The supernatural

[MRC_Hans]

... And the skin grows again. And this torment will be repeated constantly. No. This is not the case. This vindictive revenge is far from the essence of God Almighty. These verses of torment are only similes and allegories. The password must be discovered. This is not one of the attributes of God. God is not avenger. God is kind. We have to find the password.
Do we need to examine what developments took place within the Planck period?
Why for the Qur'an the period of Saqr which is the limit of God. And it is important to start from the spark of God's light to create the universe and lead to its expansion. For two reasons: First - the origin of this world and the hereafter began from the same spark. And the material world goes back to the elementary particles. And second, with the dismantling of the material world, the anti-material world must also disappear. Because they are interdependent. But according to verse 67 of Sura 39, he says: The earth and the solar system will remain in the power of God on the Day of Resurrection. And it does not disappear.!
Meaning: "God is not known as it should be. The earth and the heavens will be in the power of God on the Day of Judgment. Glory be to God the Almighty, for whom there is no partner."
It says in verse 64 of Sura 29. Meaning: "This life of this world is nothing but entertainment and games. And the real life is in the abode of the Hereafter. If they only knew." And they are not separate. It is inferred from verse 21 of Sura 41: The burning hell of Saqr is the return of the material world to the place where the creation of matter began. And before the expansion of the universe.
And the space loosens. And loses its consistency. That is, the angels and the four forces of physics ascend to the side. And are removed from the universe. They are sidelined from the scene of the material world. I have already mentioned the signs of it. Mountains flow like running water! The sun goes down! The stars are falling! The sky is falling apart! And on that day it is God's will. And the creatures are assembled.
Where the Saqr of hell is that? It is a place that removes the shell due to high heat. And the objects of nature are set aside. And God's management in the material world is based on eight components. The Throne is God's command and management in the material world. And Saqr is the first stage of creating the material world.
Where elementary particles dominate. As soon as the quarks open, they are placed inside the neutron and proton shells. Now, everything is back to the original state of the expansion of the universe. As soon as matter enters the shell, quarks (quarks are located inside the shells of neutrons and protons) are removed. And the laws and causes of nature are referred to. And this definition is exactly the scope of oneness or the so-called scientific planck period.
God does not punish. The fate of the universe is to return to singularity. And we all get heat above 10 to the power of 32 degrees Kelvin. The material body of our world does not go to hell. Rather, we are recreated according to three theories: teleportation - quantum correlation or symmetry and exchange in singularity. Or we stay at this stage. (Misguided and disbelievers) or we pass. (Believers) and we will be held accountable on the Day of Resurrection. I hope the ambiguity of God's punishment has been removed for you. God is the Most Merciful. And does not torment. The destiny of the material world is as follows: to return to singularity. And return to the above heat.
hope to see you again.

And yada, yada.

Dear heydarian saeed: You are surely aware that others who claim to share your religion do interpret your holy texts differently.

However, let me ask you, who are YOU to claim that you have the right interpretation? When I read your holy book, I get a different message from what you claim. What are your credentials with your god that you claim that YOUR interpretation is the gospel?

Hans

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Your opinion that the constitution doesn't prevent banning religious instruction to children is one that I'm sure is not shared by the courts.

Nevertheless, you have revealed what atheists here truly believe: that there are NO gods and that it should be a crime to teach children to question that "fact".

You have ripped the "lack of belief" cloak right away from this forum.

There's a difference between "There is no god at all of any kind" and "the god of the bible/quran/torah isn't real". The first is something I think you would find no one stating with absolute certainty. The second on the other hand is simply true. The Abrahamic god does not exist because according to its own books it is logically impossible and self refuting.

Your added histrionics and pearl clutching is silly, but expected of someone who makes such obvious leaps in logic.

 

[Scorpion]

And yada, yada.

Dear heydarian saeed: You are surely aware that others who claim to share your religion do interpret your holy texts differently.

I have already warned Heydarian that Muslim extremists may accuse him of blasphemy, which carries a death sentence. Heydarian may think he is doing good by making modern scientific interpretations of the texts. But Rashad Khalifa probably thought he was doing good when he translated the Quran into English and modernized some of it. Muslim extremists killed him for his trouble.

