Amiga.org
Coffee House => Coffee House Boards => CH / General => Topic started by: rinard on March 27, 2004, 01:22:26 PM
-
I’m not a religious but astonished to know that Quran contains unbelievable scientific facts discovered just in the last century.
This is really amazing.
· Astronomy!
· Mountains!
· Human Embryology!
· Oceans And Seas!
· The Movement Of Clouds!
· The Cerebrum!
· The Shape Of The Earth!
· The Expansion Of The Universe!
· The Sensory Characteristic Of The Skin!
· Formation Of Iron!
· The Lowest Part On The Face Of The Earth!
· The Sequence Of Day And Night!
· The Snow Age!
· New Diseases!
· Cnn Top Ten Discoveries Of 1998
You can find more info of the Scientists Declaration on the following site:
http://www.islampedia.com/ijaz/Html/Scientist_All/Index.htm
Scientists Declaration
· Keith L.Moore
· E. Marshall Johnson
· T.V.N. Persaud
· Joe Leigh Simpson
· Gerald C. Goeringer
· Alfred Kroner
· Yushidi Kusan
· Professor Armstrong
· William Hay
· Durja Rao
· Professor Siaveda
· Tejatat Tejasen
· Dr. Maurice Bucaille
http://islamicity.com/science/
http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1.htm
-
Hi rinard,
But have they discovered anything else in the intervening 500 years? :-)
Back then science was `embraced` by most of the main religions, hehe, it`s just that science in the west managed to break away from christian doctrine...
[er, this may not be strictly true]
-
blobrana wrote:
Hi rinard,
But have they discovered anything else in the intervening 500 years? :-)
Back then science was `embraced` by most of the main religions, hehe, it`s just that science in the west managed to break away from christian doctrine...
Actually, they discovered plenty since then. Long before europe was enlightened, during the peak of the islamic civilization, they
In no particular order
Invented algebra
Expanded on classical greek geometry
Discovered the laws of reflection and refraction (long before snell) and made some of the first lenses
Charted the stars and built the first planetariums (you should know that one)
Studied human anatomy in detail, discovered the use of neat alcohol for sterilizing things/cleaning wounds (their medical literature was required reading here for 500 years)
They also built some amazing mechanical/water clocks, autonoma etc, a good deal of which still survives today.
And way more that I forgot since :-(
However, I believe the guy was talking *specifically* about things detailed in the Quran, which is some 1400 years old, not 500 ;-)
-
But Karlos... the key thing here is not what you know... but what you do with it.
Having research a little, the Quran has not been free of "editing" in much the same way that all religious texts have been "edited" to suit the needs of those who espouse them.
-
Hum,
I stand corrected...
;)
(i realized the Koran is a lot older, but i had the impression that around 500 years ago that the two religions `parted` with `science`...)
It is quite probable that many of the profound discoveries have been lost...The library of Alexanderia, the teachings of the Druids, the astronomy of the Mayans etc...
If we had kept on track we could have been stepping onto Moon a thousand years ago....(IMHO) :-)
-
bloodline wrote:
But Karlos... the key thing here is not what you know... but what you do with it.
Having research a little, the Quran has not been free of "editing" in much the same way that all religious texts have been "edited" to suit the needs of those who espouse them.
Well, given that it exists in the and style language it was originally written in and memorised in its entirety by countless millions of people (known as Hafiz) throught history, I beg to differ.
I used to think it wsa subject to the same "revisionism" as translations of the Bible etc., but its not especially the case. In fact, it's one reason why muslims are expected to learn the language rather than translate it to another language so that the original meaning isn't lost.
There is a Quran from the around the 7th century in a museum in Turkey, it's Arabic is word for word identical to the present day copies available.
As for "what you do with your knowledge" I agree that all their early progress was ultimately in vein in that it was largely lost with the collapse of their civilization (bloody crusades again!!! :-x).
However, without their efforts, we'd be a lot worse off than we are. Just think what algebra (specifically the ability to render problems into mathematical abstract) and arabic numbering system (0-9) has done for us. We'd be doing long division with bloody roman numerals otherwise :lol:
I suggest you read up on the achievements of the islamic civilization from 620AD to 1000AD, it's a truly eye opening period of history that we are never taught anything about :-(
-
Maybe because of these scientific miracles Islam becomes the fastest-growing religion in America and in the world? Although religion is no longer dominates everyday life in Western society.
A NATION CHALLENGED: AMERICAN MUSLIMS; Islam Attracts Converts By the Thousand, Drawn Before and After Attacks
By JODI WILGOREN
Source: The New York Times: October 22, 2001, Monday
Section: National Desk
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/3016/fastest.htm
"Islam is the fastest-growing religion in America, a guide and pillar of stability for many of our people..." Hillary Rodman Clinton, Los Angeles Times, May 31, 1996, p.3
Famous people are affected too:
Singer "Cat Stevens" Hear his story as told him
http://www.islamtomorrow.net/converts/yusuf_islam.htm
-
Don't worry, I'm sure the present administration will put a stop to that :lol:
-
Point 1) It is well known that the Islamic east had exceptional scientific knowledge inherited from the Greeks. Christianity destroyed all that.
