Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Hajj: Now With Free Internet Access!
Can't quite come up with the verse of the Koran you need
for an argument? Wondering about the Prophet's views on proper
attire for the hajj? Want to send mom a snap of you fulfilling your
once-in-a-lifetime religious obligation?
For the next couple of weeks in Mecca, pilgrims coming for the hajj will be able to Wikipedia answers to those questions and send email in a flash thanks to a temporary Wi-Fi mesh network covering much of the holy city.
Hajjis, as the pilgrims are called, come to the city in Saudi Arabia from around the world for several days of religious rituals. More than 2 million gather each year. A network of about 70 meshed routers from Tropos Networks has been set up to provide free Internet connectivity, according to Denise Barton, director of marketing at Tropos. Users only have to register before using it. Barton believes it is the first public Wi-Fi network set up for the Hajj.
How awesome is the modern world that those first three sentences appear next to each other? To review: Practitioners of an ancient religion visit a chunk of black stone (possibly a meteorite) more ancient even than their own faith. After a few times around the old Kaaba, they can retire and check their email. Outstanding.
Via Julian Sanchez
ed|12.21.07 @ 11:45AM|#
Practitioners of an ancient religion visit a chunk of black
stone...
You just can't make up stuff like this.
|12.21.07 @ 11:45AM|#
The Black Stone was white, but after being touched by menstruating women turned black. The fact that some people believe this in today's world is... not that surprising, I guess.
Anonymous Coward|12.21.07 @ 11:51AM|#
Is it just me or does that stone/frame combination look kinda like a... ya know....
Ali|12.21.07 @ 11:56AM|#
Can't quite come up with the verse of the Koran you need for
an argument? Wondering about the Prophet's views on proper attire
for the hajj? Want to send mom a snap of you fulfilling your
once-in-a-lifetime religious obligation?
LOL! Excellent KWM! Very well done :-)
Ali|12.21.07 @ 11:58AM|#
The Black Stone was white, but after being touched by
menstruating women turned black.
First time ever for me to hear that! Where do you get that
from?
FWIW, Muslims believe it has darkened in proportion to humans'
sins.
|12.21.07 @ 11:59AM|#
"John | December 19, 2007, 4:05pm | #
"the religious aspects of the holiday"
Then make fun of fasting during Ramadan or the elaborate dinners
Muslims have at the end of each day, or Hadj industry that is set
up in Mecca every year, or how more than few people are trampled to
death every year during the Hadj (gee something tells me REason
would have a few snarky things to say if people were rountinely
trampled during the Pope's Easter Mass). I don't care. Just do
something. Until you are willing to do that, lay the fuck off of
Christians for while, okay?"
I just want it known, I get results!! My compliments to Reason.
Ali|12.21.07 @ 12:01PM|#
John-David, Ah I see. It is mentioned in that wiki entry. However, I have to say that I have never heard of that stupid explanation ever.
|12.21.07 @ 12:12PM|#
... not that the other explanation is any more rational
;-)
Ali, as you know, I mock all religions with gusto. Putting that
aside, it is always refreshing to read a meember of the faithful
denouncing the sillier superstitions of their faith.
|12.21.07 @ 12:19PM|#
Now that this is outta the way, can we get the fuck back on the christians again?
Ali|12.21.07 @ 12:20PM|#
J sub D:
Ha! But I did not denounce it (to make a silly joke out of this
statement: I wish to keep my head were it is ;-) -- it is okay to
make jokes, I guess). I said it for what it is. This is part of the
faith. Faith does not have to always be rational. In fact, it is
not by its very definition, though some/much of it can be
rationalized!
Ali|12.21.07 @ 12:24PM|#
Oh.. and if any one is curious about what Lord Acton said about Muslims in his book the History of Freedom, visit my blog (first post as of today).
|12.21.07 @ 12:27PM|#
John, I don't think KMW was poking fun. It looks to me as though
she thinks it's kinda funny, but pretty cool.
Or is my sarcasmometer on the fritz again?
Brian Sorgatz|12.21.07 @ 12:42PM|#
When Atlas shrugged, I figured it would only be a matter of time before Satan got stoned.
|12.21.07 @ 12:50PM|#
I figured it would only be a matter of time before Satan got
stoned.
And I still can't reconcile belief in Satan and the claim of
Monotheism. Satan is obviously more powerful than Demeter. She was
a pagan "Olympic God". Why isn't Satan called a "Abrahamic
God"?
I've asked educated theists this question and never received a
satisfactory answer.
