PDA

View Full Version : Angels


Unknown
March 12, 2004, 11:57 AM
Here I will try to propose a few questions regarding Angels. We know that in the Quran angels are unseen creatures of light.

Thus if we link up our understanding of time and space, they must be travelling at the speed of light (or greater - if there is such a speed) in order to follow Allahs commands.

It takes many lightyears to travel from our galaxy to the next closest galaxy... travelling at the speed of light.

Thus if we assume that Angels are beings of light, then a question arises... are they travelling at the speed of light?

If so then it would take them many lightyears to convey the messages from Allah to his prophets. Consequently, this could mean that Heaven is actually closer to us, or otherwise Angels travel at a greater speed than the speed of light.

It could be neither of these cases and we would assume that they have such powers given by Allah in order that they are able to carry out his commands without the restrictions that we place on time and space.

Then there is this other subject of Angels taking on any form... The Quran states that Angels are able to take on any form they wish.

It is a well known scientific fact that matter and energy can be conversely created. If you have energy (light) you could create mass, likewise you can create energy from mass. I find this quite remarkable - this link between the Quran and modern physics.

Does anyone have their own opinions?

Forgive me if my questions are a little vague. And please, do not post another flame here, if you are offended by my inferior intellect, please do not bother posting, I am just trying to find out what other people think about Angels.

Thanks

[Edited on 12-3-2004 by Unknown]

Shubho
March 12, 2004, 01:24 PM
there is no point hypothesizing about the nature of angels, the devil, jinn or God Himself. it's a pointless exercise, because we don't have the technology to verify the existence of any of the above. the point of religion is to accept all of them on faith. philosophical and hypothetical discussions won't get us anywhere.

what IS important, however, is to keep an open mind and, above all, make the story of angels, the devil, jinn, etc, palatable to the modern, educated human intellect. too many muslims still talk in terms of fairy tales and take those fair tales literally. for example, i know of too many people who go on about how they saw jinn, that somebody is possessed by a jinn, etc. these are grotesquely naive and unscientific narrations. also, they go on about how angels interact with humans, as if we are reading the mahabharata with all its fantastic stories of multicoloured, multi-organed, super-strong, super-sonic gods and goddesses. personally, i think these people are hallucinating. we should not trivialize God's creations in such ways. there are most likely very scientific explanations for all these phenomena.

however, the fact is, we don't have the necessary technology to prove any of this. for now, we will just have to either accept it on faith, or reject it outright.

Unknown
March 12, 2004, 01:46 PM
You are right in a sense.

"...there are most likely very scientific explanations for all these phenomena."

I agree there must exist a scientific explanation but I suppose I made a hypothesis - which I should not have done, as that was not the point of my post.

My aim was to merely link the facts found in the Quran regarding angels (ie unseen beings of light) to the scientific attributes of light itself.

Arnab
March 12, 2004, 02:31 PM
I don't think there is any scientific explanation for the actual existence of an angel. Because there probably isn't any.

Last night I dreamt that I was driving a superfast mach-4 car on a Formula 1 circuit. It was almost real. But science doesn't have to explain why my dream car must exist in reality.

Bujruki has no place in science.

Pundit
March 12, 2004, 03:14 PM
But science doesn't have to explain why my dream car must exist in reality.


Arnab, that's probably because you know / or think with 100% certanity that your dream is a dream.

We don't know that about the Quranic stories.

Again, at the risk of meandering from Unknown's initial purpose here - It can be said that too often we dismiss religious statements only for not being able to scientifically prove them. Maybe that is our deficiency, and not the holy books'.

Arnab
March 12, 2004, 04:38 PM
We don't know that about the Quranic stories.

Yes, we do. They are simply outrageous even in terms of dreams. Beings made of light? Give me a break.

According to your logic, it's my "deficiency" that my dream car isn't really real. Right.

[Edited on 12-3-2004 by Arnab]

Shubho
March 12, 2004, 04:49 PM
arnab, you have a weird habit of judging books by their covers. you're barely scratching the surface of something that may indeed not be a fanciful idea. things in the quran, or in any other religious text, have been laid down in very simplistic language. the mistake you're making is the same one islamic fundamentalists make: they take the stories literally. by doing so, your 'superior' intellect naturally wants to reject something that sounds like a fairy tale. angels made of light should not be taken literally, just as humans made of clay shouldn't be taken literally.

as for your mach-4 speed car...it's not impossible to conceive. in the distant future, i'm certain technology will allow us such luxuries. if you want to realize that dream, eat healthy, exercise daily and don't smoke...try to make it to your 5000th birthday.

[Edited on 12-3-2004 by Shubho]

say
March 12, 2004, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by Shubho
the mistake you're making is the same one islamic fundamentalists make: they take the stories literally.
...
angels made of light should not be taken literally, just as humans made of clay shouldn't be taken literally.


bravo.. well said!!

Unknown
March 12, 2004, 05:50 PM
If we do not take it literally how do we take it? When Allah commands you to pray five times a day, you take it literally and do so. So if the creator says that angels are unseen beings of light why can't you take that literally?

Arnab
March 12, 2004, 06:11 PM
Haha! Unknown raises a very interesting question.

So, what DO you take literally and what do you NOT take literally, eh? Who decides that? What is the rule to go by?

Look, being intentionally vague has a place in subjectice art and poetry, even if it is almost 1500 years old. I have no problem with that. But don't try to call it "scientific". Being as clear as possible IS "fundamental" to what science is.

The mistake YOU are making is you are trying to have a vague reconciliation between science and faith, which is not possible. You are not aware how science works. Or, may be you are, but just doing it for mental peace since you can't de-brainwash yourself. Or else why would you want me to believe that I will live 5000 years to drive my imaginary mach-4 car? That remark proved my point exactly. That there could be angels is as realistic as me surviving 5000 years. Neither is gonna happen, and I say that with 99.99999999....% certainty. I take that kind of certainty to be enough to reject the existence of angels, or the possibility that I will live 5000 years.

[Edited on 12-3-2004 by Arnab]

Unknown
March 12, 2004, 06:12 PM
Since matter and energy are related by e=mc^2 - you can create energy from mass, and mass from energy. Why would it be hard to comprehend beings of light?

We naturally assume that beings must be made of mass, because that is what we see around us.

But let me say this to you... have you ever seen an electron or a quark?

Arnab
March 12, 2004, 06:14 PM
Unknown, I am also very interested to see where this discussion goes. So, lets take this one step at a time, ok?

First off, please list all the qualities/properties of "angels" that you can think of, using Quran and hadith sources .

Unknown
March 12, 2004, 06:17 PM
Arnab dude you need to chill for a bit... you realise dont you that humans are falsable... not everything you say is absolutely 100% correct.

EDIT: I will get some sources for you, but please try not to dismiss anyone elses argument so readily.

[Edited on 12-3-2004 by Unknown]

Arnab
March 12, 2004, 06:20 PM
I am as "chill" as the labatte blue in front of me, dude. Why don't you do what I said?

I have not dismissed any argument. Because nobody has presented any yet. I am trying to HELP you establish a clear logical argument. Then we will see where it goes.

Shubho
March 12, 2004, 07:16 PM
arnab, the difference between you and me is the difference between closed-mindedness and open-mindedness. you are trying to refute the existence of angels, while i'm trying to show that they MAY exist, but not necessarily.

I have the following points to make:

a) no-one can prove that angels exist
b) no-one can prove that they don't exist

you either take it on faith, or you don't.

my other point is, if you want to take the quran literally, then a lot of intelligent people would not subscribe to this religion, because a lot of things simply do not (usually) make sense when taken literally.

thirdly, there is the question of context. in my opinion, the quran wasn't meant to be a science book, a history book or a novel. its purpose was to convey the message of God to mankind, nothing else. so, you cannot expect people to disbelieve simply because the quran does not explicitly state newton's laws or the heisenberg principle.

fourthly, i'm not trying to convert you, so don't get defensive. i'm just trying to point out that it isn't stupid to believe in angels, just as it isn't stupid not to believe in them. furthermore, no matter how highly you may regard your intellect, there is always the possibility that you may in fact be wrong (just as muslims may be mistaken that angels exist). you should bear that in mind.

finally, yes i do take some things literally, and others not so literally, just as i take some things you say literally, and others with a pinch of salt. that is the beauty of religion: there is lots of room for interpretation. more often than not, i do not follow the quran to the letter. but then that is because i don't believe God wanted us to live like we did 1500 years ago. eventually, what you take literally and what you don't depends upon your interpretation.

i fear you are always too quick in dismissing ideas. things are not always that black and white. expand your mind, friend.

Navarene
March 12, 2004, 07:48 PM
A "rational mind" dismiss the concept of angelic truth or it's any slightest relation with modern science.

A rational mind is not even atheist in the sense that it would exhaust itself in demonstrations of the non-existance of quranic angel or it's god. It declares, rather, that even if angel existed that would make no difference from its point of view.

Not that a rational mind believe angel or god does exist, but rather thinks that the real problem is not that of it's existance. Thus what MAN needs is to find himself again and to UNDERSTAND that nothing can save him from himself, not even a valid proof of the existance of angel, angelic force or even of god, for that matter.

Unknown
March 12, 2004, 08:25 PM
I will deviate a little and ask you if you think there is a greater speed than the speed of light...