Point 2) You can say that any text "pointed out" anything, you just have to be vague enough. For example you could say that the Bible and Nostradamus and Madame Fifi's book of the Pleasures of the Flesh all predicted the emergence of jet aircraft. It's just a matter of being creative, not logical.
Point 3) Islam is just another religion that attacks intellectual integrity in favour of dogma and unquestioning obedience to scripture and so is against science.
-
All the major religions of that region inherited all their "science" from other cultures of the time.
You will find that the Arabic peoples (not to mention the Persians, Greeks and Hindus) were all using algebra long before Islam was a twinkle in Mohamud's eye.
But becasue Christianity didn't keep it's scientific inheritance in it's relious texts (if it kept much at all), does not mean that Islam is superior to it.
The only great Religions that have ever existed, are the anchient European ones, the Greek ones (inherited and addapted by the Romans), The Native American ones and Buddhism.
The Native American and Europeans Religons were good, since they required one to be at peace with nature. I like that. But they can't survive the people centric, Hate loving Religions.
The Greek Relions (Leading into the Roman ones) were good, Under this belief system Mankind's knowledge expanded exponentially. But there religions were too complex and libberal to survive simple, conservative religions.
Buddhism is good, because it's simple message is "be excellent to oneanother". Gods not included. ;-) People don't like being Execllent to oneanother though :-(
So we see a world slowing being dominated by Hate loving, simple, people centric, conservative religions... the simpler, more people centric, more conservative and more hate loving it is... the more popular it becomes.
In the west we have had the advantage of the "Enlightenment", were we managed to abstract out the core components of The dominant religion, and set up dedicated disciplins to cover it's role, rendering it essentially suplurfulous.
Religion became split into;
1. Politics
2. Science
3. Phylosophy
4. Spirituality
I rather like part 4. since we can now pick and choose a spirituality to best fit our lives. Organised Religion is, as I have pointed out, is now a waste of time.
-
Wow, you guys need to lighten up on the prejudices a bit. Take off the "all organized religion is antiscientific dogmatic crap" head and stick the "ok, lets be objective" head on for a moment :lol:
Just because you don't like a religion is no reason to deride everything it says regardless of context, or refute that people of that faith ever developed anything that wasn't already known. Thats simply insulting the work of countless people who tried to unravel the world around them just because you think that they arent qualified to have an objective mind because they were religious.
If you are going to bash something, at least study it closely first, else you can end up looking an arse - just like I did :lol:
However, its common for people to avoid doing just that for fear they may actually find some things they agree with.
Better to stay willfully ignorant.
@Kenny
Whilst I agree totally that its generally possible to massage specific meaning from just about anything if you try hard enough, I can honestly say that I have never had to stretch my imagination when studying quranical references.
One of the first ones I found all by myself was a reference to what required no great leaps of intuition. I can't remember the exact verse but I could find it again if I were pressed. Now, the translation perhaps has modified the meaning, but I've asked native arabic speakers *exactly* what does it mean to them and the agreement was spot on.
The translated verse read (from memory) "Praise be to Allah who has set mountains deep into the earth as pegs, lest it should quake."
We may differ on opinion here, but to me the above isn't particularly vague at all.
Now, as platetectonic theory describes, mountains (which a bit like icebergs tend to go much deeper into the mantle than they poke above the ground), are formed as plates buckle and fold as one is gradually pushed beneath the other. There are plenty of eathquake prone places where plates are pushing directly against each other, but neither has began to fold into a mountain range.
There are innumerable other examples, some slightly less specific, some slightly more.
Far from being a anti scientific religion, it actually instructs its followers to go an seek knowledge and learn how the universe and everything in it works.
Just because at this period in history people of the faith at large don't seem unduly concerned to do this does not mean the instruction isn't there.
@Bloodline
You are incorrect on the general assumption that all faiths of the era depended solely on pre-existing knoweldge, but I will let you off because its a massively common misconception that even I had.
Regarding algebra, you are correct only to a point.
The modern form of abstract algebra (al-jabr), using operators and symbols to define indeterminable quantities, was developed by a the arab mathematician (living in Baghdad, then an established centre of learning) Mohammed ibn-Musa al-Khowarizmi. He wrote a famous book in about 825 AD called "Hidab al-jabr wal-muqubala" in which he documents the symbolic (operator based) representation of equations, their transposition and use in problem solving etc.
It's historically documented and verified all over the place.
