Knowing the mind of God

[stockdam]

Anyone outside of space and time is nowhere, never.

And there is the problem........you are bounded in your thinking. But yes anyone outside of space and time is nowhere (as space doesn't exist there) and never (as time doesn't exist).

And it all boils down to belief in one thing or another. So believe and accept that others may believe in other things.

This whole thread is about who is right and who is wrong..........it may be better to ask yourself.....maybe I'm wrong (applies to both sides of the discussion). Standing on a soapbox beating on about how you are right gets boring after a while.

 

[marchog]

And there is the problem........you are bounded in your thinking. But yes anyone outside of space and time is nowhere (as space doesn't exist there) and never (as time doesn't exist).

And it all boils down to belief in one thing or another. So believe and accept that others may believe in other things.

This whole thread is about who is right and who is wrong..........it may be better to ask yourself.....maybe I'm wrong (applies to both sides of the discussion). Standing on a soapbox beating on about how you are right gets boring after a while.

Maybe I'm wrong! Happy Easter Stockdam old bean, and may a Jewish Zombie save you from what he would do to you if you disobeyed him!

 

[stockdam]

Maybe I'm wrong! Happy Easter Stockdam old bean, and may a Jewish Zombie save you from what he would do to you if you disobeyed him!

Happy Easter too.

Yes I'll go and play Nazi Zombies on the XBox with my son.

Hope you don't fall of your soapboxes.

 

[cjd]

You are using the laws that have been given to us...........anyone who creates these laws would be outside of them otherwise they wouldn't need to create the laws. You are falling into the trap of using what you know to try to argue against what you do not know.

If you want to say the equivalent of 'God is all powerfull and can do anything' or 'God works in mysterious ways' or 'God is beyond our knowing' then you are in the realms of belief and faith and I can't follow.

You are entitled to believe anything you like and I can't disprove it; all I, science or logic can say is 'there is no evidence for that belief therefore it is irrational'.

Before we learnt what was above the clouds, that was where heaven was - now we know so we have to push god beyond space and time.

You have no evidence of a God existing beyond space and time (where exactly is that??) and as far as I'm aware there's no way of proving you right or wrong - all I can say is that it is just another God in the Gap fallacy.

But you'll keep on saying the same old tired things in the hope that you sound convincing.

I don't suppose you read the paper that my comment referred to?

If you did you will have seen that is contained some new ideas - to me, at least - about the so called fine tuning theory. Religion never comes up with new ideas or information, by definition - but science does all the time. The information in that paper provides some evidence that the fine tuning argument is wrong. Neither tired nor old.

As for Darwin proving Paley wrong, even the Catholic Church accepts that fact - now only the flat earth mob prefers to doubt it

 

[stockdam]

Before we learnt what was above the clouds, that was where heaven was - now we know so we have to push god beyond space and time.

Eh? You really don't follow do you? What has heaven above the clouds got anything to do with what I said. You just throw mucho flack about with the hope that people believe you. My simple point was that anything that created time and space must by definition be outside of both and hence the question about "who created God" is silly.


Please quote where the Catholic Church acknowledge that Darwin proved Paley wrong.

Evolution needs a framework and laws (it can't exist in a vacuum). Evolution as you admit doesn't overlap creation. So Darwin (evolution) and Paley (creation/design) and not mutually exclusive.

But then you don't worry about logic or facts when you are on your soapbox.

 

[cjd]

My simple point was that anything that created time and space must by definition be outside of both and hence the question about "who created God" is silly.

You are begging the question; you pre-suppose that something invented time and space - for which you need evidence but have presented none.

That aside. You can't avoid the regression. If you say 'god made us' I can validly ask 'and who made god?' without the need for time and space arguments.

It makes no difference where you put your god - the regression still stands. The only place it can logically stop is if you simply say 'I believe that God has no beginning and no end' as good Christians are taught to do. That is a belief, nothing else.

Please quote where the Catholic Church acknowledge that Darwin proved Paley wrong.

" In an October 22, 1996, address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II updated the Church's position to accept evolution of the human body:
"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points....Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies -- which was neither planned nor sought -- constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church

Evolution needs a framework and laws (it can't exist in a vacuum). Evolution as you admit doesn't overlap creation. So Darwin (evolution) and Paley (creation/design) and not mutually exclusive.

You are confusing evolution with abiogenesis.

Paley claimed that complex objects like a watch require a designer, Darwin and evolution demonstrated that a designer is not required for complexity in living organisms. That's a fact.