Please do not reply with a "shows how intelligent you are, of course there is no greater speed than that of light".

I am strictly looking for opinions not flames whether someone is right or wrong. Remember opinions are just that, they do not necessarily have to be right or wrong!

Back to the belief in angels, well, its the same as believing in God or not. Atheist disbelieve because they cannot sense a God, but as I pointed out earlier, can you sense an electron or a quark?

Just because we do not have the techology or otherwise cleverness to make measurements or sense things (beyond what we can now) does not mean that they are non existent.

For example if someone screams at the top of his voice fifty miles away from you, but you fail to hear, does not mean that the person didnt not scream. You just failed to sense it.

BTW did any of you guys read on Shrodingers Cat?

Arnab
March 12, 2004, 08:32 PM
Shubho, read carefully the points I make:

"Being open minded" has nothing to do "Believe something on faith". Just because you "believe in angels on faith" doesn't make you more open minded than me. Look, there are psychological patients who think they are drinking blood or seeing ghosts. Does that mean they are more "open minded" than I am?

I define open minded as being open to ideas that are consistent with whatever scientific knowledge we gathered so far. Something that can be provable by Science. Or something that science can logically pursue in near future. God or Angels aren't remotely scientific ideas. Believing in them require a tremendous departure from scientific notions, so much so that if you believe in them, you basically reject whatever science stands for.

On to your second point, if taking Quran literally makes a lot of intelligent people NOT subscribe to the religion, then so be it. What is your problem? Why does Quran HAVE to make sense? Why do you feel the need for this to happen? Why do intelligent people have to forego their intelligence and dumb down to find a mixture of symbolic and literal meaning to MAKE Quran work for them?

Third point, Quran wasn't meant to be a science book. Of course! That's why I vehemently disagree with anyone who tries to prove that Quran is "scientific." Whether Quran is really the mesage of God to mankind is a whole another issue.

On your fourth point I disagree. Let me give you an analogy. Let's say I claim that the sun will not rise in the east tomorrow. Now, it's not entirely a false claim. Maybe some cosmic catstrophe will happen between now and tomorrow's sunrise and may be the sun won't rise tomorrow. But the chance of it happening is VERY small, about 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000......00001 %
The possibilty of the sun rising in the east tomorrow is 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999. ...99999%

Both these claims are not "stupid" per se. But one of them has such an overwhelming possibility of happening that it is entirely rational to reject the other. My view on God/angels' existence follow the same probability scenario.

As for your final point, you are entirely at liberty to interpret the quran in whatever way you do. You think it's the word of God, to be taken semi-literally and semi-symbolically, according to the scenario of the age you live in. I don't think of Quran that way. I think it's jsut another "holy book" in a long line of religious scriptures form all around the world from different ages and I don't feel the need to interpret it just like I don't feel the need to interpret Torah, Bible or the holy scriptures the tribes of Papua New Guinea go by. I am not being close-minded. I have given them a fair chance before. And I reject them. Just as I reject the notion that the sun will not rise tomorrow or that right after reading this post, a god will strike you dead right in front of your pc to prove its existence to me. :)

[Edited on 13-3-2004 by Arnab]

[Edited on 3-13-2004 by chinaman : Please do not post too many characters in one line]

Arnab
March 12, 2004, 09:00 PM
Let me clearly and eloquently express my opinions regarding this with the help of Richard Feynman. I agree with every word of the following to the 't'. His opinion is my opinion:

If you expected science to give all the answers to the wonderful questions about what we are, where we're going, what the meaning of the universe is and so on, then I think you could easily become disillusioned and then look for some mystic answer to these problems. How a scientist can take a mystic answer I don?t know because the whole spirit is to understand - well, never mind that. Anyhow, I don't understand that, but anyhow if you think of it, the way I think of what we're doing is we're exploring, we're trying to find out as much as we can about the world. People say to me, "Are you looking for the ultimate laws of physics?" No, I'm not, I'm just looking to find out more about the world and if it turns
out there is a simple ultimate law which explains everything, so be it, that would be very nice to discover.

If it turns out it's like an onion with millions of layers and we're just sick and tired of looking at the layers, then that's the way it is, but whatever way it comes out its nature is there and she's going to come out the way she is, and therefore when we go to investigate it we shouldn't predecide what it is we're trying to do except to try to find out more about it. If
you say your problem is, why do you find out more about it, if you thought you were trying to find out more about it because you?re going to get an answer to some deep philosophical question, you may be wrong. It may be that you can't get
an answer to that particular question by finding out more about the character of nature, but I don't look at it [like that].

My interest in science is to simply find out about the world, and the more I find out the better it is, like, to find out.

There are very remarkable mysteries about the fact that we're able to do so many more things than apparently animals can do, and other questions like that, but those are mysteries I want to investigate without knowing the answer to them, and so altogether I can't believe these special stories that have been made up about our relationship to the universe at large because they seem to be too simple, too connected, too local, too provincial. The earth, He came to the earth, one of the aspects of God came to the earth, mind you, and look at what's out there. It isn't in proportion. Anyway, it's no use arguing, I can't argue it, I'm just trying to tell you why the scientific views that I have do have some effect on my belief. And also another thing has to do with the question
of how you find out if something's true, and if all the different religions have all different theories about the thing, then
you begin to wonder. Once you start doubting, just like you're supposed to doubt, you ask me if the science is true.
I say no, we don't know what's true, we're trying to find out and everything is possibly wrong.

Start out understanding religion by saying everything is possibly wrong. Let us see. As soon as you do that, you start sliding down an edge which is hard to recover from and so on. With the scientific view, or my father's view, that we should look to see what's true and what may be or may not be true, once you start doubting, which I think to me is a very fundamental part of my soul, to doubt and to ask, and when you doubt and ask it gets a little harder to believe.

You see, one thing is, I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different
degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here, and what the question might mean. I might think about it a little bit and if I can't figure it out, then I go on to something else, but I don't have to know an answer, I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is so far as I can tell. It doesn't frighten me.

say
March 12, 2004, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by Unknown
I will deviate a little and ask you if you think there is a greater speed than the speed of light...


UnKnown Bhai, Yes I believe there is a greater speed. Its called the 'human mind'. The human mind can have any speed it can imagine.

What is faster then the wind? -- Mind

Unknown
March 12, 2004, 09:04 PM
Reread that and you will see that guy[Richard Feynman] is self contradictory and hypocritical...

[Edited on 13-3-2004 by Unknown]

Arnab
March 12, 2004, 09:11 PM
Unknown, I hope you know who Richard Feynman is. But that's not the main point. I don't see anything hypocritical or contradictory in what he said.

Unknown
March 12, 2004, 09:13 PM
If you are assuming that everything is wrong in the first place, then your assumption "everything about religion is wrong", is wrong. Contradictory.

Arnab
March 12, 2004, 09:16 PM
Haha! No it isn't. Even the assumption that "everything in religion is wrong" COULD be wrong. That's exactly what he is saying. There is nothing contradictory in there.

Unknown
March 12, 2004, 09:19 PM
That is contradictory, becuase that statement would evaluate to: "everything in religion is right"... okay stay on topic.

[EDIT] Hypocritical part is where: if he believes everything is wrong, there is no use of believing in anything then: since he does not know any answers for certain.

[Edited on 13-3-2004 by Unknown]

Arnab
March 12, 2004, 09:26 PM
Ok, you are missing things here. Those are assumptions, you can't make something true just by assuming it.

I am really telling a lie right now. But, I am telling a truth at the same time. That's contradictory.

I am assuming that A could be right. I am assuming that A could be wrong. That is not contradictory. Baecause I haven't even finished the process of evaluating the right or wrong ness of A.

[Edited on 13-3-2004 by Arnab]

Unknown
March 12, 2004, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by Arnab
Ok, you are missing things here. Those are assumptions, you can't make something true just by assuming it.

I am really telling a lie right now. But, I am telling a truth at the same time. That's contradictory.

I am assuming that A could be right. I am assuming that A could be wrong. That is not contradictory. Baecause I haven't even finished the process of evaluating the right or wrong ness of A.

[Edited on 13-3-2004 by Arnab]

Brings me back the evolution topic, looks like you succumbed to inferior reasoning? Evolution was an assumption, it was never seen in action, but you made it 100% true.

[EDIT] We should really be keeping on topic. And btw, his reasoning results to a paradox, no solution to it, thats why contradictory. Besides this guy does not make both assumptions about religion, he just makes the one. So he assumes A is only false, not that A could also be true.

[Edited on 13-3-2004 by Unknown]

[Edited on 13-3-2004 by Unknown]

Shubho
March 12, 2004, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by Arnab
Shubho, read carefully the points I make:

"Being open minded" has nothing to do "Believe something on faith". Just because you "believe in angels on faith" doesn't make you more open minded than me. Look, there are psychological patients who think they are drinking blood or seeing ghosts. Does that mean they are more "open minded" than I am?


You missed the point. I never said I believe in angels (although I may do). What I am saying is, you do not have any evidence to refute the existence of angels. I think you're being closed-minded by failing to concede that something may in fact be true (however, small the probability), especially if there is no evidence to the contrary.


I define open minded as being open to ideas that are consistent with whatever scientific knowledge we gathered so far. Something that can be provable by Science. Or something that science can logically pursue in near future. God or Angels aren't remotely scientific ideas. Believing in them require a tremendous departure from scientific notions, so much so that if you believe in them, you basically reject whatever science stands for.