Brian Sorgatz|12.21.07 @ 12:52PM|#
I admit it's a fair question, J sub. Personally, I split the difference by thinking of God as paradoxically both one and many, if that makes any sense to anyone else.
Curious|12.21.07 @ 12:56PM|#
"Can't quite come up with the verse of the Koran you need for an
argument?"
Does the Koran mention if Mohammad did any miracles or did he just
wield a sword?
Brian Sorgatz|12.21.07 @ 12:57PM|#
By the way, though, Satan comes off as almost a figure of comic relief in the Bible. He always loses-especially if you don't count the serpent in Genesis as Satan (Genesis itself apparently doesn't).
|12.21.07 @ 12:58PM|#
Hajji
Wasn't he Johnny Quest's faithful side kick / adopted brother?
Wasn't he Indian BTW? Oh, that...never mind.
|12.21.07 @ 1:00PM|#
"John, I don't think KMW was poking fun. It looks to me as
though she thinks it's kinda funny, but pretty cool.
Or is my sarcasmometer on the fritz again?"
She really isn't poking too much fun. It is hardly a drunken Hitch
comparing Chistmas to North Korean politics, but I am in a
charitable mood today.
Pastor John|12.21.07 @ 1:03PM|#
"Why isn't Satan called a "Abrahamic God"?"
Because Satan isn't a god; he just wishes he were.
And that Demeter was a pagan Olympic "god" isn't remotely germane
to the discussion.
|12.21.07 @ 1:08PM|#
And that Demeter was a pagan Olympic "god" isn't remotely
germane to the discussion.
Really? The definition od "God" isn't germane? Okay. It's all clear
now Pastor John, Thanks a whole lot.
Brian Sorgatz|12.21.07 @ 1:08PM|#
Pastor John,
I'm inclined to think that polytheism, at least in some disguised,
rationalized form, will always be irresistible to humans.
For that reason, I acknowledge the fairness of J sub D's
question.
|12.21.07 @ 1:11PM|#
What? A post about Muslims and know one's shown up to berate us
for not being afraid of cyberattacks if there's wireless in Mecca.
For shame, bedwetters, for shame.
(Maybe the trolls are all attending the birth of WEISKOBOLD's
immaculate conception of the troll messiah... the solstice grows
near, the stars are right...)
Pastor John|12.21.07 @ 1:12PM|#
"It's all clear now Pastor John, Thanks a whole lot."
Glad to have been of service.
Episiarch|12.21.07 @ 1:17PM|#
Ali, sorry but all religions are stupid. Yours too. That doesn't
mean you aren't a good guy.
Isn't the Holy Trinity inherently polytheistic? And the saints are
the lesser pantheon?
|12.21.07 @ 1:18PM|#
Brian,
Satan comes off as an almost workman like figure in Job. This scene
in chapter one looks like something out of The Godfather with Satan
playing Luca Brazi.
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves
before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan
answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth,
and from walking up and down in it.
8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant
Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an
upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?
9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for
nought?
10 Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and
about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of
his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.
11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he
will curse thee to thy face.
12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy
power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went
forth from the presence of the LORD."
|12.21.07 @ 1:32PM|#
JsubD wrote: "I've asked educated theists this question and
never received a satisfactory answer."
The question is kind of meaningless unless you define Satan. The
conception of Satan has changed dramatically over the centuries,
and varies among religions and sub-sects. Many of those concepts of
Satan really have little basis in the Bible.
The BBC radio show In Our Time had a show on the history of the
devil that was pretty good. It's in the archive on the site, and is
streamable as realaudio.
|12.21.07 @ 1:35PM|#
"The Black Stone was white, but after being touched by
menstruating women turned black. The fact that some people believe
this in today's world is... not that surprising, I guess."
As opposed to the Old Testament rules that a man couldn't use a
chair on which a menstruating woman had sat, or sleep in the same
bed, etc, etc.
I'm sure someone, somewhere still follows such rules.
|12.21.07 @ 1:42PM|#
"How many people will die this year?"
Actually, I heard they made some changes in some troublesome
locations to ease traffic flow and reduce the likelihood of
trampling incidents.
For instance, at the spot where the pilgrims 'stone Satan', they
rearranged things so multiple groups of pilgrims can do so from
multiple locations. Or something to that effect. Anyway, I gather
the approach to that E-ticket ride was one of the troublesome
funnel points, so they fixed it.
|12.21.07 @ 1:49PM|#
This scene in chapter one looks like something out of The
Godfather with Satan playing Luca Brazi.
