The Politics of Chelsea

[fAnta 107]

Like what? That the earth is 6,000 years old? Like Moses split the Red Sea or Jesus turned water into wine? Science and religion don't mix and the percentage of scientists who are religious is extremely small. Holy texts say some things that are factually untrue and many many things that are just stories like the Greeks told about Zeus. I Humans didn't come from Adam and Eve. We evolved over millions of years. Science and religion are at loggerheads. One is empirical and logical and the other is the belief in the unknown.

Like the orbit of the sun and the moon, overview effect, the perfect description of the birth of a human etc. I'm going to leave this now and watch the game for the final time

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

Like the orbit of the sun and the moon, overview effect, the perfect description of the birth of a human etc. I'm going to leave this now and watch the game for the final time

In the Bible and the Koran both, it says that the sun revolves around the earth which was the science of the time but actually incorrect. The science in holy texts is exactly as good as the science of the time was which is to say, very poor from today's standards. Religious texts are fine, even quite poetic sometimes, if you view them as allegories and stories. As some sort of guide to life, they are about as useful as any document written thousands of years ago is to living today.

[zolayes 14,489]

Religion never really played a part in Chelsea culture . In the 70s and 80s our fans were particularly racist .. Nevin helped to stop that but it really

only went with the signings of Gullit and Desailly . The only part religious thing is the chanting at Spurs ...its more just a joke ,,, Similarly the tie up with Rangers

is only a tenuous link .

[Santiago. 1,500]

In the Bible and the Koran both, it says that the sun revolves around the earth which was the science of the time but actually incorrect. The science in holy texts is exactly as good as the science of the time was which is to say, very poor from today's standards. Religious texts are fine, even quite poetic sometimes, if you view them as allegories and stories. As some sort of guide to life, they are about as useful as any document written thousands of years ago is to living today.

. Quran, first off

[CHOULO19 24,332]

In the Bible and the Koran both, it says that the sun revolves around the earth which was the science of the time but actually incorrect. The science in holy texts is exactly as good as the science of the time was which is to say, very poor from today's standards. Religious texts are fine, even quite poetic sometimes, if you view them as allegories and stories. As some sort of guide to life, they are about as useful as any document written thousands of years ago is to living today.

That's actually not true. There are "hints" though that the earth is flat, though.

[zolayes 14,489]

That's actually not true. There are "hints" though that the earth is flat, though.

yes the earth is flat and rafa is a great manager and Torres will be the next Messi(ah)

[fAnta 107]

CHOULO19, on 12 Mar 2013 - 21:23, said:

That's actually not true. There are "hints" though that the earth is flat, though.

We must understand that the word is not used for the egg itself but rather for the flattened depression where the ostrich deposits its egg.

Whoever uses the word to refer to the egg or to the shape of the egg is being inexact in his linguistic usage.

In any case, verse 30 of Sûrah al-Nâzi`ât – that mentions the verb dahâ in reference to the Earth – is not discussing the shape of the Earth at all. It cannot be used as proof that the Earth is flat or round or egg-shaped. The verse is silent on the matter.

The exact shape of the Earth is best known from empirical observations, and not from seeking to deduce its exact shape from the book.

The Earth is practically a perfect sphere.

This word conveys one concept in the Arabic language: that of “spreading, leveling, flattening, and smoothing out”. It's mentioned this to us in the verse to show us something of his providence to us.

We should also take this occasion to mention that the Earth is almost perfectly smooth. Its near-perfect smoothness is not compromised by the contours of its crust. The highest mountains and deepest trenches of the crust are insignificant compared to the vastness of the Earth's surface.

To get an idea of how insignificant the mountains and trenches are when compared to the Earth's surface, we can compare the smoothness of the Earth to that of a billiard ball. A billiard ball must be very smooth and regular. The tolerance allowed for a billiard ball is only 0.22%. (Tolerance, in engineering, refers to the permissible limit of variation in a dimension of a manufactured object.) The Earth, by comparison, has a tolerance of about one part in 584, or 0.17%. This means the Earth is much more perfectly smooth than what is allowed for a billiard ball.

At the end of the day a lot of people take stuff out of context and make a sprint it really is funny how taking a part of a sentence out can change the meaning of a sentence. And God knows best.

This is a translation so may have grammatical inaccuracies, that would be my bad not the book. Another reason I dislike religious 'debates' online.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

We must understand that the word is not used for the egg itself but rather for the flattened depression where the ostrich deposits its egg.

Whoever uses the word to refer to the egg or to the shape of the egg is being inexact in his linguistic usage.

In any case, verse 30 of Sûrah al-Nâzi`ât – that mentions the verb dahâ in reference to the Earth – is not discussing the shape of the Earth at all. It cannot be used as proof that the Earth is flat or round or egg-shaped. The verse is silent on the matter.

This word conveys one concept in the Arabic language: that of “spreading, leveling, flattening, and smoothing out”. It's mentioned this to us in the verse to show us something of his providence to us.

We should also take this occasion to mention that the Earth is almost perfectly smooth. Its near-perfect smoothness is not compromised by the contours of its crust. The highest mountains and deepest trenches of the crust are insignificant compared to the vastness of the Earth's surface.