But then you don't worry about logic or facts when you are on your soapbox.

Facts and evidence are ALL I worry about.

 

[cjd]

There's a Radio 4 programme this evening at 8pm called 'Blair's Faith Foundation':

Christopher Landau, who has followed the setting up of Tony Blair's Faith Foundation to promote religious dialogue and understanding, asks whether it can succeed in promoting religion as a force for progress

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00jmv21

This two-faced tw@ failed to tell the electorate that he was a 'person of faith' before he put himself up for election - "we don't do religion". He then turns into a zealot, sides with another religeous crackpot across the pond and takes us into a Holy war with Islam.

Just to put the cap on it; he then has a chat with the Pope and converts to Catholicism.

I'm going to detest this programme and will be shouting at the radio but I have to listen.

 

[cjd]

Given that Sunday was a big day for Christians, I poked around for real evidence of the resurrection.

I happened on this:

http://www.y-jesus.com/body_count1.php

It's a Christian site pushing its beliefs but, unlike most, it does at least attempt to provide some actual evidence for them.

 

[cjd]

For the sceptical version, see:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/lecture.html

 

[marchog]

For the sceptical version, see:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/lecture.html

You build us up...then you knock us down. Thanks alot cjd, now I'm going to die after all...

 

[cjd]

So, we have two learned papers on The Resurrection. One for, one against.

How do we choose between them?

Answer in not less than 500 words using reference to your critical thinking class 101 and with special consideration shown to the effects of 'confirmation bias'.

 

[stockdam]

You are begging the question; you pre-suppose that something invented time and space - for which you need evidence but have presented none.

That aside. You can't avoid the regression. If you say 'god made us' I can validly ask 'and who made god?' without the need for time and space arguments.

It makes no difference where you put your god - the regression still stands. The only place it can logically stop is if you simply say 'I believe that God has no beginning and no end' as good Christians are taught to do. That is a belief, nothing else.

So your belief is that energy and matter came from nothing?
And you can't just put aside the belief that God created time and space......for those who believe, then asking who created God is nonsense. Fine if you don't believe but the question is just dumb. You are mixing your beliefs up with those of say a Christian and trying to impose your beliefs......hence you don't accept the answer.


I then asked for you to show "where the Catholic Church acknowledge that Darwin proved Paley wrong". Your quote acknowledges evolution but doesn't make any statement on Paley nor creation. The Catholic Church appears to believe in Evolution that is founded on creation (Paley's ideas were about design/creation). So you didn't answer the question.

You are confusing evolution with abiogenesis.

I said "Evolution needs a framework and laws (it can't exist in a vacuum). Evolution as you admit doesn't overlap creation. So Darwin (evolution) and Paley (creation/design) and not mutually exclusive."


So your reply was incorrect. I wasn't mixing anything up. I said evolution needs a framework - that's either provided by creation or abiogenesis. But once again you try to ignore facts and put words into my mouth to assist your argument.

Paley claimed that complex objects like a watch require a designer, Darwin and evolution demonstrated that a designer is not required for complexity in living organisms. That's a fact.

Here we go again.......you use the word fact when you really mean opinion. Darwin did not demonstrate that a designer isn't needed. Darwin showed that life changed from the original template.......that 's all. Whether this was by design (including the framework that evolution needs in the first place) or whether it was absolutely random then we can't tell. What Darwin showed is that what we see today was not designed/created (i.e it has changed) but he didn't show whether there was a design that had evolution built in.

Facts and evidence are ALL I worry about.

Nope.....opinion and belief. If you have all the facts and evidence then please write to the Pope and show him where he is wrong as you will no doubt convince him with your arguments.

 

[Subbynet]

I said evolution needs a framework - that's either provided by creation or abiogenesis. But once again you try to ignore facts and put words into my mouth to assist your argument.

TBH, you don't use the word "Fact" Stockdam, but you imply the same by stating with no proof that evolution needs a framework provided by creation or abiogenesis.

Can you please expand on how this framework takes shape, and what proof you can show for a "framework".

 

[marchog]

So your belief is that energy and matter came from nothing?
And you can't just put aside the belief that God created time and space

He would have to have been very small to fit into an area occupying zero extent in space.

I don't think we have to believe energy and matter came from nothing to beat your story, but one can't help noticing, as our melted Japanese friends did, that matter and energy are equivalent, and that matter and anti-matter....aaargh! fell off soap-box!

