Dreamcatcher

Ara, I basically agree, but I also think there is a more mundane aspect to it. Namely, the good old "he who pays the piper calls the tune" principle. Correct me if I am wrong, but to the best of knowledge most (if not all) of the Diaspora-Armenian media is financed by the political and religious crowd who'd most likely feel threatened by your criticims, especially if they become more personalised. At the same time, I believe there are quite a few people who actually share your views, but they have not created any organizational structure (including the media) to get their message across and counterbalance the conservative propaganda. Thus, a "progressive" Armenian journalist has nowhere to go if he has been cut off the mainstream publications. True, now you can use the Internet to convey his message, but cannot make a living by posting articles in forums. In a word, if I am right, you cannot expect "authoritarian rulers" let you expose their "corruption and incompetence" in the media financed by them. We simply need to create our alternative media for our "free speech", otherwise we'll be silenced all the time, it's as simple as that.

I don’t have the foggiest idea if any University has ever given this question in any exam (probably not!)… but enjoy it in the “context” of this thread before I “donate” it to Maral’s collection! The Thermodynamics of Hell The following is supposedly an actual question given on a University of Washington chemistry mid-term. The answer by one student was so profound that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well. Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)? Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following: First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different Religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added. This gives two possibilities: If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over. So which is it? If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, "it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you", and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number 2 must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct...leaving only Heaven thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting “Oh my God”!!!!

Hello and thanks Ludwig. I think you understood my question perfectly well. Still, I'll rephrase if you like: in order to have a meaningful discussion, we need some clarity as to what we understand by the term "God". Do we mean a supreme personal being, distinct from the world and creator of the world, who, for example, "ghost-wrote" certain scriptures, "artificially inseminated" certain virgins, and whose offspring defied the laws of physics by walking on liquid surfaces and turning water into alcoholic beverage? Accordingly, a “believer” is a person who is convinced of the existence of such a supreme personal being, and of the truthfulness of the corresponding legend. Or do we rather mean “the Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists”, “the spirit manifest in the laws of the Universe”? In this case, a believer is someone who believes in the “spirit vastly superior to that of man”, but “cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation”. Happy now?

Ok, let me put it differently. We can safely assume that Bertrand Russell was not dumb, now can't we? (I hope you won't argue with me on that!). So when we was reportedly once asked what he would say to God if he were to find himself confronted by the Almighty about why he had not believed in God's existence. He said that he would tell God "Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence!" Nicer, but pretty much the same, eh?

I see, Yervant1! Well I guess this should be obvious to any more or less reasonable person.

Sip, I will come back to this later today. But in the meantime, I agree with you that Einstein should be left alone by "believers". This is what he said: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." And also: "I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God." from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side". There is of course more but I think this is enough.

Fair enough! One specification though: for the benefit of a certain group of men at the expence of all other people. Religion, and Christianity is no exception, is probably the best tool of control, domination and brainwashing ever invented by man.

I may be asking too much, but would the believers please explain what they mean under "God". I "believe" that this would help us to better understand what exactly each forumer has in mind, and in particular prevent nasty folk like me from posing the archetypal question - WHAT GOD? P.S. Ooops, it seems like I forgot to say hello to everyone! Sorry for that!!!!

How can you be so sure that "God" "picked" anyone to write such a book? You are taking as granted things that still need to be proven to those who don't share your beliefs. For many, it is far from obvious that the authors were "prophets" in the first place. Well THIS is correct... Religion is "man" made, not "God" made!!!! And do you know fpr sure who labelled "him" as a "he"? Again, you are taking as granted things that need to be assessed critically, in the context of the traditions and the prejudices of the time when they had been written.

Here they are. Enjoy! http://cryptome.org/muhammad.htm