In fact this thread is reminding me of my early attempts to criticize the Quran nearly twenty years ago on the now closed BBC forum.
I spent six months arguing with people who called themselves submitters, and followed the Rashad Khalifa translation of the Quran.
They rejected the Hadiths and followed the Khalifa Quran alone. I then discovered mainstream Muslims rejected Khalifa and his translation as blasphemous.

In the end we are debating heydarian's personal interpretation of the Quran, and we might just be wasting our time.

 

[psionl0]

Uh, did you not know that atheists believe that there are no gods?

I have lost count of the number of posters who have told me off (usually in ALL CAPS) for daring to suggest that an atheist believes something like that. It is a LACK of belief and only a heretic would suggest otherwise.

As for the other part, it should be a crime to tell children that religion is a fact.

The message I am getting is that it should be compulsory to teach children that there are no gods and any parent who permits their child to be given religious instruction should have their children taken away.

This is just another form of zealotry.

 

[Thor 2]

Isn't the fantasy Devil character an imperfect fantasy angel (in the fantasy story)?

Well obviously God was having a bad hair day when He created the Devil.

 

[Thor 2]

Hello. Welcome to our discussion. In the logic of the Qur'an and the word of God: the term "creation" is for man. The term "insert" is used for angels. The purpose of the creation of the universe by the command of God is to create "life" for man. The energies and forces (angels) are perfect. They are just the basis of human life. To serve man by the command of God. Let me prepare an article on this. I will upload it for you when it is ready. wait. Thanks

I never cease to be amazed at the way the faithful manage to make explanations for the inexplicable.

So God created man but only inserted angels.

 

[IanS]

The message I am getting is that it should be compulsory to teach children that there are no gods and any parent who permits their child to be given religious instruction should have their children taken away.

This is just another form of zealotry.

I don't know who said "it should be compulsory to teach children that there are no gods" or that religious parents "should have their children taken away"; I must have missed where someone said that; who said that?

But while we are casually idling away some time on this sort of "side-line" (which in any case might be more productive than trying to talk to heydarain) - What I said (and what I think others have said) is that in Christian societies (for example) junior age schools in particular should not have a standard curriculum that automatically includes year-long classes in Religious Education where the existence of an almighty creator God and the miracles of Jesus are presented as simply facts that the children should of course believe (and where for example that means they should learn to pray to the God regularly and worship the God & worship Jesus & the holy Bible etc.)

Instead, if we really have to have classes teaching children about religions such as Christianity, then I think it would better (much better) and certainly more honest, to teach children about what religious belief is, how it arose historically from other earlier religions that were limited/hampered by the educational standards that existed at that time 2000+ years ago, and why today we try to use scientific research wherever possible to decide what evidence really exists for things and hence what things are reasonable to believe as true, and to explain to the class how that impacts religious beliefs that originate from a pre-scientific age.

That would surely be a properly honest approach and a much more educational approach by teaching the children to think about all of that for themselves and decide for themselves using what can now be shown as genuine scientific evidence and as close as we can ever get to the “facts”/truth of such things.

The same should of course apply to the teaching of Islam in Islamic societies. Except of course it's very much harder to see where in Islamic countries anything like that would ever be allowed.

I have lost count of the number of posters who have told me off (usually in ALL CAPS) for daring to suggest that an atheist believes something like that. It is a LACK of belief and only a heretic would suggest otherwise.

Just for the record – I have in past threads argued here against that definition of merely “lacking belief”. So if you want my opinion on that, then for me what I call my “Atheism” is an actual “belief”, where I have simply concluded (almost entirely on the basis of science … but that is an absolutely huge and immensely detailed and tested basis) that a God of the type described in Christianity or Islam or almost any religion, is simply not credible (ie not a credible “belief”) in the light of what we now understand from modern science.

 

[Thor 2]

The message I am getting is that it should be compulsory to teach children that there are no gods and any parent who permits their child to be given religious instruction should have their children taken away.