Personally, I do not think God and angels require a tremendous departure from science. With each day, our knowledge of the universe is expanding. With each day our ignorance of (let me call it) God and His creations diminishes. I cannot think of any scientific fact that the existence of God or His angels would contradict. That being the case, I see no reason why I should pursue one at the expense of the other.


On to your second point, if taking Quran literally makes a lot of intelligent people NOT subscribe to the religion, then so be it. What is your problem? Why does Quran HAVE to make sense? Why do you feel the need for this to happen? Why do intelligent people have to forego their intelligence and dumb down to find a mixture of symbolic and literal meaning to MAKE Quran work for them?


The Quran doesn't HAVE to make sense...it may just make sense, period. For ME, it makes more sense to put the language of the Quran in context, and evaluate it from that perspective. Other people may have a different take on it. That doesn't matter. When I picked up my copy of the Quran it 'spoke' to me, i.e. the general message made sense to me. But of course, the same book read by others will reveal different messages to them (to you, for example, it is unambiguously hogwash). My point is that a lot of people like me (with moderate intelligence) would definitely reject the Quran IF it was to be taken literally.


Third point, Quran wasn't meant to be a science book. Of course! That's why I vehemently disagree with anyone who tries to prove that Quran is "scientific." Whether Quran is really the mesage of God to mankind is a whole another issue.


Either you are being slightly pedantic, or those who claim the Quran is scientific are trying to dress up the Quran as a science book. I think, when people say the Quran is 'scientific', what they mean is that recent scientific discoveries (and future ones will) continue to corroborate certain passages of the Quran. As I mentioned in my previous post, I am not generally comfortable with those Muslims who want to pass off the Quran as an all-purpose book.


On your fourth point I disagree. Let me give you an analogy. Let's say I claim that the sun will not rise in the east tomorrow. Now, it's not entirely a false claim. Maybe some cosmic catstrophe will happen between now and tomorrow's sunrise and may be the sun won't rise tomorrow. But the chance of it happening is VERY small, about 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000......00001 %
The possibilty of the sun rising in the east tomorrow is 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999. ...99999%

Both these claims are not "stupid" per se. But one of them has such an overwhelming possibility of happening that it is entirely rational to reject the other. My view on God/angels' existence follow the same probability scenario.


The example you give here, bears absolutely no relevance to the question of angels and/or God. I did not make a claim contrary to generally accepted wisdom. The sun will most likely rise in the east tomorrow, and the probability that it won't is negligible. I can even demonstrate (and I mean this literally) that the probability that aliens exist is 1. But how do you propose to quantify the probability that God does not exist or that angels do not exist. You can't. No one can.


As for your final point, you are entirely at liberty to interpret the quran in whatever way you do. You think it's the word of God, to be taken semi-literally and semi-symbolically, according to the scenario of the age you live in. I don't think of Quran that way. I think it's jsut another "holy book" in a long line of religious scriptures form all around the world from different ages and I don't feel the need to interpret it just like I don't feel the need to interpret Torah, Bible or the holy scriptures the tribes of Papua New Guinea go by. I am not being close-minded. I have given them a fair chance before. And I reject them. Just as I reject the notion that the sun will not rise tomorrow or that right after reading this post, a god will strike you dead right in front of your pc to prove its existence to me. :)


You have every right to feel this way about religions in general, and anybody who tries to argue that you're a fool for doing so would be an idiot. I cannot prove to you that God exists. Neither can you prove to me that He doesn't exist. Above all, open mindedness means accepting that fact.
[/quote]

[Edited on 3-13-2004 by chinaman : Please do not post too many characters in one line]

chinaman
March 12, 2004, 10:49 PM
Shubho: arnab, you have a weird habit of judging books by their covers.

Unknown: Arnab dude you need to chill for a bit ..


Guys,

I'd consider these remark to be of personal in nature. As I always say "attack the message, not the messenger". I sure hope to see the discussion to go along in a way that doesn't include personal attacks or insentivities.

Note: Please do not post too many characters without space in one line, it distorts the forum layout.

[Edited on 3-13-2004 by chinaman : Added: without space]

Shubho
March 12, 2004, 10:54 PM
interesting how mr chinaman has taken quotes out of context. anyway, i didn't see arnab get overly offended. i'm pretty sure he realizes i wasn't trying to offend him. and i'm certain unknown wasn't being insulting either.

Arnab
March 12, 2004, 10:57 PM
You have every right to feel this way about religions in general, and anybody who tries to argue that you're a fool for doing so would be an idiot. I cannot prove to you that God exists. Neither can you prove to me that He doesn't exist. Above all, open mindedness means accepting that fact.

Then wat is your point? By what standard did you call me "close-minded"? Did I, at any point, outright DENY the possibility of the existence of God or angels? Show me where I did, without taking out of context remarks of course.

Don't jump in with false accusations man. [BTW, I don't feel offended in any way]

[Edited on 13-3-2004 by Arnab]

chinaman
March 12, 2004, 11:04 PM
No personal attack, period. It doesn't matter who feels how or what.

Please continue your discussion, no need to reply to this message.

Shubho
March 12, 2004, 11:19 PM
You said: That there could be angels is as realistic as me surviving 5000 years. Neither is gonna happen, and I say that with 99.99999999....% certainty. I take that kind of certainty to be enough to reject the existence of angels, or the possibility that I will live 5000 years.

I concede that you allowed a 0.0000000000000000000000000000...00001% chance that angels do exist, but then, in the same breath, you say, that that kind of certainty is enough to reject the existence of angels.

I am utterly confused now...a little unsure, if you will. Have I taken your comment out of context? Were you in fact agreeing that angels MAY exist? Or were you denying that angels exist? Which is it? I don't think I have jumped in with false allegations. In fact, I haven't made allegations. I made observations which are only as good as the comments I respond to.

[Edited on 13-3-2004 by Shubho]

say
March 12, 2004, 11:25 PM
From a believer’s perspective, it seems everything is possible. Let me through in another question. I'm curious to know what is the basis of knowing/thinking there is only 'one' super-being? Why not more?

Shubho
March 12, 2004, 11:28 PM
indeed, say, why not? but that is a question that i cannot give a foolproof answer to. the idea of one deity appeals to my intellect (however, small it is), whereas that of more than one doesn't.

it is strange though, that all major world religions are in fact monotheistic to some degree or another. even hinduism. all their 'gods' and 'goddesses' are simply different manifestations of the same deity.

Arnab
March 12, 2004, 11:32 PM
OK you're getting on my nerves now don't accept the possibility that angels may really exist.

I clarified that I DO accept the possibility, but also show that I do not regard it as a very likely, or even a 50-50 possibility. My belief in the possibility of angels' existence is the same as my belief in the possibility of the sun NOT rising tomorrow or YOU supporting Pakistan against Bangladesh in a cricket match. :) The possibility is infinitesimally low. The possibility of the opposite happening is HUGE, like the possibilty that I am really an alive human being right now and typing these letters. There is an infinitesimally small possibility that I "could" be an alien or a robot or whatever, but I think it is extremely unlikely.

So, no, even by your own standard, I am not "close-minded" at all. I am willing to give the angel hypothesis a chance. A VERY VERY VERY VERY small, almost nothing of a chance.

[Edited on 13-3-2004 by Arnab]

say
March 12, 2004, 11:47 PM
Originally posted by Shubho
indeed, say, why not? but that is a question that i cannot give a foolproof answer to. the idea of one deity appeals to my intellect (however, small it is), whereas that of more than one doesn't.

it is strange though, that all major world religions are in fact monotheistic to some degree or another. even hinduism. all their 'gods' and 'goddesses' are simply different manifestations of the same deity.

Shubho, I'm actually curious to understand the possibility of polytheism. I don't think the "different 'gods' and 'goddesses' are simply different manifestations of the same deity" - what if they are truly independent of each other? These could be the many forces of the universe - often contradicting one another but ultimately living in harmony. Thus making our world a chaotic and an unpredictable one.

Shubho
March 13, 2004, 12:59 AM
Arnab, it's a good sign if I'm getting on your nerves. ;)

What on Earth do you mean the 'possibility of that happening'? How does an angel 'happen'? And I don't see how you can say that the probability for angels to exist (or 'happen') is low. I mentioned before, neither you, nor anyone else, can quantify that probability.

There, hope that irritated you some more. :)

Arnab
March 13, 2004, 01:47 AM
Yes. It certainly did. I now have a low opinion of your intelligence. It's ok. I have a low opinion of most people's intelligence.

Unknown
March 13, 2004, 05:46 AM
Originally posted by Arnab
Yes. It certainly did. I now have a low opinion of your intelligence. It's ok. I have a low opinion of most people's intelligence. This fact was blatantly obvious anyway. :duh: Arnab you still did not answer my previous question, which I highlighted twice.

Going back a few posts where Shubo writes "the quran wasn't meant to be a science book, a history book or a novel. "
I agree that the Quran is not meant to be a science book, but there are statements in the Quran of or relating to science...

If you write a crime book for example, and in it you include bits regarding forensic science and how they find the criminal using it... that does not make it a science book, you just included some portions of the science of forensics. Therefore you must have had knowledge of forensic science if it were to be accurate.

