The Quran Science thread

[Nafi]

Originally Posted by Blah
Ah. Just read few posts on this thread of his. Interesting fellow. I am sure there are other atheists in this forum who don't want to speak out because they don't want to insult religious people's feelings. Or they are discouraged to speak their mind.
.

His arguments were flat and not constructive. I dont think anyone here think the Quran constitutes as a scientific textbook. That was not the purpose of the Quran

Again, I wanted this thread to be more philosophical, than scientific.

[BanCricFan]

Originally Posted by Nafi

'We' is just the plurality of God and HIS power, a common literary device used by Kings as well to signify their power. And also pantheism is not conrtradictory to Islam, since the whole universe was created from God's energy from 'nothing', as mass doesnt exist, we are all just fluctuations of energy.

No plurality, only singularity! And, yes, its the Royal "We".

As for as pantheism and islam, I think you have been reading a copious amount of Ibn Al-Arabi. If that is so...be very careful...he is not to be read by novices and a great many scholars of this age are novices! Pantheism and Islam are not compatable. Do you have any textual evidence to the claim that "whole universe was created from God's energy from 'nothing'"? Would be interesting to find out

But, I believe, we have a creative theologian in the making in you, Nafi

[Rifat]

[Blah]

^^ Since we are posting random stuff with no relevance to the thread, here is one of my all time favorite:

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by Blah
^^ Since we are posting random stuff with no relevance to the thread, here is one of my all time favorite:

in absence of God there is no such thing as evil, because there is no such thing as "morality", "right" or "wrong", whether in a relative sense or in an absolute sense.

[Blah]

You mean awesome absolute religious morality? As much as I dislike quoting Richard Dawkins, he answered it best.

I guess since I don't believe in religion, I should go around killing people, stealing money, raping women, throwing acid on girls, because religious people, thanks to their awesome religious based morality, would never do that.

[Nafi]

Originally Posted by Blah
You mean awesome absolute religious morality? As much as I dislike quoting Richard Dawkins, he answered it best.

Haha you know the Quran doesnt propose a 'complete' absolute morality, its ask for the reflection of oneself to approach situations.

The problem is Islam has been corrupted beyond repair, worldwide, thats why places like Saudi Arabia and Aghanistan have the worst human track record.

Optimistically the only path for Islam is a huge reformation of the religion. The first acts are to disregard hadiths that contradict the teachings of the Quran. are outdated in culture (I dont see anyone going to Hajj on Camels) or are simply illogical/mad.

Indeed fundemental Islam is a misnomer, because indeed the fundementals of Islam (the Quran) is the most liberal and biggest promoter of rationalism compared to the deviated sects of Islam

Logic and reflection are key elements of Islam

“[This is] a blessed Book which We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam], that they might reflect upon its verses and that those of understanding would be reminded.” [Quran: 38: 29]

PS Its funny how Dawkins didnt really quote any practices from the Quran, killing apostates or executing adulterers is not Islamic. PERIOD

But then there's always the 'killing the infidels' quotes, that people take out of context .

I guess since I don't believe in religion,I should go around killing people, stealing money, raping women, throwing acid on girls, because religious people, thanks to their awesome religious based morality, would never do that.

You dont have to a self-confessed muslim, to follow parts of the religion. If you believe that attacking people who have surrendered is wrong, then you believe in that aspect of Islam.

[Electrequiem]

So, for example, is killing children wrong because God said so? Or is killing wrong because it just IS?

[Nafi]

Originally Posted by Electrequiem
So, for example, is killing children wrong because God said so? Or is killing wrong because it just IS?

To answer your question from the perspective you gave. I would say the latter.

[Electrequiem]

Originally Posted by Nafi
To answer your question from the perspective you gave. I would say the latter.

Hmm, what do you mean? I am just trying to see where people think "Thou shalt not kill" stems from.

[Zeeshan]

Who says killing children is wrong?

[Neel Here]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
in absence of God there is no such thing as evil, because there is no such thing as "morality", "right" or "wrong", whether in a relative sense or in an absolute sense.

not correct. you don't need a god to have a sense of morality. most modern societies are based on a code of ethics and morality that does not invoke god at any point(although historically they might have been derived from religious ethics)

[ammark]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
in absence of God there is no such thing as evil, because there is no such thing as "morality", "right" or "wrong", whether in a relative sense or in an absolute sense.