 

[marchog]

Here's one for you Stockdam

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVbn...D30F3630&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=27

 

[marchog]

Here's one for you Stockdam

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVbn...D30F3630&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=27

Have some more:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mLOUWl-L-s&feature=PlayList&p=DABC73CED30F3630&index=26

 

[cjd]

So your belief is that energy and matter came from nothing?

I wish I could say this in a way that you could understand, but it appears that I can't. But I'll try again anyway.

I don't 'believe' anything. I have simply no idea why or how there is anything rather than nothing.

And neither does anybody else. And that includes 'people of faith'.

People can believe things about Gods if they wish; but that is outside logic and rational knowledge.

If you believe that a God - any god - made the universe and all things in it, then fine go ahead; but don't think that you can make a rational argument for that belief because it's not possible.

Belief is just that, belief; if there was real evidence a belief would not be required it would be a non-contraversial fact.

I have no problem at all not knowing how the universe happened; I think it's a simply hubris to assume that we are capable of understanding it all.

But that's not a reason not to try - Stephen Hawkins thinks that there is a 70% chance that the universe came into existence spontaneously out of nothing (whatever that is).

Just because that sounds barking to you and me, doesn't make it not so. I don't properly understand some very simple things about electricity either.

And you can't just put aside the belief that God created time and space......for those who believe, then asking who created God is nonsense. Fine if you don't believe but the question is just dumb. You are mixing your beliefs up with those of say a Christian and trying to impose your beliefs......hence you don't accept the answer.

You said it yourself, 'the question is just dumb for those who believe'.

That's because they are not using logic to argue their case. They have a BELIEF. This puts the game outside logic.

In logic the argument is clear - it's called a regression. The only way you can resolve it is artificially, as you have done, by saying "I believe it to be true therefore it is".

I'll say it again. If you believe that god made everything; fine. I think you are wrong but at least you are honest and not trying to create some spurious proof.

My wife gets similarly exasperated; she just say 'well he's god he can do anything'. End of discussion.

 

[cjd]

So your reply was incorrect. I wasn't mixing anything up. I said evolution needs a framework - that's either provided by creation or abiogenesis. But once again you try to ignore facts and put words into my mouth to assist your argument.......... Darwin did not demonstrate that a designer isn't needed. Darwin showed that life changed from the original template.......that 's all. Whether this was by design (including the framework that evolution needs in the first place) or whether it was absolutely random then we can't tell. What Darwin showed is that what we see today was not designed/created (i.e it has changed) but he didn't show whether there was a design that had evolution built in.

A lot of what you say here is ok by me but it's all jumbled up.

I originally said something like "Darwin proved Paley wrong". He did.

This is Paley's Watchmaker argument (actually, it's an analogy)

The Watchmaker argument

The watchmaker analogy consists of the comparison of some natural phenomenon to a watch. Typically, the analogy is presented as a prelude to the teleological argument and is generally presented as:

1. The complex inner workings of a watch necessitate an intelligent designer.
2. As with a watch, the complexity of X (a particular organ or organism, the structure of the solar system, life, the entire universe) necessitates a designer.

In this presentation, the watch analogy (step 1) does not function as a premise to an argument — rather it functions as a rhetorical device and a preamble. Its purpose is to establish the plausibility of the general premise: you can tell, simply by looking at something, whether or not it was the product of intelligent design

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy

So Darwin came along and showed us that you can't simply look at a hedgehog and assume that because it is a complex piece of work (like a watch) that it required a watchmaker to make it.

He showed that the complexity came about by a natural, not supernatural process called evolution. Something extreemly complicated has come about not from a single act of creation but in an unguided fashion by nature.

This is what the great man himself said about it:

Although I did not think much about the existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my life, I will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been driven. The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws

But remember in the 1860s, Paley like everyone else thought that God made everything on earth in 6 days fully formed.

Now, you can if you wish, claim that the the process of evoltion was created by god inorder to make a hedgehog from scratch over a period of 4.5bn years (is this your framework??) - that is after all what the Catholics are now told to believe.

Neither I nor anyone else can argue about that - it's a belief again. All I can say is that 'it's a bloody unlikely way of going about things and it certainly isn't put that way in the Bible is it?"






Nope.....opinion and belief. If you have all the facts and evidence then please write to the Pope and show him where he is wrong as you will no doubt convince him with your arguments.[/quote]

 

[cjd]

Today is an important day for various religions

Tuesday 21 April

Jewish Yom Hashoah
The Jewish Holocaust Memorial Day. The date is chosen as the closest date (in the Jewish calendar) to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.

