The Concept of Eternal Damnation in Islam

Warren Hopper wrote:

That's very true. Secularism, in my view, is a 'reactionary'
philosophy; without past abuses of the Christian Church, it might not

Mathematics is far older than Christianity, or any existing religion.

There was no way for the Medieval Church to either stop or promote the
Enlightenment, it was the product of two thousand years of intellectual
inquiry into nature and the world. It was unstoppable. The first hurdle
was helio-centric astronomy, and the "earth around the sun" model was long
overdue. Simple observations supported it ( ships rising out of the sea )
and more exact measurements and mathematical modeling proved it beyond
doubt. All the necessary information was available, it only took daring to
make the leap and accept it as the truth.

How does one stop the emergence of truth ? Could the Church have created
and propagated a false mathematics to misguide scientists of the future ?
That's the only way they could have achieved it, and then who would have

What you are suggesting is mostly true for Western history, but in
Islamic history the problem was not that religion was opposed to
science but scientists themselves were not sure.

Al-Biruni (973-1048), for example, was well aware of both the
geocentric and heliocentric system but couldn't prove or disprove
either one of the two theories. He writes:

"I have seen the astrolabe called 'Zuriqi' invented by Abu Sa'id Sijzi.
I liked it very much and praised him a great deal, as it is based on
the idea entertained by some to the effect that the motion we see is
due to the Earth's movement and not to that of the sky. By my life, it
is a problem difficult of solution and refutation..." He goes on to
say, "Besides, the rotation of the Earth does in no way impair the
values of astronomy, as all appearances of an astronomical character
can quite as well be explained according to this theory as to the
other. There are, however, other reasons which make it impossible. This
question is most difficult to solve. The most prominent of both modern
and ancient astronomers have deeply studied the question of the moving
earth, and tried to refute it. We, too, have composed a book on the
subject called 'Miftah'ilm al-hai'ah (Key of Astronomy), in which we
think we have surpassed our predecessors, if not in the words, at all
events in the matter."

According to Seyyed Hossein Nasr, author of "An Introduction to Islamic
Cosmological Doctrines," [quotes are also taken from the same book]
"Towards the end of his life al-Biruni finally decided in favor of the
geocentric system mainly for physical reasons. His calculations of the
speed needed for the rotation of the Earth seemed to him unreasonable
and too great to be comfortable to terrestrial conditions." [Al-Biruni,
al-Qanun al-mas'udi, I 59ff; also, S. Pines "La Theorie de la rotation
de la terre, "Journal Asiatique, 244; 305 (1957)].

Like religion, secularism can be very intolerant. Stalin, Pol Pot and
Enver Hoxa of Albania (who hanged people if they were caught praying)
probably thought of themselves as "secularists." And it can be argued
that because of the intolerance of atheistic secularists, who have
never forgiven any incident of religious expression at public schools,
the Religious Right has grown in great opposition.

Intolerance is an attitude that has little to do with religion or
secularism. It's a cultural problem.

Yes. It starts as the little voice inside of us that says 'them', whoever
'them' is.

It's refusal to see "us" in "them." Moreover, it's obnoxious pride vs.
endless struggle to level the playing field.

My view is that every society requires moral foundation on which to
build its social structures. Atheists would argue that collective will
of the populace in a democratic society or science is the only criteria
by which one can know right from wrong.

Not really. I might be regarded as an atheist myself, in the sense of
not-theist, but I believe in a concept of 'god' nonetheless.

First, I think that anyone who talks about 'god' doesn't know what they are
talking about, so that might make me an agnostic, the "I Don't Know" school,
either by exclusion or by assertion.

And so it might lead me to agnosticism, except for some peculiar properties
of carbon which are in need of some explaining. Like, how in the world did
carbon manage to coil itself around and form DNA and yada-yada, the whole
biological automatism ? I could accept the spinning suns and whirling
nebula as the works of a great and long-departed master mechanic, but that
coil of carbon really demands an explanation. It's a mighty unlikely
combination of physical and chemical laws to occur that just happen to
produce organic chemistry, miraculous to say the least, maybe more than
miraculous.

I can tell you that anything that is meaningful doesn't happen by
chance. When you consider that this universe, and life in particular,
must have required not one miracle but literally countless more to
create the balance, beauty and complexity that we find today, belief in
God becomes very rational.