Now, that is not to say, as you correctly point out that analytical forms of arithmetic did not already exist and nobody denies the contribution of greek and Hindu mathematicians. The latter introduced 2 fundamental concepts, specifically the number zero and the negative number scale.
However, the analytical arithmetic used by the classical greek mathematicans was not directly comparable.
To paraphrase from a book on the evolution of albebra "Greek mathematical thought and the origin of algebra"
The Greek concept of mathematical objects was based upon the notion of arithmos, but this cannot be thought of as a concept of "general magnitude" i.e. "x", the unknown quantity. It never means anything other than "a definite number of definite objects," or an "assemblage of things counted".
Likewise, geometric figures and curves, commensurable and incommensurable magnitudes, ratios, have their own special ontology which directs mathematical inquiry and its methods.
-
Hang on guys!
Why do you automatically think that Religion and science cannot flourish together. History proves you wrong.
Its a historical fact that science was developed a great deal during the Islamic Golden era and most of the scientists were devout Muslims. Research was encouraged and progress was made.
There are researchers and scientist even now that make great discoveries but they are sometimes Jewish, Christian, Muslim etc. Ask them if science comes in the way of their progress.
It is only a modern concept instigated by the secular educational system that a division must be created between spirituality and the laws of the physical world.
You will have to do a bit more research into the politics of why a divide was created and you may understand things better.
It is out of the way modern thinking is fashioned that such ideas exist.
Someone mentions religion and you instantly think "War, backwards, dark ages and unscientific". Why?
Ignorace and prejudice is being shown by otherwise intelligent people.
Some are so opposed to religion that they argue it is the cause of all wars. Just tell me one thing. If no religion ever existed do you really think human kind would just give up its tendencey to kill and have wars?
It just surprises me that If someone points out science in religion peopl get all wound up about it and start attacking religion often with half baked opinions and stereotypical bias.
There is more to this world than you choose to acknowledge. What do you fear?If all scientific knowledge and research one day ultimately led to the discovery that there is actually a creator would you be too pompous to accept that conclusion?
As Karlos pointed out there has been a very strong and concerted effort to prevent the authentic Quranic script from ever being modified. There exist and have existed since its revelation millions of "Hafiz" memorisers that will all recite the Original Arabic manuscript unchanged. Go to your local mosque and ask to find out of any local one and then find one from across the world like china for instance. Ask them to recite a particular verse and you will see what I mean.
It is genuinely surprising. There have never been editions or revision. You only have to do some unbiased research as I have done to find out the truth of the matter.
I dont think the original poster intended to claim that Islam has a monopoly on sciences and knowledge. He merely pointed out something that he found astounding from the Muslim Scripture.
I see no reason to get all defensive and offensive.
-
@GadgetMaster
Hum,
Science is the new religion...
It is the only way (IMHO) that humanity can know itself...
But i know what you mean...I myself am a Pictish Jedi, and i can quite happily coexist with `science`...
-
Well, science is one thing.. But you have to do things with it either.
I always thought die-hard science was my thing. But it's not. I'm more for the creative, application part of science (if that's science).
-
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today."
-- Isaac Asimov
"We owe it to ourselves as respectable human beings, as thinking human beings, to do what we can to make humanity more rational...Humanists recognize that it is only when people feel free to think for themselves, using reason as their guide, that they are best capable of developing values that succeed in satisfying human needs and serving human interests."
-- Isaac Asimov
"I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say that one is an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or agnostic. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect that he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time."
-- Isaac Asimov
"I would not be satisfied to have my kids choose to be religious without trying to argue them out of it, just as I would not be satisfied to have them decide to smoke regularly or engage in any other practice I considered detrimental to mind or body."
-- Isaac Asimov, "Yours, Isaac Asimov"
"Creationists make it sound as though a theory is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."
-- Isaac Asimo
-
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
Well, science is one thing.. But you have to do things with it either.
I always thought die-hard science was my thing. But it's not. I'm more for the creative, application part of science (if that's science).
I studied science in school but when it came time to have a career I decided on art. (long story)
I've always felt, however, that science and art were basically the same. Both look for the truth and show it. they just use different methods.
and we became human when we looked at our world Imagining it Again, drawing pictures of it in the sands and on the walls. And when we transformed bones and sticks using them in ways they had not been originally made for.
-
Yes, but I was once in a lab, and the only thing I had to do was measuring, measuring and again, measuring. I got bored stiff. No, I am now doing the right thing now, I think. With huge factories, wich have to do the right thing, and my thoughts are becoming reality :-)
-
"Humanists recognize that it is only when people feel free to think for themselves, using reason as their guide, that they are best capable of developing values that succeed in satisfying human needs and serving human interests"
Well, when you use only reason as your guide, you can justify an awful lot of things which may make scientific sense but are clearly unethical.