To get an idea of how insignificant the mountains and trenches are when compared to the Earth's surface, we can compare the smoothness of the Earth to that of a billiard ball. A billiard ball must be very smooth and regular. The tolerance allowed for a billiard ball is only 0.22%. (Tolerance, in engineering, refers to the permissible limit of variation in a dimension of a manufactured object.) The Earth, by comparison, has a tolerance of about one part in 584, or 0.17%. This means the Earth is much more perfectly smooth than what is allowed for a billiard ball.

At the end of the day a lot of people take stuff out of context and make a sprint it really is funny how taking a part of a sentence out can change the meaning of a sentence. And Allah knows best.

I'm sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense. And it's easy to interpret it that way after the earth was proved to be round. In the Quran it says that God made the earth flat.

I don't mean to get involved in this debate (which means very little to me), I was just correcting something for factual accuracy.

PS: It sounds very funny in English no disrespect to anyone.

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

That's actually not true. There are "hints" though that the earth is flat, though.

Damn...I went and got a bunch quotes but then my page refreshed and they disappeared. Anyway, there are a few quotes in the Quran that show at least, questionable grasp on astronomy. Anyway, my point is simply that science in holy books in general is awful which it is. If these books were indeed written by some omniscient being, there would not only be no scientific errors, these books would be filled with scientific advances. Instead, the science in these texts is never better than the science at the time of their writing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_foreknowledge_in_sacred_texts#

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Damn...I went and got a bunch quotes but then my page refreshed and they disappeared. Anyway, there are a few quotes in the Quran that show at least, questionable grasp on astronomy. Anyway, my point is simply that science in holy books in general is awful which it is. If these books were indeed written by some omniscient being, there would not only be no scientific errors, these books would be filled with scientific advances. Instead, the science in these texts is never better than the science at the time of their writing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_foreknowledge_in_sacred_texts#

What an understatement!

Was just pointing out that there is nothing in the Quran that clearly states that the sun revolves around the earth; at least not as clear as the part about the earth being flat.

PS: There might be something in the prophets speech though, I'm not sure.

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

What an understatement!

Was just pointing out that there is nothing in the Quran that clearly states that the sun revolves around the earth; at least not as clear as the part about the earth being flat.

That's part of the beauty of these books. Because the language is florid and ancient, they can be construed any way someone wants. (Word X really means Y). Even when the language is obvious, it gets twisted and turned. I saw this program where feminists were challenging a priest, a rabbi, and an imam about passages in the texts. The passages were all blatantly sexist-things like "women should be owned by men" and "men are better than women" but all the holy men were saying "oh no, you don't understand, to own something is a burden so it's really great for women!!"

[zolayes 14,489]

FFS the earth is NOT a sphere

[fAnta 107]

And at the end of the day yourselves being atheists you have no burden off proof. I have a belief and millions more just like me, which also including scientists scholars etc. Most of your disputes are open to interpretation and can be disputed anyways.

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

And at the end of the day yourselves being atheists you have no burden off proof. I have a belief and millions more just like me, which also including scientists scholars etc. Most of your disputes are open to interpretation and can be disputed anyways.

Nor should we have the burden of proof. If I say that the world is filled with invisible dragons, is it up to you to disprove that or to me to prove it? If I think that goblins and trolls and witches are real, is it up to you to disprove it or me to prove it? It's not a dispute. The god of the gaps (the idea that god exists because we can't explain this or that) is disappearing. Thousands of years ago when we couldn't understand lightning or the stars or people, believing in a deity or 1,000 made sense. Now, when you realise how insignificant people actually are in the scheme of our own world never mind the universe, when science can explain or will be able to explain everything, I just don't understand belief. I honestly don't care what people believe, just don't try to pretend they are two sides of the same coin. Science is rigorous and fact based. Religion is faith (which is believing without evidence which is the opposite of science).

[manpe 10,861]

That's part of the beauty of these books. Because the language is florid and ancient, they can be construed any way someone wants. (Word X really means Y). Even when the language is obvious, it gets twisted and turned. I saw this program where feminists were challenging a priest, a rabbi, and an imam about passages in the texts. The passages were all blatantly sexist-things like "women should be owned by men" and "men are better than women" but all the holy men were saying "oh no, you don't understand, to own something is a burden so it's really great for women!!"

Exactly. The thing I posted earlier from the deuteronomy was one of the many sexist things in there. I read some of the stuff and it was very clear that women were treated as objects. For example one passage stated the man who raped a woman had to pay her father 50 something and marry his daughter.

Found it, here it is:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

EDIT: One more point I would like to make, then I will shut up as this is going seriously off-topic now. Anyway, if God or Allah or whoever is as powerful as those books claim him to be (he created the Earth, the Sun, the stars and everything that exists), then think, would he really bother himself with such petty things like how many shekels somebody has to pay for something? Wouldn't he rather give advice on how to take care of the planet properly or something more grand like that? From what I know they seem more like lawbooks than anything, they are full of rigid rules of what not to do and what are the punishments etc. If I were such a powerful being, I certainly wouldn't break a sweat about such trivial matters. I would actually find such primitive squabbles laughable. If you are able to create whole planetary systems and you know absolutely everything, then why would you care if somebody broke some tiny little law on Earth?

In my view you would have to violently subdue every kind of logic and rational thinking in order to believe in that. I'm not ready to do that and I don't understand how so many are. But that's just my point of view of things.