Yes, I have heard people tell of receiving messages from no known source. Is it a kind of whispering you are hearing when all is quiet?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

1- Hi dear friend. Do not be upset and worried. I have told you many times. That God and the Qur'an do not command to kill anyone. Those verses are about his own historical events. And not for our time. Of course, it is a lesson. If the situation is the same. The procedure is the same as the action. This is very easy to understand. I do not understand what makes you not understand this. And you insist on denying it. Tell me and friends. What are you suffering from?
2- The contents of the Quran are scientific. And it has a lot to offer for modern science. I have said the Qur'anic material in several messages that have been proven by scientists. Remember I said: " there is quantum correlation and invisible consciousness in all beings in the universe." And we have different verses in the Qur'an on this subject. And Professor Suarez has proved this by experimenting with photons. The subject of "teleportation" is mentioned in at least three places in the Qur'an.
That Professor Roger Penrose has proved this position. I have provided you with objective evidence and valid experiments from respected Western scientists. Maybe you did not read these scientific messages of the Quran? Or you do not want to read and get to know the truth. The choice is yours. It is not mandatory. Just be rational. And do not rely on a baseless and invalid topic. Not good for your character. I like you.

And how does one determine that "verses are about his own historical events" and thus do not apply to the World today but are right and just forever as the revealed Word of God?

 

[psionl0]

I don't know who said "it should be compulsory to teach children that there are no gods" or that religious parents "should have their children taken away"; I must have missed where someone said that; who said that?

I was responding to statements such as,
"Filling a child's mind with lies is a form of abuse".
"When the honest answer to a child's question is "nobody knows", pretending that you do know is a lie and a betrayal of the child's trust".
"it should be a crime to tell children that religion is a fact".

These are not just some shrug your shoulders "who cares?" type statements. The posters making these statements clearly view giving religious instruction to a child to be a serious offense.

I agree with you that religious instruction should not be a part of a public school's curriculum (who's religion?) nor should religious practices (morning prayers etc) be exercised. Accredited private schools set up by religious organizations for the purpose of including their doctrine as part of their curriculum is a different matter (you don't have to send your child to that school if you object to their curriculum).

 

[Pixel42]

I was responding to statements such as,
"Filling a child's mind with lies is a form of abuse".
"When the honest answer to a child's question is "nobody knows", pretending that you do know is a lie and a betrayal of the child's trust".
"it should be a crime to tell children that religion is a fact".

These are not just some shrug your shoulders "who cares?" type statements. The posters making these statements clearly view giving religious instruction to a child to be a serious offense.

As one of those quoted I can assure you that no, that is not what I either said or meant.

There is a big difference between religious instruction and religious indoctrination. It's perfectly possible to provide religious instruction without pretending that religious beliefs are facts.

 

[psionl0]

There is a big difference between religious instruction and religious indoctrination. It's perfectly possible to provide religious instruction without pretending that religious beliefs are facts.

I don't know how religious instruction is not indoctrination but just to accommodate you,

you view giving religious indoctrination to a child to be a serious offense.

 

[Pixel42]

I don't know how religious instruction is not indoctrination

If you really can't tell the difference between "This is what we believe" and "This is what we know" I can't help you.

but just to accommodate you,

you view giving religious indoctrination to a child to be a serious offense.

I view it as morally reprehensible and a betrayal of a child's trust. An offence, serious or otherwise, suggests I think there should be some kind of official sanction for it, and I've made it clear I don't.

 

[psionl0]

If you really can't tell the difference between "This is what we believe" and "This is what we know" I can't help you.

Religion is about "faith" so using religious instruction to tell children what they should believe is still indoctrination.

Some people will claim to "know" rather than "believe" and may even try to tell us that their preferred religious text is scientifically based but those attempts inevitably fail.

I view it as morally reprehensible and a betrayal of a child's trust. An offence, serious or otherwise, suggests I think there should be some kind of official sanction for it, and I've made it clear I don't.

Recognizing that sanctions would be too difficult to define and administer doesn't mean that you wouldn't apply sanctions if it were practicable.

 

[IanS]

I was responding to statements such as,
"Filling a child's mind with lies is a form of abuse".
"When the honest answer to a child's question is "nobody knows", pretending that you do know is a lie and a betrayal of the child's trust".
"it should be a crime to tell children that religion is a fact".

These are not just some shrug your shoulders "who cares?" type statements. The posters making these statements clearly view giving religious instruction to a child to be a serious offense.