I think of myself as a deist, believing in a manifestion of Divine
Principle, no willful god for me, certainly none whose will I am capable of
comprehending as a 'will'. In my conception, god doesn't need a will
because it implies that something isn't complete or has been left undone or
isn't the way it should be ( a clear impossibility ). It is that-which-is
and it doesn't need to be anything other than that which it is.

It all depends on how you define Divine "will." As Quran says, "God
helps those who help themselves." So God's will has a lot to do with
what you'll do with your will. Having said that, one needs to keep in
mind that from God's unique perspective, days of future have already
passed; God lives in the present as well as in the future.

If you believe that this world is just a transition, a place where a
person is tested and tried, and there is a better world to come, it all
begins to make sense. If you don't believe that, the world can
certainly look imperfect, even cruel.

There is room for evolution and change, in the early cosmos carbon and many
other elements didn't exist and needed to be forged inside of ordinary stars
over a few billion years, up to the weight of iron, from there it takes a
supernova to forge the heavier elements.

I see mathematics and science as the emergence of that-which-is, including
the mumbling inside the heads ( ? ) of sentient beings on a billion or so
worlds in the universe, who suppose themselves to have some claim to being
counted among 'intelligent' life, though the jury is still out on us
earthlings, I think.

Quran calls God "Lord of the worlds." So I am sure there are many
other worlds out there. Extra-terrestrial life may not be carbon or
matter-based.

So I call myself a deist of a sort, the classic Diety of Issac Newton, but a
diety with an incredibly delicate touch when it came to designing carbon
chemistry. I retain several additional doses of humility for myself thrown
in for good measure ( though Sir Issac had no cause for humility, he had it,
wise man ).

I think it's great that you at least believe in God. Ninety-nine
percent of Islam is "Tawheed," which is essentially faith in the
oneness of God. If you have reached that stage by speculating on your
own that is truly a great achievement.

But, whatever the inner workings of the Diety, the sheer scale of the whole
thing is quite impossible to comprehend for anyone, any human, any sentient
being on the billion worlds. The Universe is *enormous*, with vast reaches
of nothing but darkness. If the Universe were the body of god, the tinest
fragment of that body, a single organic molecule within a cell, would be
vast beyond our imagining. It is humbling, and frightening.

The vastness of space is perhaps not difficult to understand. You can
create small and scale it, and as long as you can move an object over
vast distances, you can create space around it. I don't know if you
have ever used any graphic software, but to imagine what I am
suggesting, let's say that you draw a circle on your computer and you
call it Earth. If you can zoom in and out, you can put incredible
detail within "Earth" and draw or copy other objects, which in
scale would be billions of miles apart. Having done that, if you could
somehow make it all real and enlarge to the right scale, you in fact
have created a "universe," to which you can keep adding things.
What I find more amazing and "humbling" is (God's) ability to
control and keep track of everything.

Science increases my wonder at the world. How amazing it is to be alive.
An old Japanese poem,

How miraculous,
I sweep, I draw water.

Realizing that there are too
many religious people who vote the wrong way, some secularists also add
the condition that there ought to be complete separation between
religion and the state. The problem is that secularists themselves rely
on moral/religious principles of the majority to have a stable society.

It's a proble-tunity at worst. In fact, the moral/religious principles of
the majority often work very well, the more mixed the population, the
better. Common sense morality, in the sense of a shared social norms, seems
to be the best kind of morality in the long run, so it seems to me.

For example, the saying "do unto others .... " as an ethical or social form
of morality shows the highest degree of rationality.

I was listening to a radio interview yesterday, in which the former
Iranian ambassador to the UN said that moral teachings of all religions
can be reduced to two words: apology and appreciation. There is great
deal of truth in that. As I had stated earlier, the advantage to
religion is that moral teachings can be 'packaged' together;
religion's efficient conformity helps keep order in society.

I often use a more restricted definition of morality, as an question with no
pre-determined answer, the only correct answer being the one I am compelled
make. For example, if the doctor says I have 3 months to live, should I go
visit dear old friends or run with the bulls in Torremelenos ? What's the
correct answer ? A moral question can only be answered by an individual,
not by a body of laws or common understandings.

A disagree with your last statement. Most people don't have a good
understanding of what life is all about, and I don't think they can
make the right choices even when the angel of death is standing outside
their door. The only way to have peace in your heart is to love God and
help others.

Life and death issues are frequently involve moral questions, like the mass
euthanization of Hiroshima survivors by Japanese physicians after the
attacks, at least 10,000, maybe 20,000. Did the physicians behave
immorally, did they do the wrong thing ? Laws and clear-cut rules of
conduct can guide the outcome of ethical questions, not moral questions.