The Quran is a guidance to life, but it does contain some scientific information.


[Edited on 13-3-2004 by Unknown]

fab
March 14, 2004, 08:53 AM
Unknown bhai/bhon
angels are unseen creatures of light

First, what is the definition of ‘light’? According to my physics dictionary the definition is “Electromagnetic waves with wavelengths between 400 and 760nn that the normal human eye can detect”.
So by that token if something is made of light, it should be visible to the human eye thereby making the statement ‘unseen creature made of light’ a fallacy.

Thus if we assume that Angels are beings of light, then a question arises... are they travelling at the speed of light?

Here you are assuming that Angels are bounded to the same space-time dimension that we are. How do you know this? I always thought heaven and hell (and wherever it is Angels reside) to be outside of our 4 dimensional universe. In that sense, it is perhaps incorrect to make a comparison between how fast these angels can travel and the properties of 'light' as we know it in our space and time.
Who knows, maybe they travel in a vortex of some kind? Perhaps they say “Beam me up, Allah” a la Star trek. Maybe they don't travel at all and just communicate telepathically. Maybe the fact that you are trying to use Science to validate these claims just limits you in your imagination?

Either way, it might be my low intellect, but I’m with Shubho on this one. Religion is something that is based on faith alone, and it is silly to try to validate it using scientific methods. Leave Science at work and Religion at home is my motto :)

Unknown
March 14, 2004, 11:30 AM
Your point is valid, but the Arabic word used to describe the properties of angels does not mean light literally.

It could be rather a description of other waves found in the electromagnetic spectrum that our eye cannot see, or even, a something that we have failed to measure (detect) so far.

And yes, only the Almighty may know the truth, but just because we fail to sense them does not rule out that Angels do not exist.

Fab, I also pointed out at the very start that Angels may not have to obey the rules that we place on time and space (read first post).

[Edited on 14-3-2004 by Unknown]

Arnab
March 14, 2004, 01:01 PM
faith = silly

Unknown
March 14, 2004, 01:08 PM
On the contrary, faith = trust

say
March 14, 2004, 01:11 PM
Your point is valid, but the Arabic word used to describe the properties of angels does not mean light literally.

unknown bhai/bohn, aren't you contradicting your earlier statement?

Originally posted by Unknown
If we do not take it literally how do we take it? When Allah commands you to pray five times a day, you take it literally and do so. So if the creator says that angels are unseen beings of light why can't you take that literally?

[Edited on 14-3-2004 by say]

Orpheus
March 14, 2004, 05:55 PM
God doesn't exists because my opinions sound better. My opinions are facts and logical because I am a logical guy. I take the road less traveled. I am unique.

God do exist because I feel it. So I try to justify my believe with theories that I don't even fully comprehend.

I am Blaise Pascal and I have the solution. Blaise's Wager! Now be logical

[Edited on 14-3-2004 by Orpheus : Trying to clarify]

fab
March 14, 2004, 07:04 PM
Your point is valid, but the Arabic word used to describe the properties of angels does not mean light
literally.

Although, as say has pointed out, you contradicted yourself, I do comprehend what you mean. There was no such notion of 'wavelengths' during that time, so how else to explain what Angels are made of? I can understand Allah's dilemma.
How do you explain something as complex as existence to a bunch of imbeciles like us. Kind of like trying to explain String theory to a two year old with limited vocabulary and understanding (but by a magnitude of about a million). But then, Allah is omnipresent, so He should know EXACTLY what would convince us to follow him, but He didn't, He had to make it all vague so we can sit on Internet msg boards and talk about it all day... Frankly speaking, I think we are just pawns in a game, and it is all very unfair :)

I also pointed out at the very start that Angels may not have to obey the rules that we place on time and space (read first post).

Which makes the exercise of examing how they travel in our dimension futile to begin with..

Arnab wrote:
faith = silly

Yes, I agree with you 100%. Faith = silly trust from a scientific point of view. But from a moralistic view, it makes a lot of sense. (I really like the idea of evil people being punished in the future)

Arnab
March 14, 2004, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by fab

Arnab wrote:
faith = silly

Yes, I agree with you 100%. Faith = silly trust from a scientific point of view. But from a moralistic view, it makes a lot of sense. (I really like the idea of evil people being punished in the future)

Faith = silly
Morals = pretense

fab
March 14, 2004, 07:13 PM
So me NOT going out and blowing myself and 100 other civilians is just pretense?

[Edited on 15-3-2004 by fab]

Shubho
March 14, 2004, 07:33 PM
now, now, arnab

to quote you:
'faith = silly'
'morals = pretense'

is that closed-mindedness or what?

fab
March 14, 2004, 07:36 PM
But can't you see that morals are just pretense? Now go and kill yourself.

(i am of course joking :P )

Arnab
March 14, 2004, 08:19 PM
Shubho, I don't know how you define "close-minded."

"faith=silly" has nothing to do with closeminded/openmindedness. faith is blindly believing in something. By definition, it is silly. Now, having faith, even though it is silly, can be beneficial or harmful to you in the long run. So, "faith=silly" has nothing to do with good/evil, benefit/loss, etc. It's an objective observation.

"morals = pretense" is also an objective observation and an extremely open-minded look at things. Morality itself is subjective. There is no objective standard of morality. Whetever subjective set of values we consider to be "moral", we "pretend" that they actually are "moral".

For example: Do you lie? Do you bribe? Do you consider lying and bribing absolutely immoral? Do you consider a certain level of lying and bribing as sort of a threshold value beyond which you won't go? What is that level? Do you think this level varies amonf different people? Do you think killing a person is immoral? Do you think the American soldiers that are killing innocent civilians in Iraq are immoral? Or do you think the lunatic terorists who kill the same American soldiers are immoral? How do you draw the line?

You can't.

It's all pretense.

There is only one rule in the game: "Chacha Apon Poran Bacha"

[Edited on 15-3-2004 by Arnab]

Shubho
March 14, 2004, 11:04 PM
man, i give up. i might as well chat to a brick wall.

Arnab
March 14, 2004, 11:17 PM
Haha! Is it because you don't find anything objectionable in what I said? :)

Shubho
March 15, 2004, 12:35 AM
do you seriously think so? :rolleyes:

Arnab
March 15, 2004, 01:43 AM
I don't seriously think anything. I take it easy.

fab
March 15, 2004, 01:48 AM
Please please please STOP. Your constant bickering leads me to believe that you guys are married or something :)

Shubho
March 15, 2004, 02:32 AM
bickering? neither of us has even exchanged insults yet, though he does seem to doubt my intelligence. but i'm not offended.

chinaman
March 15, 2004, 02:40 AM
When you sit for exam, you some how put your trust on that teacher's judgment.
When you travel, you put your life on line believing in pilot's skill.
When your teacher says e=mc*c, you believe in it even though you know it might be modified tomorrow.
When your doctor gives you those bitter pills you ....
When your mom says this is your dad, you .....
When your wife says this is your baby, you ....

See where I'm coming from? All faith or trust aren't that bad or silly, unjustified faith might be.

Arnab
March 15, 2004, 11:36 AM
All of those cases are not just silly trust, because it's not trust based on blind faith. It's trust based on probabilistic calculation. The doctors, teachers and pilots have to go through a rigorous qualification process before they enter their profession.

You don't consider people who sell those "jouno khomota bordhok molom" at Farmgate overbridge "doctors", do you?

The reasoning is so elementary. When you have a heart problem, do you go to a heart specialist or an ENT guy? Why? Because the heart specialist is QUALIFIED to address your heart problems. This is not "faith=silly" kind of trust. This is cold blooded, calculated, probabilistic trust.

Yes, you can blindly trust your mom that it's really is your dad. But if you have ANY doubt, and want to be sure, science is there to rescue you. Do a simple DNA testing.

oracle
March 15, 2004, 11:49 AM
Because the heart specialist is QUALIFIED to address your heart problems. This is not "faith=silly" kind of trust. This is cold blooded, calculated, probabilistic trust.


Heart specialist- He is also a tangible entity my wife can sue hard after praying hard all nightl.

P.S Needless to say, I also expect all banglacricket members to pray hard if that happens to me.

chinaman
March 15, 2004, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by Arnab

Yes, you can blindly trust your mom that it's really is your dad.

Blind faith doesn't sound that silly afterall!

Orpheus
March 15, 2004, 01:57 PM
It's trust based on probabilistic calculation

Blaise's Wager!

Ekta post kotobar korbo?

Arnab
March 15, 2004, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by chinaman
Originally posted by Arnab

Yes, you can blindly trust your mom that it's really is your dad.

Blind faith doesn't sound that silly afterall!

It IS silly. It is also silly to expect a 5 year old child to know the nuts and bolts of DNA testing or even how his dad's sperm and his mom's egg made a zygote from which he came.

Did you know that about 10% people in the USA call someone their dad or mom who is really not their dad or mom? Think about it. One of 10 people out there don't know who their real dad/mom is.

But you are not supposed to talk about it. Taboos, as it appears, are also silly. :)

Unknown
March 15, 2004, 05:38 PM
So thats not the childs problem, if the real dad/mom does not care about the child why should he care who his parents are?

Anyway, you guys diagress, topic is Angels :)

Do you have faith in the humble electron that lets you read this? :duh:

chinaman
March 15, 2004, 05:51 PM
If blindly trusting mom or wife about dad and baby is silly, I think many can live with that silliness.