OK, but that does not say the law must take the children away, does it?

Pixel can say for herself what she means by that particular sentence. But iirc she already said in an earlier post that it would not be a practical possibility to stop parents teaching religion to their children & presenting it as known fact etc. So I expect that, like me, she was thinking there more there about how the law could be changed as it applies in schools.

It would be possible there to change the law to stop the sort of RE classes that teach the children as if God, the miraculous Jesus and the holy books etc. were all known facts that everyone accepted as certainly true etc. and where the children therefore had to pray to the God and worship God and the holy Jesus etc. Imho, we should not have that sort of teaching any more in modern educated 21st century democracies.

These are not just some shrug your shoulders "who cares?" type statements. The posters making these statements clearly view giving religious instruction to a child to be a serious offense.

In the UK, the school religion classes used to be called "Religious Instruction", at some time in the not too distant past that was changed to "Religious Education", because the idea of it being an "instruction" was thought to be too much like an insistence to the children to become religious/Christian. But afaik, the content of the classes did not radically change (no more than with any other school subject where each year the teaching staff might propose changes to the lessons and new ways of presenting it etc.) ... BUT, what I think is being complained about here by those who you described as "the posters making these statements", is again where that "instruction" is to present God, Jesus, the miracles, the holy nature of the books etc., as if it were known fact which all honest decent citizens supported, ie as if the entire story is of course absolutely true ...whereas in fact, as far we can determine from all known genuine evidence (inc. very precise and very extensive evidence from science), all of that essential basis of the religious teaching is actually UNTRUE ...

... that "Untruth" is not merely a mistake. The teachers, including priests & others actually employed within religion, know very well that what they are proclaiming to the children as certainly all true, is very highly disputed and where the science is now massively against them ... they know that ... they know for example that Evolution shows how God could not have made any humans, and yet they are still teaching that Gods creation of humans is THE central message of the bible and THE entire purpose of why God exists or made anything at all ... they know all that ... but afaik, the RE classes are not emphasising any of that to the children ... they are not telling them that the discovery of evolution explains how humans and all other animals exist without any role for any God ...

... that sort of teaching is indeed aimed at indoctrinating young children into a lifelong belief system of religious devotion and worship etc., despite the fact that the teachers must, if they have any credible scientific education at all, know very well that the entire basis for their religious faith has been completely undermined if not actually all swept away by scientific discoveries such as evolution.

I won't go on any more about it just now (because it's probably getting too extensive now), but just finally on all of that - this is not just teaching children to believe things that are mistaken. This is not just some honest mistake. On the contrary the entire purpose of those RE classes in schools is to turn the children into lifelong faithful believers supporting the church and continuing the faith etc. And as we've said before, the problem with that is that all of these faiths, Christianity, Islam and the others, inevitabley & repeatedly become lethally dangerous (sometimes on a worldwide scale).

 

[Pixel42]

Religion is about "faith" so using religious instruction to tell children what they should believe is still indoctrination.

Some people will claim to "know" rather than "believe" and may even try to tell us that their preferred religious text is scientifically based but those attempts inevitably fail.

Whilst I was at primary school I was also sent to a C&E Sunday School where I learnt all the Bible stories and the teachings of Jesus. I took it very seriously (I won 4th prize in a county wide essay competition when I was eight, my teacher was so proud). When I was in my final year at primary school we learned about evolution, and I saw immediately that it was incompatible with the Adam & Eve story I'd been told. I remember nothing more than a mild confusion before working out that Adam & Eve = story, evolution = fact. I can't remember 60 years later the wording the Sunday School teacher used when telling us Bible stories, but I'm pretty sure what happened to me was instruction, not indoctrination.

A Mormon poster on another forum I belong to once started a thread in which he attempted to proselytise his religion to us heathens. His habit of using "I know" instead of "I believe" quickly became irritating, but he ignored all requests to stop claiming knowledge where none was possible. He insisted that he did indeed know everything he was telling us, because he had asked God if it was true and got the promised "burning in the bosom" to confirm it. Another poster then posted a link to an LDS nursery manual he had found online, which specified how Mormon children were to be "instructed" from as soon as they could speak. They basically had to chant over and over again "I know ...." followed by a Mormon belief - "I know Joseph Smith was God's prophet" etc. Over and over again. Every day. For their entire childhood. From as soon as they could speak.