You make a distinction between ethical and moral questions. I don't
think that ought to be the case.

I am one of the few people I know who have dared to see pictures of
Hiroshima victims. I wouldn't wish what they suffered on my worst
enemy. No torture can come close to it. In this case I would say
euthanasia was an act of great mercy. When the only way to stop
'unbearable' pain is death, which from my perspective is not
necessarily a bad thing, it ought to be hastened.

But the common sense 'social' morality of a relatively well-educated and
well-mixed populous is not to be sneered at, baring massive disinformation
campaigns and election box skullduggery.

:- )

For example, if a simple majority decides tomorrow that there is
nothing wrong with incest, what's stopping them?

Are you going to get up on a soapbox and propose it ? If so, I suggest
flying to London and doing it in Hyde Park, they might even think you are
one of the old British aristocracy. :-)

LOL. As I told Tony, the only reason I used that example is because
that was the most non-controversial, as 99.999% of the people are
against it. I didn't want to start another abortion or gay rights
debate.

On what basis would
you prove them wrong? Furthermore, how would you prevent a religious
majority from implementing its beliefs through democratic means, if
it's done without overt expressions of faith? In Turkey, they have a
military to decide and take care of that; here you have nothing. In
other words, secularism and democracy, defined as rule of the majority,
may not always be compatible.

That's sounds like right traitorous talk there, Mister. I like it. ;-)

:- )

LOL.


OK, it's a hot day and I'm feeling cranky, so let's say I take the bait on
this one.

Do I hear the words "here you have nothing" uttered in apparent seriousness
? Are these the words you wish to stand by ? Are we describing the
principles our honored fore-fathers laid down for us ? Hell, no ! John
Adams I ain't, but even I can answer that one.

There was a method to their madness. There's not one democracy, not two
democracies, but no less than three (!), yes that's right, three separate
democracies at work all at once. The executive, the legislative and the
judicial, the closest thing to trinity that can exist on earth. When they
operate independently according to their given responsibilities, they work
very well.

There've been adjustments along the way, judges used to be elected more
often than they are today, the legislative selection process is no more
political than an outright election. Able people get placed in responsible
positions far more often than not. The system works, and sometimes we
adjust it to make it work better.

That's not to mention the states and localities, which can be almost
independent political entity in some cases. California law and juries are
famous. When states or localities make odd laws, it can take years to get
them struck down. And then enforcement of existing laws can be very lax
depending on the mood of the locals. So there's a lot of variety and
variation possible within a general gridwork of commonly accepted legal
principles. It's got structure and flexibility at the same time.

I could go on indefinitely with this point, but if the question is only of
the system, then the democratic and so-called 'secular' systems of
government are IT. It's actually difficult for me to attach the phrase
'system of government' to anything else.

An example is Iran, which I might on a good day admit to being a very weak
form of a 'system of government', but today isn't a good day. Even after
the political candidates are selected according to their religious
acceptability ( a questionable process in itself ), the supposedly elected
officials are constantly running back to the 'unelected government' for
approval of their actions and laws.

One might say that the American judiciary is a mostly unelected government,
but that's a pragmatic issue and not a principle of government. They are
restricted to the body of our law ( similar to Islamic courts ), but that
body is flexible and changeable according to changing conditions and
attitudes of the citizens ( granting that it is also true of Islamic law, to
some extent ). But that's not to mention the impact of our jury system
which seems to have no equivalent in Islamic courts, but which ( again ) is
not sneered at by anyone who has seen it in action. Again both structure
and flexibility, on several levels in fact.

On the other hand, people make the system work and not the system people.
Any system depends on well-informed and well-educated people to make it
run. The people are more or less independent of the system. Both the
American system, however good, and the Iranian system, however flawed, must
have good people to make them go.

I love the Russians and have often said that only a people as great as the
Russians could have done so much with such a rotten form of government. The
greater a people, the worse their government ? I'm not sure if that's true,
but it could apply equally to the Chinese.

Aside: I'd support an Amendment to the Constitution of the Ewe-Nighted
States of America to allow Tony Blair to run for President. I think he'd
win by a landslide.

The argument you are making is what I expected: "it's not going to
happen in this country" And the reason you would say that is because
recent elections have been so close. It would be very difficult for any
political party to have two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress
and run three-fourths of all the state legislatures, in order to amend
the Constitution, but that 'can' happen someday. Suppose that the
Christian Right becomes so popular that they achieve this feat and they
ban abortion. What choice would judiciary have but to go along?