As an extreme example, to improve the human condition, you could sterilize all those with hereditary defects, or carriers of defective genes to end the suffering those genes would inflict on future generations.
For those of the existing generations who are afflicted with untreatable conditions that severely reduce their quality of life, you could give them the option of termination.
For those unable to make the decision due to severe mental impairment, you could delegate the choice to their nearest kin. There is nothing scientifically unreasonable about this approach. Enormous amounts of money would be saved which could be directed elsewhere and many life threatening hereditary diseases would be eliminated, for the benefit of all mankind.
Now, there isn't a sane person here who would argue that that is totally wrong, cold, cruel and downright evil even. But why?
-
Karlos wrote:
As an extreme example, to improve the human condition, you could sterilize all those with hereditary defects, or carriers of defective genes to end the suffering those genes would inflict on future generations.
Bullocks. The human race is perfect.
So is any non-extincting specie. The extincting species were perfect. In the conditions they lived of course.
If you want to alter humanity like that, you do not know what you are doing. Nature has always his domino-effect. You do not know when a gene is defective or not. Or that it SHOULD be defective or not.
This is also my lament against bio-technology.
While I do not think research should stop, I do think the use of it should stop. Too much environmental variable elements.
-edit-
Now, there isn't a sane person here who would argue that that is totally wrong, cold, cruel and downright evil even. But why?
Because that would screw up the human pact, for instance.
-
rinard wrote:
I’m not a religious but astonished to know that Quran contains unbelievable scientific facts discovered just in the last century:
If I put the 'discoveries' aside (most of which were known or educated guesses before the Qu'ran was written), what is your point? Are you by any chance trying to imply that since there is so much scientific goodness in the book that the rest of its contents must be true as well? Sorry, but that won't work. If you are not implying this, my question remains: what is your point?
Scientists Declaration
Science doesn't work by declaration. It works by independent observation, a thing lost on all of the signees of the declaration. And yourself too, obviously. The list of names is quite pointless.
Without question, the Islamic culture was responsible for a great many scientific advances in a time when Europe was painfully stuck in a choking religious dark age. Nowadays, the reverse is true, which is a shame. There's good intellectual material in the peoples of the Middle East.
-
Regarding conversion, from what I've heard from different friends of mine who have converted to Islam, there are a few main reasons for most conversions.
1. Islam is a religious lifestyle, not just a quick Sunday morning church visit and a label. Although some Christians do pray before each meal and spend much time with their Bible, etc.many don't in the USA. Islam is something that can't be shunted into a few spare hours. You pray five times a day. Your dress code is affected; even your food choices are explained in the Qur'an. Many converts like it because they feel actively involved and as if they are truly religious.
2. For women, it is a big and welcome change from the "in your face" sexuality of western culture. Women are not required by the Qur'an to veil. They are required to dress modestly and it is *recommended* that they cover their hair. However, most do veil and some go farther with niquab (the face screen) or other traditional clothes. Women dressed like this consider themselves marked as religious women, not easy dates. They don't get hit on. No one gawks at their bodies. They are clearly off limits sexually and many that I personally know say it is liberating not to have to conform to western standards of sexy dress, makeup and spending so much time and money on appearance. You buy a five-dollar hijab, put your hair in a ponytail and cover, wear long skirt and a tunic shirt -you're set.
3. Islam is also growing because many people are not satisfied with Christianity. They feel it is too liberal, too fluid and changes for the culture. Islam on the other hand is more rigid and does not as a whole allow much for modern changes and the whims of society. Many like it because they feel other religions have loose standards.
That's what I got from the new Muslimah's group at Yahoo, Islamway women's board and a few other friends of mine. Stats taken by many college groups say that women convert 4 times more often then men.
This is an example:
Why Are Women Turning to Islam
At a time when Islam is faced with hostile media coverage particularly where the status of women in Islam is concerned, it may be quite surprising to learn that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, and even more ironic to discover that the majority of converts to Islam are WOMEN.
The status of women is society is neither a new issue nor is it a fully settled one, and where Islam is mentioned, for many the term 'Muslim Women' prompts images of exhausted mothers chained to the stove, 'victims' suppressed in a life of indoctrination, frantic to be westernized and so on. Others will go to great lengths to explain how the hijaab is an obstacle, clouding the mind, and comment that female converts are either brainwashed, stupid or traitors to their sex. I reject such accusations and pose to them the following question: why is it that so many women who have been born and brought in the so called 'civilized' societies of Europe and America are willing to reject their 'liberty' and 'independence' to embrace a religion that supposedly oppresses them and is widely assumed to be prejudicial to them?