BTW, could you please give the source and link of that statistics?

Arnab
March 15, 2004, 08:29 PM
If blindly trusting mom or wife about dad and baby is silly, I think many can live with that silliness.

Of course. I myself am living with all the religious people's silliness aren't I?

As for the statistic: I don't remember off hand, but it was from a book by Matt Ridley or David Buss. Could be from the book "Sperm Wars" too. I will check.

[Edited on 16-3-2004 by Arnab]

chinaman
March 15, 2004, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by Arnab

Of course. I myself am living with all the religious people's silliness aren't I?



More appropriately, you are living with your own silliness (as you like to call it), unless of course you decide to pay a visit to lab or did you already? On the other hand, I live with my own faith (that's what I like to call) without complain of any kind.

chinaman
March 15, 2004, 08:46 PM
BTW, I'll be looking forward to know the source of that statistics with relevant info like link, year, conductor of that poll, etc you know what I mean.

Arnab
March 15, 2004, 08:49 PM
Yes yes. Blanket statements are fun. :)

Look, I have no problem with you living with your faith. Do whatever you want. But know that I think you are silly to have that sort of religious faith. This is not a complaint, a mere observation. I don't think it matters much what "I" think of the silliness of your faith. What matters is when you yourself will understand your silliness.

Arnab
March 15, 2004, 08:57 PM
From: http://www.ukmm.org.uk/issues/cheat.htm

BTW, I mistook the name of the country. It's UK not USA. But it happens pretty frequently in USA too. The second article in the following quote is an evidence of that.

Women who cheat on their husbands

The Times 23 January 2000

One in seven fathers 'not the real parent'

Lois Rogers, Medical Correspondent

At least one in 10 children was not sired by the man who believes he is their father, according to scientists in paternity testing laboratories.

Some laboratories have reported the level of "unexpected" paternity to be as high as one in seven when they perform DNA genetic tests on blood samples from supposed parent and offspring.

There are now seven government-approved laboratories doing paternity testing. Cellmark Diagnostics in Abingdon is the largest and receives more than 10,000 requests a year. One in five of them is "private" and has not been ordered as a result of a court or Child Support Agency dispute.

David Hartshorne, spokesman for Cellmark, said that in about one case in seven, the presumed father turns out to be the wrong man.

"It is surprising how often the mother is wrong about the person she thinks is the father," he said. Marriage breakdown and more births outside marriage have increased disputes about paternity and the desire for testing, he added.

In addition to DNA evidence, other studies of mass blood samples suggest that increasing numbers of women are unsure if their husbands are the fathers of their children.

This phenomenon of misattributed fatherhood has been investigated in a newly published study by social scientists at the London School of Economics (LSE).

Oliver Curry, the principal researcher, said long working hours and commuting by fathers could contribute to uncertainty about whether children have been fathered by the man who is bringing them up.

"It can have major consequences for the way men treat their supposed children and the amount of time, money and emotion they invest in them," Curry said. "It can range through the entire spectrum from serious abuse to deciding not to pay for their education, or not buying them the latest expensive trainers."

The team from the LSE is calling for investigations to be set up by the government's new National Family and Parenting Institute. They believe that mistrust over paternity may be an overlooked factor in family breakdown. Women are driven by primitive urges to seek the optimum genes for their children, which can lead to them sleeping with a "high social-status Casanova" as well as their regular partner during the fertile period around ovulation, researchers claim.

David Buss, a psychologist from the University of Texas who is about to publish a new study on the subject, said: "A proportion of these misattributed fathers will believe that the child is genuinely theirs, and often the mother tries to foster that belief."

He also estimates that the tendency for women to shop around for the best genes leads to them making mistakes about who has fathered their child.

Soraya Khashoggi, 57, former wife of arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi, has revealed how DNA tests established her 18-year-old daughter, Petrina, to be the child of Jonathan Aitken, the disgraced former Conservative minister.

Khashoggi said her ex-husband had completely accepted Petrina: "He gave her his name without ever asking who her true father was," she said.

Paula Yates, the television personality, discovered at 37 that her real father was Hughie Green, the Opportunity Knocks star.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Dallas Morning News 31 October 1999

DNA TESTS ALTER LEGAL LANDSCAPE FOR DADS

Man supports sons not biologically his

By Brooks Egerton

BIG SPRING, Texas - You are not a cystic fibrosis carrier, the doctor says. Sounds like good news, but it has ripped his patient's life apart. Both parents must have a defective CF gene for their offspring to develop the deadly disease -- so how could Morgan Wise's youngest child be sick?

"I'm sorry to say there's a good chance he's not your boy," he recalled the physician telling him. In disbelief, he had DNA work done on all his kids. The staggering conclusion: His three sons were not his three sons, at least not biologically speaking.

"I cried," said Mr. Wise, a railroad engineer who'd been divorced 2 1/2 years when the testing nightmare began in early 1999. "It's like a death." When grief turned to rage against his ex-wife, he asked a court to free him from paying child support. More shock followed as he learned that DNA EVIDENCE OF PATERNITY -- THOUGH WIDELY USED TO ORDER PAYMENTS -- OFTEN IS NOT ACCEPTED WHEN TRYING TO STOP THEM.

A central reason is the U.S. judicial system's age-old, hard-to-rebut presumption that husband equals father. There's no easy place in the equation for the modern miracle of DNA testing, which in recent years has brought powerful new facts to bear on legal matters and has given families information they sometimes can't cope with.

As cases like Mr. Wise's have surfaced around the country, courts typically have made children's interests paramount, determined to keep them from becoming innocent victims of a high-tech blood feud. Financially and emotionally, the reasoning goes, minors need the man who has functioned as their dad.

"Put the children first," said University of Texas professor Jack Sampson, a nationally known authority on family law. "The question of who's the father is not just a biological one."

That's readily understood in, say, an adoption, in which a man freely consents to parental responsibility. But what if a husband is deceived, as Mr. Wise says he was, into acting as a father? How do you explain to him that he can't capitalize on the sort of scientific evidence that could be used against him if he fathered a child out of wedlock?

"Too bad," Mr. Sampson said.

John McCabe, legislative director and legal counsel for the National Commission on Uniform State Laws, is more reserved: "I don't have a good answer to that. I don't think anybody does."

The commission, led in part by Mr. Sampson, is redrafting its model parentage law to guide state legislatures, which are funding the effort. The drafters remain resolutely children-first in their approach and are talking about making it even more difficult to challenge the presumption of paternity.

Rise in testing

A key reason for the rewrite is the explosion in DNA testing and its ability to answer paternity questions with virtual certainty. Officials estimate that accredited labs -- those whose results can be used in court - will perform more than 250,000 such paternity tests this year. That's more than triple the number a decade ago.

The companies' experience shows that women, for whatever reason, misidentify the fathers of their children with some frequency. DNA Diagnostics Center, the Ohio firm that did Mr. Wise's tests and is an industry leader, says 30 percent of the men it tests prove to be misidentified.

Similar numbers come from the Texas attorney general's office, which enforces child support: About a quarter of the men who disputed paternity in the last year turned out to be right. In Florida, the proportion was one-third.

Many of DNA Diagnostics' customers are women seeking child support and men who want custody or visitation rights, spokeswoman Lisa McDaniel said. But the Wise family infidelity scenario, she added, "is not uncommon." Some married women "think they're going to get away with it," she said. "You never know how things are going to unravel."

Ms. McDaniel said the company got a surge in business this summer from billboards, posted in 10 cities, that featured a baby with a Pinocchio nose and asked, "Is his mother a liar?" Mr. Wise's attorney in Big Spring, Robert Miller, has learned enough to change his standard advice to men in divorce cases. "I tell every father, 'We'd better get DNA
tests,' " he said.

Support battle

Because Mr. Wise stipulated during divorce that the boys were his and didn't test until later, Mr. Miller said, there's little hope of ending his $500-a-month support payment. As a rule, courts bar people from relitigating a case once it has been adjudicated and the appeal window has closed. Mr. Miller is trying to pry the matter back open by alleging that his client's ex-wife fraudulently concealed her extramarital activity. But a state appeals court, in an unpublished December 1998 opinion, rejected just such an argument in a central Texas case that closely parallels Mr. Wise's. The same month, a Philadelphia man lost a similar fight before Pennsylvania's highest court and has since been unable to get a hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Even if a husband tries to contest paternity before divorce, he may well fail. According to UT's Mr. Sampson, several states - including California but not Texas - allow no rebuttal of the fatherhood presumption unless the man can prove he was sterile, impotent or not cohabiting with the woman at the time of conception.

Other states do permit challenges such as DNA testing -- but only if it's done within five years of the child's birth, as currently recommended by the National Commission on Uniform State Laws. (Mr. Sampson and fellow drafters propose to cut the number to two years, writing that "a longer period may have severe consequences for the child.")

Texas now has no limit tied to birth. So could Mr. Wise have avoided child support by simply disputing paternity before his divorce was final? Not necessarily. He would have had to persuade a court to order DNA tests verifying the ones he had done -- something a judge could easily decide was not in the children's best interests, legal experts say.

Children's feelings

Mr. Wise's ex-wife, Wanda Fryar, now has primary custody of the three boys, who are 7, 8 and 10. A 14-year-old daughter, who tests show is Mr. Wise's biologically, also lives with her and her new husband in another part of Big Spring, a West Texas town of about 24,000.