We need to redefine "secularism," especially for the rest of the world;
it should not be absence of religion in politics but simply promoting
tolerance, recognizing that there is always another body of law that
exists in people's hearts, which cannot be taken away from them.

Within bounds, yes.

Polygamy is an interesting case ( or polyandry ), I don't have a problem
with eyes-open contractual arrangements of any sort, but I would not
encourage it and actively discourage it, the same way I would discourage
anyone about to get involved in an off-shore tax avoidance scheme, they are
probably going to get ripped off.

But, personal feelings aside, our society pretty much condemns and will keep
on condemning 'multiple marriage' for some time to come. But there may be
chance of a breakthrough in the next few years. I think people many be
changing their minds on the issue, marriage as a contractual committment
made by the participating parties. Those old grizzled Utah polygamists may
be able to get something going on the state level, and then survive a
federal challenge. We'll see.

The point is that people's views on moral issues can change, they are not
immutable.

I agree.

Caesar
needs God and God appoints Caesar to have some order in society.

Did he bring order ? Looks like he brought a civil war to me.


Arright, a 'wise' Caesar-a Democrat who hasn't sold his soul to
the Devil or the Israel Lobby : -)

I made several attempts to read "Critique of Pure Reason" and
finally gave up : -) Philosophy has been a difficult subject for me,
partly because of my bias that it is a structure built on definitions
without a solid foundation. During the past few decades, some people
have tried to save this structure by underpinning it with scientific
facts, but the attempt has not been totally successful.

Oh no, I don't agree, not at all. Whatever is true does not cease being
true because of bad definitions.

If we get down to it, the definitions of the classical Roman Stoics are
still very good after all these years, Stoicism could pass as a sort of
scientific/materialistic religion. I think the problem is that 'secularism'
can devolve into a cult of individuality, a sort of enforced individuality,
with expectations of individuality placed upon people which can become like
forced democracy, clearly impossible.

But we can't say what is right or wrong in a world without clear
definitions, particularly for young people. How does one even ask, what is
the question ? To some extent, the higher level ideas must be axiomatic,
it's a good definition because it works well.

In any case, whatever ambiguity there may be about the term 'transcendental
ego' or whatever, it is swamped by the ambiguity of terms like 'God' or even
more ambiguous, the 'Will of God'. It's a qualitatively different ballgame
for formal philosophy and even more so for formal science, however imperfect
their definitions may be.

Do people really worry about definitions if they experience the sensation of
being carried along in hands not their own ? I refer specifically to
certain near-death experiences I've had on the side of steep cliffs. Was it
real ? Does it matter if it was real ?

I think I've mentioned this before, our fundamental mental model of physical
entities like 'electrons' is wholly unfounded. They either exist in a
certain state or don't exist according to how we measure them. It is quite
literally true to say that electrons do not exist, in the same way we might
say that unicorns do not exist. Unicorns exist only in our minds and so do
electrons, other than when we run an experiment to get images of them
flickering in and out of a certain state of existence. Otherwise, there is
no example of a concrete billiard-ball type of thingie to fill our
conceptual category 'electron'. Highly counter-intuitive, but literal
truth, as far as I can see.

The finding that physical reality does not exist could turn out to be a
major black-eye for physicists. Big budget cuts coming, guys ! :-)

It's difficult to discuss religion, philosophy and science at the
same time. I am not disagreeing with everything that you have stated,
but let me clarify something that I said earlier. I am not against
"definitions," which I do agree are often necessary. My point was
that definitions have to be based on facts-a firm foundation on which
rests the structure of religion, philosophy or scientific theory.
However, the criteria for judging what can be accepted as 'fact"
for all three can be vastly different. Religion is based on history,
religious experience, trust, internal consistency, and the mental
capacity to acknowledge that complex systems in nature couldn't
possibly have originated on their own. Philosophical truths are based
on having agreement on an ounce of truth and from it creating tank-full
of fuel for thought. Scientific facts are based on experimentation, but
which, as you've pointed out, also rely on certain assumptions.

In the effort to find conceptual definitions, I would also include music as
a fruitful hunting ground. Things can be expressed and understood with
music that can not be expressed in any other way.