As a Christian convert to Islam, I can only present my personal experience and reasons for rejecting the 'freedom' that women claim to have in this society in favor of the only Religion that truly liberates women by giving us a status and position, which is completely unique when compared with that of non-Muslim counterparts. Before coming to Islam, I had strong feminist tendencies and recognized that where the women was concerned, a lot of shuffling around had been going on, yet without being able to pin her on the social map. The problem was ongoing: new 'women's issues' being raised without the previous ones being satisfactorily resolved. Like the many women who shared my background, I would accuse Islam of being a sexist religion, discriminating, oppressing and giving men the greater privileges. All this coming from a person who did not even know Islam, one who had been blinded due to ignorance and had accepted this deliberately distorted definition of Islam.
However, despite my criticisms of Islam, inwardly I wasn't satisfied with my own status as a woman in this society. It seemed to me that society would define such terms as 'liberty' and 'freedom' and then these definitions were accepted by women without us even attempting to question or challenge them. There was clearly a great contradiction between what women were told in theory and what actually happens in practice. The more I pondered, the greater emptiness I felt within. I was slowly beginning to reach a stage where my dissatisfaction with my status as a women in this society, was really a reflection of my greater dissatisfaction with society itself. Everything seemed to be degenerating backwards, despite the claims that the 2000 was going to be the decade of success and prosperity. Something vital seemed to be missing from my life and nothing would fill this vacuum. Being a Christian did not do anything for me, and I began to question the validity of only remembering God one day a week - Sundays! As with many other Christians too, I had become disillusioned with the hypocrisy of the Church and was becoming increasingly unhappy with the concept of Trinity and the deification of Jesus. Eventually, I began to look into Islam. At first, I was only interested in looking at those issues, which specifically dealt with women. I was surprised. What I read and learned taught me a lot about myself as a woman, and also about where the real oppression of women lies: in every other system and way of life outside of Islam. Muslim women have been given their rights in every aspect of the religion with clear definitions of their role in society - as had men - with no injustice against either of them. As Allah says: Whoever does deeds of righteousness, be they male or female, and have faith, they will enter paradise and not the least injustice will be done to them [Nisaa 4:124]
So having amended my misconceptions about the true status of women in Islam, I was now looking further. I wanted to find that thing which was going to fill the vacuum in my life. My attention was drawn towards the beliefs and practices of Islam. It was only through establishing the fundamentals that I would understand where to turn and what to prioritize. These are often the areas, which receive little attention or controversy in society, and when studying the Islamic Creed, it becomes clear why this is the case: such concise, faultless and wholly comprehensive details cannot be found elsewhere.
-
:-? what has lifestyle to do with the origin of all aspects of the existence of everything?
-
Karlos wrote:
"Humanists recognize that it is only when people feel free to think for themselves, using reason as their guide, that they are best capable of developing values that succeed in satisfying human needs and serving human interests"
Well, when you use only reason as your guide, you can justify an awful lot of things which may make scientific sense but are clearly unethical.
As an extreme example, to improve the human condition, you could sterilize all those with hereditary defects, or carriers of defective genes to end the suffering those genes would inflict on future generations.
For those of the existing generations who are afflicted with untreatable conditions that severely reduce their quality of life, you could give them the option of termination.
For those unable to make the decision due to severe mental impairment, you could delegate the choice to their nearest kin. There is nothing scientifically unreasonable about this approach. Enormous amounts of money would be saved which could be directed elsewhere and many life threatening hereditary diseases would be eliminated, for the benefit of all mankind.
Now, there isn't a sane person here who would argue that that is totally wrong, cold, cruel and downright evil even. But why?
The last thing we need is another Religion bashing thread. But lest ye not forget that far greater atrocities have been commited in the name of (a) God than in the name of science :-)
I would, however, point out that the issues you have raised are social ones not religious or scientific ones. Check out my Abstraction table in an earlier post.
-
@Bloodline,
Er, I was actually defending it, not bashing it :lol: - I believe the bashing commenced immediately yourself and kenny joined the discussion with remarks like:
"Islam is just another religion that attacks intellectual integrity in favour of dogma and unquestioning obedience to scripture and so is against science." (implying you cannot be a muslim and have a scientific mind)
"All the major religions of that region inherited all their "science" from other cultures of the time." (implying nobody of the era was able to originate anything)
;-)
Moving on, the issues I have raised last time are religious as well as social. You will probably find that people of a religious bent would find the notion I raised more offensive by far than those who just see it as simply unethical.
For example, optional termination of those with a poor quality of life is the whole euthanasia argument. Now, I'm not personally stating if it is right or wrong. For many, this is a moral grey area, but for a great deal of people whose moral sense of right and wrong are religously influenced, it's deemed unquestinably wrong.
Your abstraction, whilst demonstrable in modern society, is not absolute and never will be as long as religion exists it will shape to some extent the moral values people hold.
As for religion has committed great autrocities, well I can't argue.