Bahai Ridvan - first day
The start of a 12 day festival when Baha'is celebrate the day when Baha'u'llah said that he was the prophet predicted by the Bab.The most important Baha'I festival.

Rastafari Anniversary of Haile Selassie's visit to Jamaica
Marks the date Haile Selassie I visited Jamaica in 1966. Haile Selassie was the Emperor of Ethiopia. Rastas believe Haile Selassie is God, and that he will return to Africa members of the black community who are living in exile.

I like the idea that something is predicted by the 'Bab'

Terry Pratchet has nothing on this stuff.

 

[cjd]

So, The Bab

Siyyid `Alí Muḥammad Shírází (Persian: سيد علی *محمد شیرازی) (October 20, 1819 – July 9, 1850) was the founder of Bábism, and one of three central figures of the Bahá'í Faith. He was a merchant from Shíráz, Persia, who at the age of twenty-four (in May 23, 1844) claimed to be the promised Qá'im (or Mahdi). After his declaration he took the title of Báb (Arabic: باب) meaning "Gate". He composed hundreds of letters and books (often termed tablets) in which he stated his messianic claims and defined his teachings, which constituted a new sharí'ah or religious law. His movement eventually acquired tens of thousands of supporters, was virulently opposed by Iran's Shi'a clergy, and was suppressed by the Iranian government leading to thousands of his followers, termed Bábís, being persecuted and killed. In 1850 the Báb was shot by a firing squad in Tabríz.
Bahá'ís claim that the Báb was also the return of Elijah and John the Baptist, that he was the "Ushídar-Máh" referred to in the Zoroastrian scriptures,[1] and that he was the forerunner of their own religion. Bahá'u'lláh, the founder of the Bahá'í Faith, was a follower of the Báb and claimed to be the fulfillment of his promise that God would send another messenger.

Couldn't make it up could you. Oh, hang on.........

 

[iTopz]

What I find interesting is Richard Dawkins theory, that if Science is wrong, then it doesn't mean any modern Religion has any right to be correct, ranging from tribal to ancient Religions have just a big a say.

Howeve, isn't this thread going round in circles now.
Truth be told, we'll probably never know in our life.
There's two arguments really;
a) Science; The evolutionist theory proves life evolved from micro organisms.
b) Faith; The micro organisms, were made by a divine power.
Either one of the two occured.

 

[wordsinart]

Love this one - mad Christy-types start the beginning of the end of their supertitious nonsense....http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8010975.stm

In summary, the Church of Scotland's magazine has suggested that it is wrong to condemn homosexuals by picking on clutch of old testament paragraphs whilst ignoring others.

Whilst I do believe that homopoofters (in jest) are 100% part of my society I have to say that any religion worth it's salt whould NOT DEVIATE FROM IT'S SCRIPTURE.

Once you do that, you advance the decline of your shoite.

Please, please, the enlightened (sic) of Christian religions, keep doing that.

So what's next.....Jedi anyone?

 

[charles2]

beautiful picture

 

[cjd]

So now we have H5N1, swine flu - a newly evolved virus which has the potential to change a few minds about whether god really does love us and whether evolution works.

1918: The Spanish flu pandemic remains the most devastating outbreak of modern times - infecting up to 40% of the world's population and killing more than 50m people, with young adults particularly badly affected

1957: Asian flu killed two million people. Caused by a human form of the virus, H2N2, combining with a mutated strain found in wild ducks. The elderly were particularly vulnerable

1968: An outbreak first detected in Hong Kong, and caused by a strain known as H3N2, killed up to one million people globally, with those over 65 most likely to die

 

[dagr]

Did anyone see that skit from the comedian and confirmed atheist, Stuart Lee?

He now claims to be a believer after pondering the sheer magnificence, intelligence and wonderment that is Richard Dawkins' brain, which had to be made by a superior being.

 

[marchog]

So now we have H5N1, swine flu - a newly evolved virus which has the potential to change a few minds about whether god really does love us and whether evolution works.

Hahahaha! 'Change a few minds'.....good one cjd. I went to a butterfly house yesterday to see what Stockdam was on about and I think he was right - they didn't just happen by chance. They had moths too and I am now the proud owner of a dead half-metamorphosed whateveryoucallit of a would-be Atlas moth plus caterpillar head what it had discarded. Although better than anything I've made in my garage (so far) it struck me as a rather convoluted way to make mouthless flappy things that live for ten days. Obviously things were a lot different before the fall of mothdom.

