.
How they figured all of this out without satellites and telescopes
remains a great mystery.

And lightening is God angry, right.

Acts of God, mother nature, natural forces, etc. are just different
names for the same thing to me. Probably the same belief for many
thousands of years ago as well. For example, Plato seemed pretty level
headed. Although then and now, people still has to play along. Ever
noticed the fine print in many insurance contracts? As they state acts
of God isn't covered. Funny, eh? Not something you expect in this day
and age.

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Xandros Linux (build 2007-10-19 13:03)

On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 09:22:31 -0500, Van Chocstraw
wrote:

On 01/19/2010 11:15 AM, BillW50 wrote:
Van Chocstraw wrote on Tue, 19 Jan 2010 10:51:09 -0500:
On 01/19/2010 07:32 AM, Tom wrote:
If interested in a simple explanation of the religions of the world
visit www.religious-information.com.

Religion was a way to explain things when people knew nothing of the
universe.

Science knows nothing about the Universe either. They don't even know
what makes up most of the Universe. And because they don't understand,
they create stories of multiple dimensions to try to explain their
misunderstanding.

Sadly the Mayans understood the Universe far better than we do today.
How they figured all of this out without satellites and telescopes
remains a great mystery.


And lightening is God angry, right.

Storing ammunition and explosives in a church is a good idea, as god
will protect it...

In message , Van
Chocstraw writes
On 01/19/2010 11:15 AM, BillW50 wrote:
Van Chocstraw wrote on Tue, 19 Jan 2010 10:51:09 -0500:
On 01/19/2010 07:32 AM, Tom wrote:
If interested in a simple explanation of the religions of the world
visit www.religious-information.com.

Religion was a way to explain things when people knew nothing of the
universe.

Science knows nothing about the Universe either. They don't even know
what makes up most of the Universe. And because they don't understand,
they create stories of multiple dimensions to try to explain their
misunderstanding.

Sadly the Mayans understood the Universe far better than we do today.
How they figured all of this out without satellites and telescopes
remains a great mystery.


And lightening is God angry, right.

Judging by what it did to old Whacko Jacko, you could be right.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

Rich Webb wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:39:23 -0800 (PST), JeffM
wrote:

Rich Webb wrote:
By the way, Columbus was wrong.

There are those who believe he knew what he was selling
was likely false but that he was a really good snake oil salesman.
He did get his gig financed.

Heh. Quite possible, I suppose. Lucky for him (and the crews!) there was
something out there. Even given the (pretty close) size estimate that
Eratosthenes of Cyrene et al. came up with, their experiences in large
bodies of water may have lead to the not unreasonable expectation that
there would likely not be just one big ocean between the western
extremes of Europe and the eastern of Asia. Of course, if the Atlantic
and Pacific had been swapped ...


You were VERY lost!


--
Greed is the root of all eBay.

On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:04:36 -0500, Rich Webb
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:39:23 -0800 (PST), JeffM
wrote:

Rich Webb wrote:
By the way, Columbus was wrong.

There are those who believe he knew what he was selling
was likely false but that he was a really good snake oil salesman.
He did get his gig financed.

Heh. Quite possible, I suppose. Lucky for him (and the crews!) there was
something out there. Even given the (pretty close) size estimate that
Eratosthenes of Cyrene et al. came up with, their experiences in large
bodies of water may have lead to the not unreasonable expectation that
there would likely not be just one big ocean between the western
extremes of Europe and the eastern of Asia. Of course, if the Atlantic
and Pacific had been swapped ...

It's not true that people didn't know the world was round. They had
seen the shadow on the moon and while that miight only mean it was a
round plate, I think quite a few had concluded it was a sphere.

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 03:33:35 -0500, mm wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:04:36 -0500, Rich Webb
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:39:23 -0800 (PST), JeffM
wrote:

Rich Webb wrote:
By the way, Columbus was wrong.

There are those who believe he knew what he was selling
was likely false but that he was a really good snake oil salesman.
He did get his gig financed.

Heh. Quite possible, I suppose. Lucky for him (and the crews!) there was
something out there. Even given the (pretty close) size estimate that
Eratosthenes of Cyrene et al. came up with, their experiences in large
bodies of water may have lead to the not unreasonable expectation that
there would likely not be just one big ocean between the western
extremes of Europe and the eastern of Asia. Of course, if the Atlantic
and Pacific had been swapped ...

It's not true that people didn't know the world was round. They had
seen the shadow on the moon and while that miight only mean it was a
round plate, I think quite a few had concluded it was a sphere.

Yes, but the mistake Columbus made or, as Jeff implies, his cunning plan
to get financing, was whether the Earth's circumference was small enough
and the arc length from Europe to Asia short enough to make a passage to
India and the Spice Islands feasible when traveling to the west.