However, as Gadget points out, history has also proven beyond any doubt that people will commit autrocities utterly regardless of any religious influence. Look at Stalins "purges" for instance.
Anyhow, this is all grossly off topic now. I believe the original poster was simply pointing out that there are revelations in the quran that s/he (and evidentally a great many others) finds miraculous in that some of it seems to be beyond the scope of the existing knowledge (even if you include all the Greek, Persian etc.) of the time.
-
Er, I was actually defending it, not bashing it - I believe the bashing commenced immediately yourself and kenny joined the discussion with remarks like:
No, I was bashing it. And I'm fed up of bashing it. I don't mean to bash it, but I find religions are as ludicrous as thinking the moon is made of cheese.
So in an effort to avoid ofending anyone, I'll try to tone down the sentiment of my posts.
It's obviously difficult to hold back, when other agree with me, and egg me on :-(
-
@Matt
Don't worry about it :-) You find religion ludicrous and thats totally within your rights. I find many things ludicrous myself. I only defend religions against what I see as unfair / incorrect criticism, like some the points in this thread. Stuff like this is pretty interesting when you dig into it.
Personally, I like to remain open minded. If the hypothetical scenario Gadget mentions came to pass and the sum total of scientific knowledge were to prove the existance of God, that would be truly wonderous IMHO. However, there would always be people willing to refute the find, just as there would be people ready to believe if the opposite scenario played out.
-
2. For women, it is a big and welcome change from the "in your face" sexuality of western culture.
certainly if people feel comfortable "Turning to Islam", that's just fine by me.
but i'd like to point out that I have always "dressed down" in this western culture and haven't worn makeup in years. No one has ever forced me to wear anything I didn't want to wear in this "in your face" western sexual culture.
and while I've had my share of "sexist" behavior, it's all part of living in the real world. deal with it.
frankly, i think some females just can't take the heat. not that HAVE to, mind you. but in this culture, when the going gets tough, the tough get going.
-
Let there be no misunderstanding of my intentions. This post is not an assault on Christianity or any other religion.
It is indispensable for me to look for the truth and study comparative religion because if I would like to know whether a religion is true or false, I should not depend on my emotions, feelings, or traditions. Rather, I should depend on my reason and intellect. When God sent the prophets, He supported them with miracles and evidences, which proved that they were truly prophets, send by God and that the religion they came with was true.
God revealed a holy book to Jesus called the Injeel, some parts of which may be still available in the teachings of God to Jesus in the New Testament. But this does not mean that the Bible we have today because it is not the original scriptures that were revealed by God. They underwent alterations, additions, and omissions. This was also said by the Committee charged with revising The Holy Bible (Revised Standard Version). This Committee consisted of thirty-two scholars who served as members of the Committee. They secured the review and counsel of an Advisory Board of fifty representatives of the co-operating denominations. The Committee said in the Preface to The Holy Bible (Revised Standard Version), p. iv, “Sometimes it is evident that the text has suffered in transmission, but none of the versions provides a satisfactory restoration. Here we can only follow the best judgment of competent scholars as to the most probable reconstruction of the original text.
The Committee also said in the Preface, p. vii, Notes are added which indicate significant variations, additions, or omissions in the ancient authorities (Mt 9.34; Mk 3.16; 7.4; Lk 24.32, 51, etc.).
My question is do we believe in the information declared in the following sites or not:
THE REAL STORY OF MARY
http://geocities.com/SoHo/Gallery/3001/storyofmary.htm
THE TRUTH ABOUT JESUS
http://sultan.org/articles/Jesus.html
Who Was Jesus According to Jesus?
http://www.islaminfo.com
IS THE BIBLE GODS WORD?
http://www.jamaat.net/bible/Bible1-3.html
Women in Christianity and Islam
http://www.beconvinced.com/women/CH_IS.htm
The Bible - A Closer Look!
http://www.todayislam.com/bible.htm
-
soooo, where can I find the part in the bible describing the surface of Mars, or the creation of Dinosaurs?
-
rinard wrote:
Let there be no misunderstanding of my intentions. This post is not an assault on Christianity or any other religion.
It is indispensable for me to look for the truth and study comparative religion because if I would like to know whether a religion is true or false, I should not depend on my emotions, feelings, or traditions. Rather, I should depend on my reason and intellect. When God sent the prophets, He supported them with miracles and evidences, which proved that they were truly prophets, send by God and that the religion they came with was true.
Alllllrighty.... Another misguided attempt at 'reasoning out' religion, while in fact there can be no reason to such an endeavour due to the very nature of religion. While this website has a section devoted to discussions of a religious and philosophical nature, I don't think it was meant as an invitation to begin evangelisizing or starting a word-for-word comparison between two old and outdated theological texts. There are plenty of other sites and forums out there where such discussions can be conducted. Could you please do us all a favour and move to those if you feel like talking about your ideas? Thank you.