The main thing that struck me afterwards was that believers in 'biogenesis' - that kinds breed kinds alone - are believing in evolution apart from copying errors. They are not saying biology is wrong as much as saying as biology is supernaturally righter. God must intervene to stop evolution. I think they're bananas.

 

[marchog]

No, that's not quite right - it's sillier than that. They believe evolution works - even beyond a zoologist's definition of speciation - but kinds remain kinds.

 

[cjd]

No, that's not quite right - it's sillier than that. They believe evolution works - even beyond a zoologist's definition of speciation - but kinds remain kinds.

'Kinds' are a whole heap of fun.

Kinds were invented by the creationist pseudo-scientists as a way round the problem of gathering and including the earth's 1.4 million species (and between 10 & 100m estimated unknown species) into Noah's Ark.

Instead of assuming, like I did, that a kind - as mentioned in Genesis - is a zebra or a honey bee or a cod etc they had to say that a kind was horsey, insecty or fishy etc.

That's supposed to cut the number of species in the Ark down to a more believable (sic) size.

Once the flood recedes, they all disperse and then evolve into their relevant species - horsey kinds grow stripes and become zebras or get big ears and stubborn and become donkeys etc etc etc.

(Oh and they only have 6,000 years to do it of course.)

This hypothesis seems to be still under development - as far as I can see they like to think of a kind being similar to the proper scientific taxonomy of Family. (It goes Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species.)

They seem to be saying that species have been misclassified by biologists and the proof is that species can often interbreed and hybridise. Their big example is showing that Lions and tigers can inter-breed if pushed to produce a liger.

So they're now producing an index of hybrids in order to make the number of kinds as big as possible. So far the list of taxonomically classified species that they claim can hybridise stands at about 5,000

Amongst many fairly severe problems with this theory of course is that real biologists use whether animals can interbreed as a simple test for species too. So they have 1.395m to go; plus all the ones we've not discovered yet.

I often wonder why young earth creationists can't just believe it was a miracle and get on with it?

 

[marchog]

I was wasting my time and mescaline evolving crystal genes and photosynthesising clays, as space turns out to be saturated with the molecules of life. Amino acids are flying about all over the place. Catch a falling star and put it in your warm pond. I'm not posting any links as I'm still sulking. Answersingenesis can rip up their abiogenesis 'calculations' though. The universe is alive! Eat meteor earth-bound creationist fools.

 

[cjd]

It's a busy time for my newly favourite God/prophet - the Bab:

The Ridván Festival

The Ridván Festival is celebrated from sunset 21 April to sunset 2 May.

The festival marks Bahá'u'lláh's time in the garden of Ridván in 1863 and his announcement that he was the prophet promised by the Báb. Bahá'u'lláh ordained this festival 'Most Great Festival'.

The celebrations
Gary Heise has described an example of a Ridván celebration:

One of my favorite experiences of a holy day celebration was the Ridván Festival I attended at the Evergreen Cabin at the Wilhelm Bahá'í Properties in Teaneck, New Jersey.

This twelve-day period (April 21 - May 2) celebrates the time in 1863 when Bahá'u'lláh proclaimed His Mission as God's Messenger for this age at a garden in Baghdad, that became known as the Garden of Ridván (Paradise).

At the particular celebration I attended, the walls and even the windows were draped in white muslin, to represent an outdoor canopy. All the chairs had been removed; people sat on the carpeted floor on cushions and pillows.

The scent of rose-water filled the air as children and youth read from first-hand accounts of the early Bahá'ís as they had experienced that historic day in 1863. To me, the children's reading and prayers were especially touching.

Gary Heise

The 1st, 9th and 12th days are especially holy days. They commemorate the arrival of Bahá'u'lláh at the Ridván Garden, the arrival of his family and his departure.

These three holy days are marked by communal prayers and celebrations, and are days on which no work is done.

Since Abdu'l-Bahá's time, Bahá'í elections have normally been held during Ridván. Local spiritual assemblies are elected on the first day of Ridván, while elections for national spiritual assemblies happen later in the festival.

The declaration of prophethood
Bahá'u'lláh's declaration that he was the prophet heralded by the Báb was not made public for over a year.

Bahá'u'lláh made the annoucement when he arrived in Ridván to Abdu'l-Bahá and four others, but told them to keep it a secret.

Bahá'u'lláh did not just announce that he was the prophet. He also said that there would be no other prophet for 1000 years, that his followers could not fight to protect or promote the Bahá'í faith and that 'all the names of God were fully manifest in all things'.

The last statement is taken by Bahá'ís to mean that the world had been mystically transformed and that there was now a new relationship between God and humanity.