The distinction between the religious instruction I received and the religious indoctrination to which Mormon children are subjected seems clear to me. It's the latter I object to, not the former.

Recognizing that sanctions would be too difficult to define and administer doesn't mean that you wouldn't apply sanctions if it were practicable.

OK, I admit that I wish it was possible to stop Mormon parents deliberately putting their children's minds into mental straitjackets from which many will never escape without doing more harm than good. But it isn't, so the point doesn't seem worth arguing about.

 

[psionl0]

< ... snip ... >

I won't go on any more about it just now (because it's probably getting too extensive now), but just finally on all of that - this is not just teaching children to believe things that are mistaken. This is not just some honest mistake. On the contrary the entire purpose of those RE classes in schools is to turn the children into lifelong faithful believers supporting the church and continuing the faith etc. And as we've said before, the problem with that is that all of these faiths, Christianity, Islam and the others, inevitabley & repeatedly become lethally dangerous (sometimes on a worldwide scale).

Too much to digest here but it sounds like you are referring to schools that teach creation instead of evolution in the science classes etc. I am not supporting anything like that whatsoever. Even if a school has a class for "religious education" that doesn't mean that they can make up their own curriculum for the other subjects that are taught. A school can't be accredited if it substitutes WOO for STEM.

As for "lethally dangerous", that is a gross exaggeration - especially when you compare what people will profess to do in God's name to what people are prepared to do in the pursuit of money or power. Religion for the most part teaches people to be honest and charitable (although a lot of hypocrisy goes on). Yes, some fools can cause great distress to followers by convincing them that they are going to hell. But that is not the norm.

Even then, when it comes to really violent acts like suicide bombing, you can't just go into some Sunday school class and say, "You, you and you, strap on some bombs!" These youths have to be radicalised. This involves subjecting them to a constant stream of hate messages by charismatic leaders who are only concerned with their own power.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Too much to digest here but it sounds like you are referring to schools that teach creation instead of evolution in the science classes etc. I am not supporting anything like that whatsoever. Even if a school has a class for "religious education" that doesn't mean that they can make up their own curriculum for the other subjects that are taught. A school can't be accredited if it substitutes WOO for STEM.

Oh? Why not? Who are you to decide which beliefs are valid enough for schools?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Oh, and ...

I have lost count of the number of posters who have told me off (usually in ALL CAPS) for daring to suggest that an atheist believes something like that. It is a LACK of belief and only a heretic would suggest otherwise.

Ya, ya, I've seen that sort of hair-splitting. I expect (that is, I know) that there are dogmatic atheists out there who claim to know that no gods exist. Since the same people tend to say that religion is an unfalsifiable claim, they have a small dilemma.

The rest of us 'assume'/'are convinced'/'believe' there are no gods.

The message I am getting is that it should be compulsory to teach children that there are no gods and any parent who permits their child to be given religious instruction should have their children taken away.

This is just another form of zealotry.

Personally, I'm fine with teaching children the essentials of all important religions. Preferably as unbiased as possible.

Hans

 

[IanS]

Too much to digest here but it sounds like you are referring to schools that teach creation instead of evolution in the science classes etc. I am not supporting anything like that whatsoever. Even if a school has a class for "religious education" that doesn't mean that they can make up their own curriculum for the other subjects that are taught. A school can't be accredited if it substitutes WOO for STEM.

As for "lethally dangerous", that is a gross exaggeration - especially when you compare what people will profess to do in God's name to what people are prepared to do in the pursuit of money or power. Religion for the most part teaches people to be honest and charitable (although a lot of hypocrisy goes on). Yes, some fools can cause great distress to followers by convincing them that they are going to hell. But that is not the norm.

Even then, when it comes to really violent acts like suicide bombing, you can't just go into some Sunday school class and say, "You, you and you, strap on some bombs!" These youths have to be radicalised. This involves subjecting them to a constant stream of hate messages by charismatic leaders who are only concerned with their own power.

Well, actually, "No" to all of that! That is NOT what I am saying, and clearly not at all what I said ...

... but I'm not going to explain it yet again.