The boys don't understand their father's attempt to disavow paternity, Ms. Fryar said. "If he had any concern for them at all," she said, "he would end it." She questions whether the DNA tests were done properly but sees no reason to have her own done. "The kids are his," Ms. Fryar said.

Under oath, she has given conflicting statements on this point. She testified during divorce proceedings in 1996 that she'd never had an extramarital affair. But at a hearing this spring, when Mr. Wise was seeking to revisit the support question, she admitted having sex with another man nine months before each of the boy's births and acknowledged that he could be the biological father. Ms. Fryar divulged the man's name after the judge ordered her to. So far, he has not become part of the litigation.

In an interview, Ms. Fryar conceded the liaisons, saying that Mr. Wise knew about them and that he had affairs, too. He denies both allegations.

'Why should I pay?'

Mr. Wise, who has also remarried, knows that some people will think he's punishing the boys unfairly. "But why should I pay for what she did?" he
asked. "I'm as innocent as the kids."

Does he still see them as his sons?

At one point he told a reporter yes, "because that's all I know and that's all they know." They still call him dad, he added. But when one had a birthday recently, "I didn't get him a card, because how do I sign it?" When he sees them these days, "I wonder who their father is. It's like I'm baby-sitting. . . . I'm like a significant other, like a stepfather."

Mr. Wise talked about how much he has cared for the boys, whose pictures remain on display in his living room; how he stayed up nights when the youngest, the one with cystic fibrosis, was struggling to breathe; how he fought for and won primary custody, back before DNA testing "just wiped my whole family out."

He said he wants to set up a college fund for the kids and help them in other ways, as long as Ms. Fryar can't touch the money. But his "death hate" for her, as he calls it, seems stronger than any parental love. If winning his legal battle meant he could never see the boys again, then so be it, he said.

"I don't care if I have to get a second job digging a ditch, I'm going to fight her all the way," Mr. Wise said. "I'll never get over it."

[Edited on 16-3-2004 by Arnab]

Zobair
March 15, 2004, 09:09 PM
Look, I have no problem with you living with your faith. Do whatever you want. But know that I think you are silly to have that sort of religious faith. This is not a complaint, a mere observation. I don't think it matters much what "I" think of the silliness of your faith. What matters is when you yourself will understand your silliness.


Oh man! this is hilarious. You have crossed the realm of "cockiness" and sailed into the wonderfully "self-reaffirming" world of delusion. But you don't even know it. sigh! What a pity?!! While I am at it let me point out something to you Arnab in case you haven't been told this before. Despite feigning to be the champion of "fair argument", you have a great knack for "killing" and "derailing" arguements (perhaps you are even too deluded to realise it) with your arrogance and consequently often insulting comments. And please! do not assume/presume (even though "assumptions are fun") about others' tolerance levels. Please do not insult others and say oh its just your style and you never actually meant to insult anyone. Just keep it civil. Make your arguement and please stop passing judgement on your "opponents". Sigh! even I know all that I said now is in vain. Like Shubho bhai said "I am talking to a brick wall".

[Edited on 16-3-2004 by pompous]

chinaman
March 15, 2004, 09:12 PM
Thank you for the links. Will take a look when I get chance. BTW, you don't have to burden our eyes with those long articles, a simple link, small quotes would have been fine.

Arnab
March 15, 2004, 09:20 PM
Pompous: Whatever. You keep figuring out which "realm" I fall in. I will read your philosophical treatise on the "realms" of my life when I get 70 years old.

Chinaman: Whatever. You are the only one who wanted the source. I gave you the source. I even put the relevant sections in bold. Nobody is being burdened here.

[Edited on 16-3-2004 by Arnab]

chinaman
March 15, 2004, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by Arnab

Look, I have no problem with you living with your faith. Do whatever you want. But know that I think you are silly to have that sort of religious faith.

Wow, wow! trusting parents or spouse is a religious faith? I called my faith a faith, it is you who like to call your faith silly. It is you who like to call other people's faith as silly too, but when it comes down to yourself, you conveniently choose to ignore it, don't wanna even mention it. Good going, brother.

Why you feel so shy? Say it out loud, I trust my parents and even if it sounds silly to anyone I'm happy to believe it. Trust me (or silly me?) you will feel much better.

Well at least you are right on one thing, it matters what I understand of my faith and what you understand of your silliness (as you call it).

fab
March 15, 2004, 09:37 PM
Arnab, since morality is pretense perhaps you could clarify then what is wrong about being misled about who your real father is? Did these cheating women even do anything wrong to begin with? If you answer in the negative to either of these question, think of the consequences they may have on our so called progressive society.

Faith and morality may seem silly on the surface, but like it or not, it works to a certain extent and keeps society in check.

Unknown
March 15, 2004, 09:41 PM
Morality should not matter to him, after all he does not believe in any religion. Thereof Arnab is immoral: morality comes from religion.

[EDIT] Not a personal insult, the above is merely my observations made on Arnab: have faith (sillyness) in me, I do not inted to hurt anyone :)

[Edited on 16-3-2004 by Unknown]

Arnab
March 15, 2004, 10:02 PM
Unknown,

Morality doesn't come from religion. You don't have to follow a religion to practice honesty in life.

I can have my own personal set of subjective values that I can adhere to. That would be my "morality".

Arnab
March 15, 2004, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by chinaman
Originally posted by Arnab

Look, I have no problem with you living with your faith. Do whatever you want. But know that I think you are silly to have that sort of religious faith.

Wow, wow! trusting parents or spouse is a religious faith? I called my faith a faith, it is you who like to call your faith silly. It is you who like to call other people's faith as silly too, but when it comes down to yourself, you conveniently choose to ignore it, don't wanna even mention it. Good going, brother.

Why you feel so shy? Say it out loud, I trust my parents and even if it sounds silly to anyone I'm happy to believe it. Trust me (or silly me?) you will feel much better.

Well at least you are right on one thing, it matters what I understand of my faith and what you understand of your silliness (as you call it).

Chinaman, I didn't call trusting parents or spouse a "religious faith". May be you're misinterpreting things. So I won't bother replying to the rest of your post. Because they don't relate to whatever I said. Irrelevant.

But I can try to make it relevant though. I think this is what you are trying to say. I said earlier that faith=silly. Your point is what about my faith in my parents? Isn't that silly also? There's some confusion rearding this "faith" in parents. Are you referring to my blind faith about the validity of their parenthood? If you are talking about that, then I admit, it is silly. Although I bear a strong resemblance to both my dad and my mom in certain physical feautures. There are many other facts regarding my birth that led me to logically believe that they really are my parents. Including the fact that I have early symptoms of a disease that only could have been inherited genetically from my dad. But to be ultimately sure, I can always go for DNA testing. Although I don't feel the need for it because of financial reasons. If we could do DNA testing as cheaply as blood tests, I will do it in a heartbeat, just for experiment's sake.

[Edited on 16-3-2004 by Arnab]

chinaman
March 16, 2004, 01:54 AM
Are you referring to my blind faith about the validity of their parenthood? If you are talking about that, then I admit, it is silly.Yes, I was refering to that. Only a silly mind can call it silly! I'd have to dig really deep to consider such a mind to be mature enough let alone intelligent.
There are many other facts regarding my birth that led me to logically believe that they really are my parents.There are many facts arround that led people to convincingly believe what they want to believe. Just as I shouldn't say, it's just not right to say, that your father is not your biological father, so shouldn't you make silly comments of people's belief. If you are convinced otherwise, just explain your points and logic, thoughtfully, sensibly.

[Edited on 3-16-2004 by chinaman]

chinaman
March 16, 2004, 02:36 AM
Did you know that about 10% people in the USA call someone their dad or mom who is really not their dad or mom?

Are you sure you gave me the right link above (I'd consider the country error)? From your books and link references, I like to make sure before I start digging.

Orpheus
March 16, 2004, 05:34 AM
I think Arnab is an Angel.

Unknown
March 16, 2004, 06:44 AM
That must be true, since I cannot see Arnab: he is invisible to me :duh::P

Arnab you are right about morality not needing to come from religion, but how do you choose from right and wrong, where does your ethics come from?

Shubho
March 16, 2004, 09:21 AM
From this day forth let us all subscribe to the world's newest and most scientific relgion, Arnabism, where morality is pretense and faith is plain silly. Let us all mistrust each other, and engage is very promiscuous you-know-what, and enact laws that enable people to wreak havoc in society without punishment.