The Ridván Garden
The Ridván Garden in Baghdad was originally named Najibiyyih. Bahá'u'lláh renamed it Ridván, which means Paradise.

Bahá'u'lláh had been exiled to Baghdad from Tehran in Persia in 1853, but in 1863 the authorities began to fear that he might be a focus for political unrest there. It was decided that Bahá'u'lláh would now be exiled to Istanbul.

So that his family and followers could prepare for the journey, Bahá'u'lláh left his house on 22 April 1863 and moved to the Najibiyyih Garden, where he proclaimed the Festival of Ridván. The festival begins 2 hours before sunset on 22 April, as that was the time he arrived in the Garden.

Bahá'u'lláh also had a garden called 'Ridván' outside Akka during the final part of his life.

 

[marchog]

Here's a formal written debate on 'kinds' or macroevolution or whatever we're pretending doesn't happen but does. Some fantastic clear-thinking exposition by a patient expert.

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=65326

 

[cjd]

Here's a formal written debate on 'kinds' or macroevolution or whatever we're pretending doesn't happen but does. Some fantastic clear-thinking exposition by a patient expert.

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=65326

That was a tad embarrassing.

"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." - Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

 

[cjd]

Science and rationality is first out of the window when religion and politics get involved.

The Egyptian authorities have begun in earnest the slaughter of over 300,000 pigs, in what was originally described as a precaution against swine flu.

Officials now say the move is a general health measure aimed at restoring order to Egypt's pig-rearing industry.

The move has been widely criticised and the World Health Organisation says there is no evidence that pigs are transmitting the virus to humans.

Experts also point out that the flu cannot be caught from eating pig meat.

Pig-farming and consumption is limited to Egypt's Christian minority, estimated at 10% of the population.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8030611.stm

 

[LowcostPR]

So now we have H5N1, swine flu - a newly evolved virus which has the potential to change a few minds about whether god really does love us and whether evolution works.

right, I know it is really picky...... but H5N1 is Avian Flu (remember that one?).

Swine Flu is H1N1.

 

[cjd]

right, I know it is really picky...... but H5N1 is Avian Flu (remember that one?).

Swine Flu is H1N1.

Yup, you're correct on two points - H5N1 is avian and, yes you're picky

 

[marchog]

Well the evolution part of this should be a bit better than the religious average as the author is none other than Francis 'ice ice baby Jesus magic waterfall' Collins, and when not praising the big G for causing his daughter to be raped so that she could be set on the path of helping other rape victims, Collins is quite good at the old evo devo.

http://www.biologos.org/

 

[cjd]

Collins is an odd one.

There is no doubt he's a real scientist and because he's also a born again Christian he's also forced a few of the more rational evangelicals to think about the fact of evolution.

His entreaty to believers not to pitch their tents on a slope - ie don't fight the evidence - is quite memorable.

Unfortunately so is his revelation; it made embarrassing reading.

I'll watch his new nonsense with interest.

 

[tom applegate]

You know what they say. You are God - hence the expression, 'know thy self'.

 

[cjd]

I’m doing jury service at the moment – so far this means sitting around in a waiting room drinking bad coffee – but I couldn’t help noticing the oath that us jurors have to take in order to judge our peers.

The normal one is:
I swear by Almighty God that I will faithfully try the defendants and give a true verdict according to the evidence.

So even the judicial system is lumbered with belief.

Rather odd then that we are required to judge a person on the evidence and only on the evidence.

Btw – us heathens say this:

I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence

Personally, I think everyone should say the same thing and leave God out of it – if only because we don’t know which god they’re swearing on - if a Muslim holds the bible when he takes the oath – does it count?

 

[movietub]

I’m doing jury service at the moment – so far this means sitting around in a waiting room drinking bad coffee – but I couldn’t help noticing the oath that us jurors have to take in order to judge our peers.

The normal one is:
I swear by Almighty God that I will faithfully try the defendants and give a true verdict according to the evidence.

So even the judicial system is lumbered with belief.

Rather odd then that we are required to judge a person on the evidence and only on the evidence.

Btw – us heathens say this:

I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence

Personally, I think everyone should say the same thing and leave God out of it – if only because we don’t know which god they’re swearing on - if a Muslim holds the bible when he takes the oath – does it count?

Religion is entirely irrational like that. Thats why it is impossible to have a cohesive argument with a religion person about their faith! It's a bit like asking Gordon Brown if ID cards will ultimately become compulsary. You won't ever get a proper answer!