-
Gotta agree with Cymric here. Religion by its nature is based on faith, and faith can be very, very blind. Science is based on reason on logic, and these are the best tools for mankind to probe the world around him. Faith itself is useless except as a comfort. At its worst, it can stifle the human spirit as much as any tyrant.
I still hold this: religion is one continuous assault on the human ability to reason. Like sacrificing babies for a good harvest and worshipping trees, it must be removed for progress.
-
What's wrong with worshipping trees? What's wrong with worshipping something incredible complex and mysterious, something that just pops out of the ground and coloring the earth green?
Have you actually ever tried to make one yourself?
It makes far more sense than worshipping man made statue..
-
Worship is an insult to the human species.
-
KennyR wrote:
Worship is an insult to the human species.
You see being humble is equal to insult yourself?
-
humble!=worship
-
(Worship) == (honor the world that surrounds you) == (being humble towards the world that surrounds you)
-
Worship: unquestioningly honour the existence of a being you can neither prove or disprove.
Humble: honour the existence of a real thing for real reasons.
-
But you were talking about worshipping trees.
A tree is a real thing, so according to your definition, this implies that a tree can't be worshipped.
:-?
-
Worshipping trees is not worshipping the physical presence of the tree itself, you do know that right?
-
No I do not know.
I rather thought of the tree of being a symbol of life and creation. And life and creation are here, as being something very real. (creation as in 'all things', not the creationists' creation)
-
I think this thread should have been moved to CH/Religion & philosophy 39 posts ago ;-)
-
Why Aye Man
:lol:
-
Karlos wrote:
"Humanists recognize that it is only when people feel free to think for themselves, using reason as their guide, that they are best capable of developing values that succeed in satisfying human needs and serving human interests"
Well, when you use only reason as your guide, you can justify an awful lot of things which may make scientific sense but are clearly unethical.
What it comes down to is that a lot of ethical things are a matter of opinion.
In your example, it's not the case that you have shown that one can reason something "clearly unethical". I would say that it's not clear which way is ethical. As you said, you can reason that we should sterilise. But equally, we can reason that it is unethical.
Reason is a tool that allows you to deduce what follows from an original set of statements or ideas, but you still need to have some way of deciding how we measure what is best, what is ethical. As long as the person making the argument is able to explain what his way of deciding whether things are ethical or not, along with his reasoning, then that is fine.
If you think that someone has used reason to suggest something that you feel is "clearly unethical", then there ought to clearly be an alternative set of reasoning to prove your point, and counter the original argument.
"There is nothing scientifically unreasonable about this approach."
There are plenty of of things unreasonable with your point. *I* can come up with plenty of reasons why what you describe should not be done, but I'm curious that you seem to hold a belief that you seem to simultaneously believe is ethical but unreasonable. I'm also not sure what you mean by "scientifically unreasonable" - I don't think science itself makes any ethical judgements (a nuclear bomb can be made using science; obviously scientific things are not always ethical), but science can be used when reasoning.
That's not to say that I think people should give in if someone is a better debater than you are - I realise that sometimes, people have a gut feeling that something should be unethical even if they can't explain why. But just because they are unable to explain it doesn't mean that there is no way to explain it.
-
@mdwh2
Hey dude, that wasn't actually my opinion, it was supposed to provoke some thought on the idea that if one uses only what seems to be a logical and rational approach to all matters, you can justify an awful lot of things that many people (myself included) feel are clearly wrong/unethical.
I was also putting forward the implication that people who are devout would probably find the hypothetical situation I was describing more than just simply "unethical"...
For example, the suggestions made were to improve future generations physical well being by attempting to remove what could be demonstrated scientifically to be defective genes from the species. That's what I meant by "not scientifically unreasonable" (which wasnt the best turn of phrase, but meant to imply makes sense logically). I also state that there probably isnt a sane person who would be comfortable with that suggestion, but why?
Simply because it is unethical, was the answer I was hoping for...
The question arises, where do ethics come from? How do you define what is ethical and what is not?
Are ethics inherently shaped by existing (in particular, religious) concepts of moral / amoral?
-
Karlos wrote:
Hey dude, that wasn't actually my opinion, it was supposed to provoke some thought on the idea that if one uses only what seems to be a logical and rational approach to all matters, you can justify an awful lot of things that many people (myself included) feel are clearly wrong/unethical.
Well that's what I was arguing at - something is only "clearly" wrong because there exists some logical and rational argument supporting that viewpoint.
There probably exists some kind of argument to exist all sorts of things, but I should hope we can come up with counter-arguments for anything which we think is "clearly" unethical.
For example, the suggestions made were to improve future generations physical well being by attempting to remove what could be demonstrated scientifically to be defective genes from the species. That's what I meant by "not scientifically unreasonable" (which wasnt the best turn of phrase, but meant to imply makes sense logically). I also state that there probably isnt a sane person who would be comfortable with that suggestion, but why?