Can I be a disciple, Arnab? I promise I won't be the Judas. :)

Nasif
March 16, 2004, 10:14 AM
<font SIZE="2" FACE="Verdana">Here are some information about angel from Quran that you might find enlightening. </font> <p><font SIZE="2" FACE="Verdana">The word angel/angels (<i>malakan</i>) is mentioned 89 times in Quran. </font><font SIZE="2" FACE="Verdana">Here are some of the interesting verses that give some insights about angels:</font><br><br>
<font FACE="Verdana" COLOR="#0000ff"><font SIZE="2"><b>1. Can't id an angel:
</b></font></font><font SIZE="2" FACE="Verdana">You won't be able to identify angel even if you see one, because the earth is an objective testing ground (everyone will be a believer if they see GOD or an angel):</font>
<ul><li><font FACE="Verdana" COLOR="#008000"><font SIZE="2">[6:9]&nbsp; Had we sent an angel, we would have sent him in the form of a man, and we would have kept them just as confused as they are confused now.</font></font></li><li><font COLOR="#008000">&nbsp;<font FACE="Verdana" SIZE="2">[2:210]&nbsp; Are they waiting until GOD Himself comes to them in dense clouds, together with the angels? When this happens, the whole matter will be terminated, and to GOD everything will be returned.</font></font></li><li><font COLOR="#008000">&nbsp;<font FACE="Verdana" SIZE="2">[6:158]&nbsp; Are they waiting for the angels to come to them, or your Lord, or some physical manifestations of your Lord? The day this happens, no soul will benefit from believing if it did not believe before that, and did not reap the benefits of belief by leading a righteous life. Say, "Keep on waiting; we too are waiting."</font></font></li><li><font COLOR="#008000">&nbsp;<font FACE="Verdana" SIZE="2">[17:95]&nbsp; Say, "If the earth were inhabited by angels, we would have sent down to them from the sky an angel messenger."</font></font></li>
</ul><font SIZE="2" FACE="Verdana" COLOR="#0000ff"><b><br>2. Angels talking to humans in human form:<br></b></font><font SIZE="2" FACE="Verdana">Spirit in the following verse refers to angel Gabriel (also known as Jibrail). This is the story of Mary and birth of Jesus.</font><ul><li><font SIZE="2" FACE="Verdana" COLOR="#008000">[19:16-21] Mention in the scripture Mary. She isolated herself from her family, into an eastern location. While a barrier separated her from them, we sent to her our Spirit. He went to her in the form of a human being. She said, "I seek refuge in the Most Gracious, that you may be righteous." He said, "I am the messenger of your Lord, to grant you a pure son." She said, "How can I have a son, when no man has touched me; I have never been unchaste." He said, "Thus said your Lord, `<i>It is easy for Me. We will render him a sign for the people, and mercy from us. This is a predestined matter.</i>' "</font></li><li><font COLOR="#008000">&nbsp;<font FACE="Verdana" SIZE="2">[3:42]&nbsp; The angels said, "O Mary, GOD has chosen you and purified you. He has chosen you from all the women.</font></font></li><li><font COLOR="#008000">&nbsp;<font FACE="Verdana" SIZE="2">[3:39]&nbsp; The angels called him(Zachariah) when he was praying in the sanctuary: "GOD gives you good news of John (Yahya); a believer in the word of GOD, honorable, moral, and a righteous prophet."</font></font></li></ul>
<font SIZE="2" FACE="Verdana" COLOR="#0000ff"><b><br>3. Angels support believers:</b></font><ul> <li><font SIZE="2" FACE="Verdana" COLOR="#008000">[3:123-124]&nbsp; GOD has granted you victory at Badr, despite your weakness. Therefore, you shall observe GOD, to show your appreciation. You told the believers, "Is it not enough that your Lord supports you with three thousand angels, sent down?"</font></li><li><font COLOR="#008000">&nbsp;<font FACE="Verdana" SIZE="2">[8:8-9]&nbsp; For He has decreed that the truth shall prevail, and the falsehood shall vanish, in spite of the evildoers. Thus, when you implored your Lord to come to the rescue, He responded to you: "I am supporting you with one thousand angels in succession."</font></font></li> <li><font COLOR="#008000">&nbsp;<font FACE="Verdana" SIZE="2">[33:43]&nbsp; He is the One who helps you, together with His angels, to lead you out of darkness into the light. He is Most Merciful towards the believers.</font></font></li></ul>
<font SIZE="2" FACE="Verdana" COLOR="#0000ff"><b><br>4. Devil Whispers to Adam and Eve:</b></font><font SIZE="2" FACE="Verdana"><br>This is particularly interesting. The verse (and preceding ones since 7:12) is talking about Adam and Eve before they had physical manifestations.</font><ul> <li><font FACE="Verdana" COLOR="#008000"><font SIZE="2">[7:20]&nbsp; The devil whispered to them, in order to reveal their bodies, which were invisible to them. He said, "Your Lord did not forbid you from this tree, except to prevent you from becoming angels, and from attaining eternal existence."</font></font></li></ul>
<b><font COLOR="#0000ff" FACE="Verdana" SIZE="2"><br>
5. Death and your angel:</font></b><ul> <li><font SIZE="2" FACE="Verdana" COLOR="#008000">[32:11]&nbsp; Say, "You will be put to death by the angel in whose charge you are placed, then to your Lord you will be returned."</font></li><li><font FACE="Verdana" COLOR="#008000"><font SIZE="2">[16:32]&nbsp; The angels terminate their lives in a state of righteousness, saying, "Peace be upon you. Enter Paradise (now) as a reward for your works."</font></font></li><li><font FACE="Verdana" COLOR="#008000"><font SIZE="2">[79:1]&nbsp; The (angels who) snatch (the souls of the disbelievers) forcibly. And those who gently take (the souls of the believers) joyfully.</font></font></li></ul>
<p>&nbsp;<font SIZE="2" FACE="Verdana" cOLOR="#0000ff"><b><br>
6. Angels as your companion:</b></font><ul> <li><font SIZE="2" FACE="Verdana" COLOR="#008000">[13:11]&nbsp; Shifts (of angels) take turns, staying with each one of you - they are in front of you and behind you. They stay with you, and guard you in accordance with GOD's commands. Thus, GOD does not change the condition of any people unless they themselves make the decision to change. If GOD wills any hardship for any people, no force can stop it. For they have none beside Him as Lord and Master.</font></li> <li><font FACE="Verdana" COLOR="#008000"><font SIZE="2">[50:16-17] We created the human, and we know what he whispers to himself. We are closer to him than his jugular vein. Two recording (angels), at right and at left, are constantly recording.</font></font></li></ul>
<font SIZE="2" FACE="Verdana" COLOR="#0000ff"><b><br>7. Angel's gender:</b></font><font SIZE="2" FACE="Verdana"><br>This verse deals with Christian belief that angels are female. Question of
gender should not come into play because angels are not confined in our existing world and thus they are not limited by the rules of it. </font><ul> <li><font FACE="Verdana" COLOR="#008000"><font SIZE="2">[17:40] Has your Lord given you boys, while giving Himself the angels as daughters?! How could you utter such a blasphemy?</font></font></li><li><font FACE="Verdana" COLOR="#008000"><font SIZE="2">[37:150] Did we create the angels to be females? Did they witness that?</font></font></li> <li><font FACE="Verdana" COLOR="#008000"><font SIZE="2">[43:19]&nbsp; They claimed that the angels, who are servants of the Most Gracious, are females! Have they witnessed their creation? Their claims are recorded, and they will be asked.</font></font></li> <li><font FACE="Verdana" COLOR="#008000"><font SIZE="2">[53:27] Those who disbelieve in the Hereafter have given the angels feminine names.</font></font></li></ul>
<font SIZE="2" FACE="Verdana" COLOR="#0000ff"><b><br>8. Angel's Travel:</b></font><font SIZE="2" FACE="Verdana"><br>Verse points to relative time during angels' travels between the dimensions of our world and heavenly world.</font><ul><li><font FACE="Verdana" COLOR="#008000"><font SIZE="2">[70:4] The angels, with their reports, climb to Him in a day that equals fifty thousand years.</font></font></li></ul>
<font SIZE="2" FACE="Verdana" COLOR="#0000ff"><b><br>9. Angels and the Night of Destiny(Qad'r):</b></font><font SIZE="2" FACE="Verdana"><br>Spirit in this verse refers to angel Gabriel (also known as Jibrail)</font><ul> <li><font FACE="Verdana" SIZE="2"><font COLOR="#008000">[97:1-5] We revealed it(Quran) in the Night of Destiny. How awesome is the Night of Destiny! The Night of Destiny is better than a thousand months. The angels and the Spirit descend therein, by their Lord's leave, to carry out every command. Peaceful it is until the advent of the dawn.</font></font></li>
</ul>

[Edited on 16-3-2004 by nasif]

Arnab
March 16, 2004, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by chinaman
Did you know that about 10% people in the USA call someone their dad or mom who is really not their dad or mom?

Are you sure you gave me the right link above (I'd consider the country error)? From your books and link references, I like to make sure before I start digging.

Of course I gave you the right link above. It worked for me. The news was printed in the Times of UK. Dig however long you want. You don't know about it more than me anyway.

[Edited on 16-3-2004 by Arnab]

chinaman
March 16, 2004, 06:49 PM
That was neither a vital nor a population statistics. It was just a lab statistics based solely on client sample. The clients for one reason or the other choose to undergo that testing and it turned out that some 10% (aprox) had misatributed paternity. This does not even provide any margin of error, criteria for client selection, what control method was used etc etc. And you try to potray this as if it were carried out among the population at large!

I'm not too graceful to those who provide misleading and wrong information just to win a virtual debate! This is no better than out right lie. This just shows how desperate one is to prove a point. What a shame. I just like to wish you good.

Arnab
March 16, 2004, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by chinaman
That was neither a vital nor a population statistics. It was just a lab statistics based solely on client sample. The clients for one reason or the other choose to undergo that testing and it turned out that some 10% (aprox) had misatributed paternity. This does not even provide any margin of error, criteria for client selection, what control method was used etc etc. And you try to potray this as if it were carried out among the population at large!