And verily, his first child WAS a masculine child.
Point to John for the Godfather reference.
Brian Sorgatz|12.21.07 @ 1:49PM|#
"And may the next Messiah be a masculine child...and may the next Messiah be a masculine child..." LOL
|12.21.07 @ 1:53PM|#
Thank you for inviting me to your temptation of Job...wince...one the day of your temptation of Job.
|12.21.07 @ 1:59PM|#
The conception of Satan has changed dramatically over the
centuries, and varies among religions and sub-sects. Many of those
concepts of Satan really have little basis in the Bible.
I've heard Satan described as an allegory for our base instincts.
That is, Satan doesn't really exist. I'm OK with that. It's like
theists who discount the flood in Genesis. It didn't happen we know
that, so it must be allegorical.
The working definition for this discussion is an immortal being who
possesses supernatural powers that affect our lives. Tempting
someone (emotional manipulation from a distance) is included in
supernatural power. How is a being like that, if he exists, NOT a
god?
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|12.21.07 @ 2:04PM|#
Ali, I am not Muslim myself but am VERY glad a blog such as yours exists. Thank you and I wish you the best of luck in promoting the philosophy of liberty among Islamic people. I truly and sincerly thank you.
Episiarch|12.21.07 @ 2:04PM|#
Tempting someone (emotional manipulation from a distance) is
included in supernatural power. How is a being like that, if he
exists, NOT a god?
So the models on the TV that give you a stiffy are gods now?
|12.21.07 @ 2:11PM|#
So the models on the TV that give you a stiffy are gods
now?
No, you theologically challenged individual. Television is the God.
It's immortal, the modals aren't. ;-)
Brian Sorgatz|12.21.07 @ 2:15PM|#
It's immortal, the modals aren't. ;-)
Everybody can should must might learn the difference
between a model and a modal.
Sorry. Punch me in the teeth.
Episiarch|12.21.07 @ 2:20PM|#
Everybody can should must might learn the difference between
a model and a modal.
Sorry. Punch me in the teeth.
POW!
How do you know he wasn't talking about a modal window?
Brian Sorgatz|12.21.07 @ 2:29PM|#
I didn't know there was such a thing as a modal window.
That's why I now find myself with my teeth knocked out, lying on my
back over shards of modal glass. Ouch! Cue the heroes'
theme music! I'm foiled again!
|12.21.07 @ 2:30PM|#
How awesome is the modern world that those first three
sentences appear next to each other?
No more awesome than a Japanese company (whose employees are mostly
Shinto) providing the funds for the restoration of the Sistine
Chapel, which work was made possible by scientists whose words were
on the Index.
|12.21.07 @ 2:30PM|#
Everybody can should must might learn the difference between
a model and a modal.
Brian Sorgatz, You are advised touse your grammer and spell
checkers for a couple of weeks. ;-)
Ali|12.21.07 @ 2:56PM|#
BTW, as far as Muslims are concerned, the structure that is the Kaaba means very little. It has been torn down and rebuild several times in history.
|12.21.07 @ 2:59PM|#
Somewhere right now a hacker is trying to figure out how to
place Mohammed the Teddy Bear
pop-up ads whenever a pilgrim logs in.
dhex|12.21.07 @ 3:12PM|#
I'm sure someone, somewhere still follows such
rules.
sure. a bunch of them live in brooklyn.
|12.21.07 @ 3:15PM|#
As opposed to the Old Testament rules that a man couldn't
use a chair on which a menstruating woman had sat, or sleep in the
same bed, etc, etc.
I'm sure someone, somewhere still follows such rules.
They're called Orthodox Jews.
Neu Mejican|12.21.07 @ 3:17PM|#
JsubD,
How is a being like that, if he exists, NOT a god?
I believe your best source for this would be John Milton's
Paradise Lost. Of course, you can also go with J. R. R.
Tolkien's The Silmarillion.
There is no reason to call all spiritual, non-human, powerful
beings gods. There are more classes of being recognized. The
concept of monotheism in the Abrahamic religions can comfortably
allow for God to have created many classes of being with various
powers.
|12.21.07 @ 5:09PM|#
So the models on the TV that give you a stiffy are gods
now?
I could worship at that altar.
to catch a predator prophet|12.21.07 @ 5:41PM|#
Does the Koran mention if Mohammad did any miracles . . .
?
Don't know if he did any miracles, but he did some little
girls.
|12.21.07 @ 5:50PM|#
The concept of monotheism in the Abrahamic religions can
comfortably allow for God to have created many classes of being
with various powers.