Music is magical but it can also deceive you. For example, it can lead
you to think that a particular song was 'for you' or that it
represented the exact feelings of somebody you love. And because you
have memories and a desire to be loved, you can fool yourself very
easily. My advice to the broken-hearted is that they should avoid
music for at least six months after a breakup. Music can be a source of
additional pain and disillusionment :- )

Most people are aware that their inner being somehow transcends
tangible reality; they just don't know how to prove it. And that's
where philosophy and science can come up with all kinds of theories.
While preconception is an enabler to see the truth of any theory,

Logic seems to exist independently of ourselves, and by extension the
existence of mathematics is independent as well. Whether or not our
theories of matter are true, we should be interested in the serious of the
conceptual problems encounter when an 'electron' does not 'exist', in our
everyday sense of the word 'exist'.

philosophy or ideology, it is also the greatest human weakness.

Oh no no no, the greatest human weakness is love.

Okay, but love is also based on preconceptions.

I usually don't talk about religion belief per-se, I mostly talk about
religious reasoning which is a different subject in ways, some people think
that religious reasoning can not be done all, but I think it can.

That's a very good attitude.

I grew up in a Christian tradition but didn't accept much of what I heard
without reflection. Actually it was part of our religious beliefs that an
individual is responsible for and committed to forming their own
understanding rathert than accpet dogma, not that I cared much about it as a
kid. But by the time I got out of college I had read the New Testement
perhaps a dozen times, and I've read it about one or twice a year for the
last 30 years. I have my own views on Christ's message, and the events
surrounding his life and death.

But one message is absolutely clear, here was a man who would rather die
than kill. Why would he do that, rationally speaking ? It can take many
years to begin to understand the answer to that simple question. And a keen
interest in some of the odd properties of carbon is not necessarily a bad
way to go about it.

I too would rather die than kill another human being, and I am sure you
are the same way. If you believe in life-after-death, death doesn't
seem that bad. It's like checking out after a long stay at a hotel
and going home.

As you already know, we Muslims don't believe that Jesus was
crucified. Even in the New Testament, Jesus never claimed that he was
dying for our sins or that human sacrifice is needed for expiation of
sins. The Biblical/Quranic story of Abraham wanting to sacrifice his
son should be enough to dissipate this commonly-held Christian belief.
In Abraham's time, human sacrifice to false gods was common. To test
Abraham, whether he loved his true Creator at least as much as pagans
loved their gods, God showed him the same dream for three consecutively
nights. In the dream, Abraham saw that he was sacrificing his only
begotten son. As God expected, Abraham took that hint literally. But
before Abraham could make that ultimate sacrifice, God replaced Ishmael
[Jews say it was Isaac] with a lamb. God ended up proving that He is
not as cruel as pagan gods by asking for such sacrifices; a simple
confession and promise to do good in future is enough.


So,
while the feeling of transcendence may be genuine, the attempt to
define it or dismiss it as mere imagination is not unbiased.

By what mechanism or feat of Chesire Cat logic could anyone dismiss the
feeling of transcendence. What art thou that thou dismisseth thyself, so to
speak ?

LOL. Good one.

Good point. I think only in recent times wealth has become an indicator
of who is right. In this newsgroup, for example, moron after moron has
claimed that just because Jews have won more Nobel Prizes, Israel has
made tremendous progress as compared to its neighbors, or that the US
is the biggest Super Power, they are right and Muslims are wrong.

I'm not one for material progress as an absolute measure of goodness, unless
it's related to life and death issues, then it's deadly serious and no one
in the world should die for want of medical attention and commonly availible
drugs. Or from lack of nutricious food. So, material progress is not
entire devoid of goodness in itself.

Aside: I'd support an Amendment to the Constitution of the Ewe-Nighted
States of America to allow Tony Blair to run for President. I think he'd
win by a landslide.

He would win in the North East; the South, I am not so sure.

Quran
answered such people 1400 years ago: [9.69] Like those before you; they
were stronger than you in power and more abundant in wealth and
children, so they enjoyed their portion; thus have you enjoyed your
portion as those before you enjoyed their portion; and you entered into
vain discourses like the vain discourses in which entered those before
you. These are they whose works are null in this world and the
hereafter, and these are they who are the losers.

Being null in this world is the objective of a Buddhist ... what more could
one ask for than a final great transcendence. For good Buddhists, not me.
I'm the comeback king, make me a cat next time, cushy job being a cat.

If you think Republicans are dirty rats, I say go for it.

And I love vain discourses, nothing better. How many angels would you say
are on the head of that pin ? Oh no, more than that. I'd return from
Nirvana just to yack about the latest Republican abomination against
freedom, or whatever. I'm a re-born again yacker.