I'm not too graceful to those who provide misleading and wrong information just to win a virtual debate! This is no better than out right lie. This just shows how desperate one is to prove a point. What a shame. I just like to wish you good.

Chinaman, I am not sure if you've taken a statistics course. But there's something called a sample mean that can closely resemble the population mean within a certain range of error. Also, by making the sample size sufficiently large, the margin of error can be reduced to a suffciently small percentage, e.g, 2-3%.

Now, let's face the facts stated in the news report. There are seven goverment approved labs in the UK that test people for paternity. The news mentions ONE of those labs alone gets to do tests on 10,000 users a year. I can guess that ALL those labs test, say, 50,000 people a year. Now, 50,000 people a year is a VERY large sample number. Add to that data from previous years. You will get an even bigger sample. Bigger samples mean that the statistic gathered form these samples are less prone to error. In this case, it is fair to assume that they resemble the populations statistics very closely with a very low margin of error. This is elementary statistical reasoning. And I don't have to have access to the itty bitty details to the methodology of these testings to reach such a conclusion. Although, I can always choose to dig more to get more accurate.

So my assumption is completely justified.

I would like to wish you something good too. Good intelligence.

[Edited on 17-3-2004 by Arnab]

fab
March 16, 2004, 07:04 PM
chinaman

check this link..

misattributed paternity (http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/analysis_and_opinion/choices_and_behaviours/misattributed_paternity.htm)

I think it is generally accepted that roughly 10% of the population have misattributed paternity. hmmm that means about 42 people on this board don't know who their real father is.. :umm:

(thank god both my sister and i are striking images of our father)

chinaman
March 16, 2004, 07:06 PM
Thank you, read it already. I was replying to Arnab's comment and even ask for a double check.

chinaman
March 16, 2004, 07:28 PM
Dear Arnab

You know it very well that the test samples represent a "restricted" (divorce case, court order etc for example) cohorts only. Trying to justify it in the context of the whole population is anything but statistics.

Arnab
March 16, 2004, 07:34 PM
Dear Chinaman,

Pak Jonabor Salam Nibedon Purbok Binito nibedon ei je...argh.

What are you trying to prove here?
Do you think the people who are tested do not accurately represent the actual ppulaiton? That divorcees, etc. are somehow "abnormal" elements of the UK society? Sorry dude. These are mostly normal people. Even if the statistic doesn't equal 10% for the total population (something we will possibly never know), say it is 15% or 5%, does it matter as far as my actual argument is concerned? How many of those people being tested "blindly believed on faith" that their parents were really their parents? Probably almost 100%. Yet 10% of them turned out to be wrong. Proving that it is silly to blindly believe your parent's validity.

Shotokoti Kodombusi,

Aponar Odhom,

Arnab

[Edited on 17-3-2004 by Arnab]

chinaman
March 16, 2004, 08:07 PM
Say, 1% came out HIV positive from a lab. If you consider the lab in the context of a Blood Bank, the test sample already has a "low probability" being healthy donar samples; If you consider the lab in the context of a substance abuse center, the test sample already has a "high probability" being samples from "high risk behaviour" person. Either way the result can not be attributed to general polpulation. Look whom am I trying to say these things! Sorry dude, I forgot for a moment that you don't even trust your own parents.

Arnab
March 16, 2004, 08:50 PM
Chinaman, I need you to calm down, read carefully and use your brain here.

Firstly, your "fictional" HIV testing scenario is NOT a good analogy here. Why? Beause first of all, you made it up! You made a lot of assumptions here regarding your fictional HIV test and then tried to draw a wrong analogy from it. You are assuming those who take HIV tests are already "high risk" people. But the analogy doesn't hold regarding the paternity tests. Because misattributed paternity is not a DISEASE! Before you quote me out of context, let me clarify:

If you yourself know you have had promiscuous sex, or know that your mom had HIV, or share needles with other druggies, you are a "high risk" person. Now, if you and people like you take HIV tests, the statistics is clearly not going to represent the actual population statistics.

But, that is not the case in misatrributed paternity. Let me quote from the link fab gave:

"More than 250,000 tests a year are now conducted in America, and about 15,000 in Britain.... roughly 30% of men taking the tests discover that they are not the fathers of the children they regarded as their own. In the wider community, social scientists say up to 1 in 20 children are not the offspring of the man who believes himself to be their father".

Source: The Sunday Times, 11 June 2000.

"The rate of wrongful paternity in "stable monogamous marriages," according to the Max Planck Institute in Munich, Germany, ranges from one in 10 with the first child to one in four with the fourth".

The men who took these tests are not reproductively challenged. They have had sex with their wives and correctly thought their children carry their genes. But an astonishing 30% of them found out they were wrong. The fathers cannot possibly be "high risk" people here. They are normal people taking the test to see whether they are right or not.

And 250,000 persons a year is an astonishingly large and absolutely credible sample. Do you know of the polls conducted before these US presidential elections? They survey only a few thousand people, yet give a margin of error of +/- 3%. The paternity tests are MUCH more rigorous than these news organization polls.

Also, "10% is widely used in DNA studies and quoted in standard genetics textbooks".

So, yes, to the contrary of your UN-logic, these figures CAN be attributed to the general population in these countries. In fact. it has already been DONE by geneticists and social scientists, who have more authority on this than you or me.

-------------------

And I am going to ignore your last few remarks. You clearly lost you cool there and resorted to personal attacks. That's a good sign though. It means you don't have anything solid to say.

I would say one more thing though. Even if one of my parents is not really my parent (which is highly unlikely), I don't give a damn about it. I am a human being and there's nothing wrong about the process that gave me birth. This is the 21st century, not medieval age. But what I find interesting is that you tried to "use" my take on this to deliberately attack me, for whatever reason. Not that I care that much. But shame on you for going that low. That produced a very low score on my morality scale. :)

[Edited on 17-3-2004 by Arnab]

AsifTheManRahman
March 16, 2004, 09:42 PM
ooooooo.....moderator getting attacking here....

wasnt there a rule against that on BDCricket.com???:-/

chinaman
March 16, 2004, 10:38 PM
First of all, I'm not discussing fab's link here. I asked for your source. Your source never lived upto your comments.
Second, when siting an example, site yourself or "a person" or something like that, never ever ever site me or anyone in particular. Let it be clear once again and for the last time.
Third, it is you who wanted to do the test but refrained from doing it for financial reason.
Finally, my example was fictional, huh? made it up, huh? Did you ever asked where did I get it from before you dismissed it? You didn't, yet you came to conclusion of your liking. It is you who made up things and even continue to make up still.You are assuming those who take HIV tests are already "high risk" people.Where did you find that? Trying to twist the fact again? Bad, too bad. Sample collected from bood donar has a low probability of being positive for that test while sample collected from person with high risk behaviour has a high probability (says who, right? Guess who has recogniged expertise in this field?). General population is a mix and has a much wider range. Likewise, test samples in the lab from your link have somewhat high probability than the general population (yes this is my educated asumption given the nature of the testing, the lab and some hints found in your link). Because misattributed paternity is not a DISEASE!Who said it was a disease? Man, keep your silliness to youeself.

My bad, I thought we could have healthy debate this time arround, but you started to show your true colors again.

Shubho
March 16, 2004, 11:59 PM
come on, chinaman...you know how arnab is...you have to take what he says with a pinch of salt. instead you lash out at him. for what? what happened to no personal attacks? if you're so incensed by what he has to say, why not laugh it off with a little bit of humour?

AsifTheManRahman
March 17, 2004, 12:56 AM
yes i think this kind of behaviour is not expected from a moderator, and of course not from anyone else....what happened to the rule against personal attacks? I suggest chinaman be put on probation...:D

fab
March 17, 2004, 01:01 AM
Originally posted by chinaman
Thank you, read it already. I was replying to Arnab's comment and even ask for a double check.
Double check what? Chinaman, the link that I gave has given the sources of various surveys and experiments (OTHER than the one Arnab gave) that more or less confirms that around about 10% of the population have been duped by misattributed paternity. I dunno, perhaps I don't understand exactly what it is you two are debating about..

(major surprise) To a certain extent I think I even agree with Arnab that it is silly to have ABSOLUTE faith in your parents and think of them as infallible creatures of perfection. They are just human beings, and of course are prone to make mistakes. It's not disrespecting them it's just being realistic..

Arnab
March 17, 2004, 01:08 AM
Thank you, fab. Some, actually most, of Chinaman's reasonings are so ludicrous that I feel like I am talking to Hasib again.

I was gonna adress the same issues and a lot more, but figured that they are so self-evident that I have to severely dumb myself down to hammer things through his head. I have to write a paragraph of reply for almost every sentence of his. That just means I have to write quite a big essay outlining every fallacy that has accumulated in his posts. I don't have time for that $hit. In fact, I tried that in my last reply, trying to break it down to the lowest common denominator level of intelligence. That's why it was so lengthy. And boring for me to write. I mean, any intelligent person can see what I am talking about in an instant. I was SUPER clear about what I wrote.

And thanks for understanding my PoV.

[Edited on 17-3-2004 by Arnab]

Zunaid
March 17, 2004, 01:39 AM
I invoke Godwin's law and close this thread...

Sorry but the debate was degenerating...