IOW, We can rhetorically split that hair. Does praying to something
make it a God in the eye of the petitioner? Being most familiar
with the Roman Catholic flavor of Christianity, I do remember
-
Hail Mary,
Full of Grace,
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women,
and blessed is the fruit
of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary,
Mother of God,
pray for us sinners now,
and at the hour of death.
Amen.
We won't eevn discuss the saints.
Neu Mejican|12.21.07 @ 5:55PM|#
JsubD,
I believe that the power of Mary is seen as interceding with God on
the prayer's behalf.
So, no, it doesn't seem to require that the petitioner see it as a
god, imho.
|12.21.07 @ 6:19PM|#
Catholics pray to mary and the saints because they want her/them
to intercede on their behalf. Protestants don't feel that that is
nessecary.
My christian belief is that there is only 1 God, with 3 "persons"
known as the Trinity. A human has eyes and hands and ears but that
does not make it multiple people.
Also, in regards to Satan, Satan was the cheif angel of God- he
rebelled against God due to jealousy. He is not God, nor a "god"
(in the poyltheistic sense), because he is not the creator or
soverign like God is. The Snake was conrolled by Satan. God only
removed his "hedge" of protection around Job to test him, which was
to assert that Job was indeed a true follower of God.
I also believe that you can't rationally believe in the universe
and not believe in a god of some kind.
Toast wept.|12.21.07 @ 6:35PM|#
Protestants don't feel that that is nessecary. [sic]
What does "no one comes to the father except through me" and "pray
like this" mean to those people? Obviously not as much as their
cult of ancestor worship.
|12.21.07 @ 6:46PM|#
The catholic church doesn't believe in the "bible alone"
doctrine that holds that the bible is enough for religous
propreity.
They hold traditon as important as the bible, which I find to be
rediculous.
I like the wesleyan quadralteral when it comes to doctine:
Scripture - the Holy Bible (Old and New Testaments)
Tradition - the two millennia history of the Christian Church
Reason - rational thinking and sensible interpretation
Experience - a Christian's personal and communal journey in
Christ
|12.21.07 @ 6:47PM|#
*by "Bible Only" i mean Sola Scriptura, which holdsthat the bible is the FINAL authority on doctrine, which the quadrilateral subscribes to.
|12.21.07 @ 7:41PM|#
I also believe that you can't rationally believe in the
universe and not believe in a god of some kind.
Why not? We can observe the universe. Solipsism aside, its
existence is patently obvious to everyone. Equating the belief in
something backed by such overwhelming and ubiquitous evidence with
a belief not backed by any evidence is hardly my idea of
rational.
I could just as easily (and accurately) say you can't rationally
believe in the existence of my garage and not believe in the
invisible dragon that lives within it.* It doesn't help my case any
if I further assert that the mere existence of my garage implies
that there must, in fact, be a dragon inside. Claiming the dragon
exists is bad enough in that I'm simply making a non-falsifiable
assertion with no evidence to support it, but to go further and
illogically claim the existence of one implies the existence of the
other just compounds the nonsense.
* Invisible dragon analogy borrowed from Carl Sagan's Demon
Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
Muslims Against Sharia|12.21.07 @ 7:43PM|#
Many people talk about the need to reform Islam. Now you
can stop talking and start helping.
With the help of our readers we went through the Koran and removed
every verse that we believe did not come from Allah, the Most
Merciful, the Most Compassionate. However, it is possible that we
missed something, and we could use your help. If you find verses in
the reformed version of the Koran that promote violence,
divisiveness, religious or gender superiority, bigotry, or
discrimination, please let us know the number of the verse and the
reason why it should be removed. Please email your suggestions to
koran-AT-reformislam.org.
When we finish editing process, we would like to publish Reform Koran in as many
languages as possible. If you could help with translation or
distribution of the Reform Koran, please email us at
koran-AT-reformislam.org. If you could provide financial support,
please visit our support page.
In Memoriam of Aqsa Parvez.
http://www.reformislam.org/reform.php
|12.21.07 @ 9:51PM|#
Well Mr. Courts, in order for the universe to exist it must have
a cause, aka a "god". (argument from universal causation)
Rather than assert that a god exists because the universe must have
a cause, you are simply stating two arguments "my garage exists"
and "this dragon exists" without any rational corrolation.
There is a difference.
|12.21.07 @ 9:53PM|#
As Adler put it: (courtesy wikipedia)
The existence of an effect requiring the concurrent existence and
action of an efficient cause implies the existence and action of
that cause.