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA

BillW50 wrote:
Van Chocstraw wrote on Thu, 21 Jan 2010 09:22:31 -0500:
On 01/19/2010 11:15 AM, BillW50 wrote:
Van Chocstraw wrote on Tue, 19 Jan 2010 10:51:09 -0500:
On 01/19/2010 07:32 AM, Tom wrote:
If interested in a simple explanation of the religions of the world
visit www.religious-information.com.
Religion was a way to explain things when people knew nothing of the
universe.
Science knows nothing about the Universe either. They don't even know
what makes up most of the Universe. And because they don't understand,
they create stories of multiple dimensions to try to explain their
misunderstanding.

Sadly the Mayans understood the Universe far better than we do today.
How they figured all of this out without satellites and telescopes
remains a great mystery.

And lightening is God angry, right.

Acts of God, mother nature, natural forces, etc. are just different
names for the same thing to me. Probably the same belief for many
thousands of years ago as well. For example, Plato seemed pretty level
headed. Although then and now, people still has to play along. Ever
noticed the fine print in many insurance contracts? As they state acts
of God isn't covered. Funny, eh? Not something you expect in this day
and age.

Bill, you are full of religious bull****.

All religions are frauds. There is not the
slightest shred of evidence
of the existence of a god, heaven, hell etc - not
a shred. Just look at
the churches in Haiti getting blasted. Look at the
evil people who inhabit
the earth and compare them with the holiest - do
they suffer more diseases
- no! Why do tiny children, who could not
possibly have committed evil deeds,
often suffer from dreadful diseases? because that
fictitious god was too busy
watching the sparrows falling from the trees.

Wake up and learn to see straight.

In ,
JD typed on Sun, 24 Jan 2010 16:28:56 -0800:
BillW50 wrote:
Van Chocstraw wrote on Thu, 21 Jan 2010 09:22:31 -0500:
On 01/19/2010 11:15 AM, BillW50 wrote:
Van Chocstraw wrote on Tue, 19 Jan 2010 10:51:09 -0500:
On 01/19/2010 07:32 AM, Tom wrote:
If interested in a simple explanation of the religions of the
world visit www.religious-information.com.
Religion was a way to explain things when people knew nothing of
the universe.
Science knows nothing about the Universe either. They don't even
know what makes up most of the Universe. And because they don't
understand, they create stories of multiple dimensions to try to
explain their misunderstanding.

Sadly the Mayans understood the Universe far better than we do
today. How they figured all of this out without satellites and
telescopes remains a great mystery.

And lightening is God angry, right.

Acts of God, mother nature, natural forces, etc. are just different
names for the same thing to me. Probably the same belief for many
thousands of years ago as well. For example, Plato seemed pretty
level headed. Although then and now, people still has to play along.
Ever noticed the fine print in many insurance contracts? As they
state acts of God isn't covered. Funny, eh? Not something you expect
in this day and age.

Bill, you are full of religious bull****.

Really? I am not even religious you moron! Nor do I go to church and
never will. As I have my own beefs with them. Just because one is a
critic of science, don't make the mistake of declaring that one must be
religious. That would be wrong!

All religions are frauds. There is not the
slightest shred of evidence
of the existence of a god, heaven, hell etc - not
a shred. Just look at
the churches in Haiti getting blasted. Look at the
evil people who inhabit
the earth and compare them with the holiest - do
they suffer more diseases
- no! Why do tiny children, who could not
possibly have committed evil deeds,
often suffer from dreadful diseases? because that
fictitious god was too busy
watching the sparrows falling from the trees.

Wake up and learn to see straight.

And science is any better? Science never proves anything. It only
provides theories and nothing more. What is another word we can use
instead of theories? Beliefs, amazing isn't it? Isn't that the same damn
thing religions use?

And do you know why the multiple universe theory is around? Because the
one we live in just can't happen by chance. As the odds are just so
great that it just can't happen, period. So scientist gets around this
problem by making up an infinite amount of universes. Thus a greater
chance of having one that could happen by chance. And we just happen to
be living in the lucky one.

And the whole thing about science is it depends a lot on experiments.
Yet there are tons of evidence that the observer actually effects the
experiments. Although science ignores this evidence because it would
make science null and invalid. In short, science itself is a fraud.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Windows XP SP3

On 25 ene, 11:13, "BillW50" wrote:


And science is any better? Science never proves anything. It only
provides theories and nothing more.

yes, science is 'better' in its approach to knowledge. It is rational
and empirical, not superstitious and subjective. By testing and
disproving theories, progress towards improved understanding of our
world is possible. Nothing similar happens in religion, where blind,
unchanging belief is the order of the day.

As for scienece providing theories and nothing more, I disagree
totally, based on the evidence of the last century - what methodology
went furthest towards curing and even eradicating many diseases? Don't
you agree that our understanding of bacteria and cell biology,
knowledge gathered by scientific research, has benefited humankind? or
do you think we should throw it all away and go back to trepanning,
bloodletting and exorcising evil spirits and balancing the 4 humours?
-B