I don't think science makes any ethical suggestions at all. It may give facts - such as this gene causes that, or throwing two lumps of uranium causes a rather big bang - but I don't that automatically gives us any argument that we should go ahead and do those things (be it trying to prevent a gene from propagating, or setting off atomic bombs). I think you're confusing the scientific statements that make sense, and the ways in which people might use that information - they are two different things.
In order to support the idea that people shouldn't be able to reproduce, you also have to combine the scientific facts with the opinion that removing defective genes overrides someone's right to have a child. Also this is very much a matter of probability - usually AIUI there isn't a certainty that genes will be passed on that cause a condition, only a possiblity. Not to mention that a "defective gene" is a subjective and non-scientific opinion. A government might decide that all sorts of traits are undesirable, and try to breed them out. Cultures could also be wiped out by preventing them from having children (Nazi Germany and Jews?)
Simply because it is unethical, was the answer I was hoping for...
Something is unethical, because it is unethical?
The question arises, where do ethics come from? How do you define what is ethical and what is not?
Well, it's all a matter of opinion. But I prefer it when people can at least explain why they think it is wrong (either by describing effects of it that I might not have forseen, or reasoning from some initial set of axioms that I might agree with), rather than just saying circular things like "it's wrong because it's immoral", or statements like "it's wrong because God says so" (which are useless, because you can simply say "it's right because God says so").
-
@rinard
I believe that the correct word is revert, not convert. From my knowledge, moslems believe that we are all born moslem and must revert back to it if we choose another path in life, but being a "moslem", you are probably arlready aware of that. Assuming you really are a moslem, not just someone that wanted to start their own little flame war, what sect of Islam did you decide to follow? Do you believe in the Hadith or do you believe solely in the Nobel Quran? Personally I think your just another troll.
-
Karlos wrote:
@mdwh2
Hey dude, that wasn't actually my opinion, it was supposed to provoke some thought on the idea that if one uses only what seems to be a logical and rational approach to all matters, you can justify an awful lot of things that many people (myself included) feel are clearly wrong/unethical.
I was also putting forward the implication that people who are devout would probably find the hypothetical situation I was describing more than just simply "unethical"...
For example, the suggestions made were to improve future generations physical well being by attempting to remove what could be demonstrated scientifically to be defective genes from the species. That's what I meant by "not scientifically unreasonable" (which wasnt the best turn of phrase, but meant to imply makes sense logically). I also state that there probably isnt a sane person who would be comfortable with that suggestion, but why?
Simply because it is unethical, was the answer I was hoping for...
The question arises, where do ethics come from? How do you define what is ethical and what is not?
Are ethics inherently shaped by existing (in particular, religious) concepts of moral / amoral?
But religions are far worse... I shall explain why. Regigions have constantly sought to treat deformity and "abnormal behaviour" as the "devils" work or some such term.
Science our increasing reliance in Science over religion stops our from burning whiches, killing people who are a different colour, stoning "possesed" people, persecuting Homosexuals.... the list goes on.
Religions are intollerant, they have to be or they cannot survive.
Science is what allows us to realises that we are all people, doing the same things with the same loves, desires, drives.
Science is Logical. Religions are a small group's biggoted pollicial views forced upon the population.
Sure in modern times religions try to put on a face of commassion, but that is actually a perversion of the true ideals of the religion. And I say perversion is a good thing ;-)
-
Finally,
The natural inclination for religious faith is an integral part of the human essence. This is an indisputable fact of history. All scholars of comparative religion, regardless of their own religious backgrounds, agree that religious belief is a natural human condition. They differ, however about its origins.
It is indispensable for everybody to look for the truth now or later but who guarantee life and how long we are going to live and when the last moment will come. No body knows.
We have all the capabilities and resources to recognize and distinguish using for example the Internet. There will be no excuse for all of us, we will be asked then.
-
rinard wrote:
Finally,
The natural inclination for religious faith is an integral part of the human essence. This is an indisputable fact of history. All scholars of comparative religion, regardless of their own religious backgrounds, agree that religious belief is a natural human condition. They differ, however about its origins.
It is indispensable for everybody to look for the truth now or later but who guarantee life and how long we are going to live and when the last moment will come. No body knows.
We have all the capabilities and resources to recognize and distinguish using for example the Internet. There will be no excuse for all of us, we will be asked then.
I do agree, people are born with a natural desire to want order and a leader. That is the nature of fear.
Anyway, after all is said and done. We are all human (I think :crazy:) and regardless of each others faith (or lack threrof) in a higher (spiritual) power we should all agree that the most important thing is to work together here on this little rocky lump we call "The Earth" and STOP FIGHTING! :-P