The cosmos as a whole exists.
The existence of the cosmos as a whole is radically contingent
(meaning that it needs an efficient cause of its continuing
existence to preserve it in being, and prevent it from being
annihilated, or reduced to nothing).
If the cosmos needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence,
then that cause must be a supernatural being, supernatural in its
action, and one the existence of which is uncaused, in other words,
the Supreme Being, or God.
|12.21.07 @ 10:29PM|#
Well Mr. Courts, in order for the universe to exist it must
have a cause, aka a "god".
First, this is again simply an assertion. There is nothing that
requires the universe to have a "cause" besides your saying
so.
Second, even if we accept for the sake of argument your totally
unsupported claim that the universe does indeed need a cause, and
that cause is a god, then that leaves the question of what caused
this god. And of course whatever caused your god also must have a
cause, and so on.
So in the end with your line of argument you end up with either an
infinite series of causes which can hardly be called a "god" at all
in any meaningful way, or you are forced to accept that
something somewhere can simply exist without a cause in
which case you've just undermined your entire rationale for "god"
in the first place. Either way, the observed existence of the
universe does not imply the existence of a god.
|12.22.07 @ 12:25AM|#
NA
Supplemental to Brian Courts adept point re the infinite regress
implicit in the "cause" argument, I would suggest you read any good
popular summary of quantum mechanics. "Cause" is meaningless in the
quantum universe.
Your Adler quote is a classic example of a circular argument where
the conclusion is defined in the premise.
|12.22.07 @ 10:20PM|#
Well, im not a quantum physicist, but I can say that if a being
is in soverign power over the universe, it needn't be bound by its
laws. So if this entity does exist, then it does not need a cause
for it itslef created and is independent of our universal
laws.
Also, if this being is independent of our universe, then to try and
disprove its existence is impossible.
(That's beside the point)
But let me understand, are you saying that not every event/effect
has a cause in our universe? Isn't that a bit backwards? What next,
are we to believe in spontaneous generation?
|12.23.07 @ 12:05AM|#
But let me understand, are you saying that not every
event/effect has a cause in our universe?
Dr. T could answer this better than I, but here goes:
At the quantum scale, events are random, insofar as we can
determine. i.e, The successive state has no direct relationship
with the pre-existing state. There is no cause-and-effect
relationship between them.
However, every state is limited by the probability of the state
arising, defined in terms of the entropy of the system. It is the
sum of the probabilities which gives rise to the perception of
cause and effect.
For example, for each particle in your body, there is a probability
that it is in a particular place at any given time. The probability
that it will be at some other place at the next point in time can
be determined by its entropy. The successive place where that
particle will be is most likely to be near the point where it was
in the initial state. However, there is a possibility that the
successive point will be some arbitrary distance from the initial
point: one picometer or one kilometer away. The probability of it
being at the successive point drops off very fast with increasing
distance, but there remains a possibility that the successive point
will be one kilometer away.
The probability of a one kilometer change is so small that,
expressed as a decimal fraction, the number of zeros between the
decimal point and the first significant figure would fill the
entire observable universe many times over, but the possibility
does exist in quantum mechanics.
That is just for one particle. Taking it as a sum over the ~10^30
particles in your body, the probability of you vanishing from where
you are and reappearing the next instant one kilometer away is
infinitesimal.
Nevertheless, it is possible that this could occur. There would be
no reason or cause that it happened, but it could occur.
IOW, random, causeless events are possible.
At the quantum scale, every event appears to be random. At the
macroscopic scale you and I live in, events appear to be
determined, but only because of the sum of a vast number of
probabilities.
Neu Mejican|12.23.07 @ 12:26PM|#
Aresen,
You may find this interesting...a quantum causality review:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00003229/01/SuarezCausalInference.pdf
Neu Mejican|12.23.07 @ 12:28PM|#
Quantum Causal Networks,
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0710/0710.1200.pdf
raza|12.23.07 @ 7:42PM|#
ali.. another Muslim libertarian here! (i think, unless there is
an initiation rite)
interesting blog yours.
I think libertarianism is politically expedient in the Muslim
world, where interpretations of Sharia (or atleast "Islamic" law)
are drastically different. Fine, live by whatever law you want to
live by. If your views are shared by enough people, you wouldnt
need to legislate that public transport not play music, or
billboards not feature gawdily dressed women (as was the case in a
province of Pakistan recently). It will become infeasible,
economically.