I don't know if you read my first post in this thread but I have
provided a link with some cute pictures of a Buddhist hell in Thailand.
Do me a favor, take a statue of George Bush over there and put it in
the area where liars are being tortured. [And stay away from alcohol
and adultery while you are there].
http://www.thaiworldview.com/wat/wat6.htm

I have had many such experiences, and partly because of that I have
enormous faith in my religion. I believe that each person is given a
'sign,' at least once in a lifetime, which is meant to show him or
her that there is a God after all. Some accept it as a spiritual
experience; others reject it as mere coincidence.

But I have to believe that I am somehow shaping my fate in the way I move
toward the 'sign'.

I mentioned the owl encounter, but that was only day 1 of three days. The
second day a grouse alternatively attacked me and tried to draw me away with
a 'broken' wing. It went on for half-an-hour. The third night ( Halloween
Night for crying out loud ! ), a group of raccoons virtually 'sang' and
danced around my tent in the moon light. The 'singing' of course was
raccoon vocalizations, but I've never heard the unearthly like of it before
or since, maybe a dozen or more different vowels and plosive chirps, half a
dozen raccoons all going at the same time. I've tried to imitate some of
the sounds to raccoon people and that say it's extremely rare for them to be
that vocal. It was weird, like the Weird Sisters in MacBeth.

LOL. You know, it could have been a mating dance.

So how did I move myself into one of the great animal adventures of my life,
of my typically offbeat variety ? I don't know for sure, but I feel like I
'found' each event, as opposed to it just 'happening' to me.

I believe you. It could have been a sign: the owl representing
misfortune; the grouse meaning rejection by one you love; and raccoons
symbolizing friends who could give you company.

Now you are being superstitious. I don't think any place is evil.
It's the evil in people's hearts and minds that can turn any place
into living hell.

I don't know about that. I've had some fairly unexplainable experiences.

Some are not necessarily good or bad, just strange, like a visit to a Church
of Scientology that had an odd feeling to it, I couldn't define it exactly
other than uniquely odd.

There are good places too. Places where people were long ago. Sometimes I
find arrowheads or faint scratches on rocks or other signs in the area.
There's something about the way the place sits on the rise, a certain rock
nearby, or the trees crowding around it. Springs always have a significant
feel to them.

You must be a very sensitive person and very aware of your
surroundings. About 15 ears ago, I used to live in a very old house in
PA, in which the landlord had created three separate apartments. One
afternoon when I was taking a nap, I had a very strange dream. There
was this voice of a man narrating a story, saying that he used to live
in this house. When he was little, he and his two sisters were
separated because of adoption I guess, (I saw a buggy going away and
there was this very sad feeling). After searching for many years when
he grew up, he said that he finally found his sisters who were now
living in Lebanon (Pennsylvania). Then I saw a very small reception
area of an inn, as if the house had been converted into one, and there
was this lady putting things in mail slots. Then, finally, the man
appeared and he said, "And this is my story." Immediately I woke
up, and I cannot describe you the feeling that I had. It was as if I
had just returned from the time tunnel. I should have investigated as
to who were the original owners of the house or whether the story was
true, but I was just too afraid to ask and didn't have the time.


I had a friend who used to say, "Fear is good. It stops you from
being run over by a speeding car." I have always remembered that : -)

Or from being run over by a speeding libido ... the collisions are in some
ways worse.

:-)

.

Relevant Pages

  • at present Taysseer Gul El Baradeis noise
    ... the truth, that they will always exist on the earth. ... I see the Christian religion founded upon a preceding religion, ... wish here to put in evidence all those foundations of the Christian religion ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Science Scientists and Scientism
    ... |> search for truth. ... |> Now if I may give a couple examples of religion at work, ... |> In science we use philosophy. ... Philosophy is used to reason out truths, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: What is JAZZ?
    ... 'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,-that is all Ye know on earth, and all ... This is my religion. ... Tom Walls ...
    (rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz)
  • Re: Proposal - a new strategy to counter anti-evolutionists
    ... Teaching philosophy of religion (which I ... the ID proponents are proposing to introduce in US schools, in the science ... you cannot present it alongside evolution as ID in a comparitive fashion as ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: computer simulation
    ... Personal experience can only be personal truth - not actual truth. ... War is not about freedom. ... I watch both BBC and Fox News. ... Then it is not religion it is a philosophy - one that already exists. ...
    (talk.origins)