A cool example of this I saw in Karachi (the liberal heathen city
of Pakistan) was me being disbarred from a mall, since Sunday was
family day (read: no single guys allowed harassing escorted women).
Fair enough, private property, your right to do so.
Wholesale redefinition of sharia will never be acceptable to most
Muslims, including myself.
|12.23.07 @ 7:58PM|#
Aresen,
As to causality, I was tempted to address the fact that, at the
very least, it is not something that can just be assumed to have a
clear, unambiguous physical meaning in all contexts. But
ultimately, I figured it wasn't necessary to bring that up in order
to address the argument at hand, and given all the philosophical
and scientific interpretations (e.g. in quantum mechanics it is
going to be dependent on one's preferred interpretation) that it
seemed like a hopelessly complicated issue to raise.
But there's even a more important objection to causality. When
we're talking about "cause" within the universe, whatever one's
interpretation of quantum theory, there is no reason to assume that
the same concept of "cause" would exist in an extra-universal
theory of cause and effect necessary for the argument that was
given. The laws of physics that we attempt to get at with theories
such as quantum physics and relativity, explain things
within the universe. If you want to assume those laws
do apply outside the universe (whatever that means) in
order for your chosen interpretation of causality to hold, then
you're also stuck with the fact that those same laws now explain
the extra-universal space so well as to leave little room for an
extra-universal god of the type he seems determined to find
evidence for. On the other hand, if you accept that the laws of
physics tell us nothing about this extra-universal space then your
causality theories are also gone so the argument fails.
As for Adler's argument above, in step 3 he simply assumes, albeit
with a lot of obfuscatory scientific-sounding language, that the
universe needs a "cause". It's much like the ID'ers who use
scientific sounding terms to try to hide the fact that their
argument entirely rests on the simple assertion that x is
just too complicated to have evolved.
Further, his conclusion is just more assuming what he wants to
prove. He says that whatever "caused" the universe must be both
supernatural and not in need of any cause itself - hence God! Well,
how convenient. So now we have a universe that needs a cause
because he says so, caused by a supernatural being, because he says
so, which doesn't need a cause, because he says so.
Look, if you want to believe some god exists outside of the laws of
the universe, fine by me, but don't pretend to use the laws of
physics and/or logic, which you claim this god to be outside of, to
try to deduce its existence. It's nonsense. You can't have it both
ways - using scientific (sounding) arguments when it suits you and
then dismissing them as not applicable to a god when it becomes
problematic. Just admit that a belief in god is not based on any
evidence, cannot be scientifically tested, and will never be proved
one way or the other. Of course, I realize that if you do that, it
gets much harder to distinguish your god from my invisible dragon,
but oh well... I still have faith in my dragon.
raza|12.23.07 @ 8:09PM|#
might be nitpicking here, and wholly uninteresting to readers,
but Kaba isnt a chunk of black stone (the cube structure is covered
with black cloth, not a black stone itself). It houses a black
stone though, but the stone's significance is completely different
from the Kaba's, it is infact much less significant. I've never
heard the menstruating women turning the stone black idea either,
the turning black through man's sins is whats commonly said.
Heres a relatively reliable reading (a cleric's answer to a
specific question about the stone's origin and significance)
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1124781357727&pagename=IslamOnline-English-Hajj_Umra/HajjE/HajjE
Probably the most authentic
|12.24.07 @ 11:29AM|#
Brian Courts
Good points.
One thing you mentioned struck a chord:
On the other hand, if you accept that the laws of physics tell
us nothing about this extra-universal space then your causality
theories are also gone so the argument fails.
In one of the popular articles I read about extra dimensions, the
writer mentioned that, if there was more than one time dimension,
causality could not operate.
Neu Mejican
Thanks, but WAY WAY over my head. I'm an interested layman at about
the Physics 200 level, not a doctoral fellow. That's why I would
have preferred Dr T. to answer.
Muslims are backward, murderou|12.26.07 @ 1:28PM|#
And while they are checking their email, they can do some
internet research on how Mohammed had sex with a nine year old,
slaughtered those who didn't agree with him, demonized the jews,
and called for the enslavement of all those who didn't "convert" to
Islam.
They can also look up the latest news on their co-religionists who
burn down newspaper buildings for publishing cartoons or news about
beauty pageants, kill nuns in retaliation at the pope quoting a 500
year old book, sentencing women to 200 lashes for being a victim of
a gang rape. They can also get the latest info on the most
backward, oppressive regimes in the world, the majority of which,
coincidentally, are muslim. And they can check the progress of the
case against Mark Steyn in Canada as well.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245