Oh, for crying out loud! Haven't we discussed this topic to the death before??

[Nafi]

Originally Posted by Electrequiem
Hmm, what do you mean? I am just trying to see where people think "Thou shalt not kill" stems from.

You could find a justification to kill children, e.g to save millions from a plague

not correct. you don't need a god to have a sense of morality

his approach was completely different to your understanding. In order to give you answers, we have to give a complete secular perspective.

You dont need a self-confessed belief in God to have morality.

[Blah]

Originally Posted by ammark
Oh, for crying out loud! Haven't we discussed this topic to the death before??

Link to past discussion please. Interested.

[PoorFan]

If human has sense and ability to 'learn' and 'believe' in God and religion ... then itself perfectly proves morality, right or wrong can exist ( can be achieved ) regardless of God and religion.

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by Blah
You mean awesome absolute religious morality? As much as I dislike quoting Richard Dawkins, he answered it best.

I guess since I don't believe in religion, I should go around killing people, stealing money, raping women, throwing acid on girls, because religious people, thanks to their awesome religious based morality, would never do that.

if you want to, you should.

and thats the point, in the absence of God, who is to say that any of the actions you mentioned are "wrong"?

[al Furqaan]

this a kind of relevant post, but it does illustrate the idea and the need to not be so judgemental as we are not ever sure who has what inside their hearts.

in fact, this seemingly immoral woman was superior to the two sheikhs as she was more closely following the [authentic] Sunnah of "performing the salah at the earliest possible time".

[Blah]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan


this a kind of relevant post, but it does illustrate the idea and the need to not be so judgemental as we are not ever sure who has what inside their hearts.

in fact, this seemingly immoral woman was superior to the two sheikhs as she was more closely following the [authentic] Sunnah of "performing the salah at the earliest possible time".

Which bring the obvious question, if he didn't look at her how did he know she was dressed inappropriately (Whatever the F that supposed to mean)? By looking at her he means looking at her face? If so it is ok not to look at her face but everywhere else?

[Blah]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
if you want to, you should.

and thats the point, in the absence of God, who is to say that any of the actions you mentioned are "wrong"?

Wrong, right; are inventions of society by humans. Not inventions of (nonexistent) god.

I will not kill you because you are not attacking me and I don't have to kill you to defend myself or my family or someone whom you might be attacking who cannot defend him/herself. I will not kill you for no reason, because it is irrational, inhumane, illogical, socially unacceptable, prevented by law of the land (created by human).

I will not kill you because as a rational human being I have no reason to kill you. Not because there is some imaginary being who allegedly wrote a set of imaginary laws that telling me to follow morally questionable ethics.

If god asks you kill others you will do so, like un-ethical, brainwashed zombie who doesn't understand the concept of right from wrong, because he doesn't understand how to think for himself. Some imaginary being and law needs to tell them how to think, how to sleep, how to eat, how to talk.

There are religious people in this world who have killed because they have found justification in their religious belief to kill others (whether it was permitted by religion or not). You will never find someone who killed because of their non-belief told them to kill others. Stalin did not kill because his non-belief told him to kill people, he killed because it was the best way to instill fear to farther his goal of dictatorship.

On the other hand suicide bombers who blow themselves up, pro-lifers christians who shoot up doctors & bomb clinic, jews who kill Palestinians, hindus who kill muslims; all do it specifically for religious reasons (whether you agree with their interpretations or not).

A non-believer will not stab you to death if you draw flying spaghetti monster or mock their non-belief.

I (or any non-believer) am more likely to defend your right to believe whatever you want to believe, even if I disagree with your belief, but you (or any fundamentalist religious person) are likely to kill me simply because I am infidel or a non-believer.

I think I will pass your twisted religious morality.

[Zeeshan]

For the first time I have to say blah uberpwnd with that post.

[Nafi]

Originally Posted by Electrequiem
Hmm, what do you mean? I am just trying to see where people think "Thou shalt not kill" stems from.

I would say both are reasons from the same tree.

God is a logical rational being, however HIS rational thought system is beyond/different to ours.

Humans and their morality is dependent on rational thought.

Both would rational systems would perceive in discriminant murder is wrong

I dont agree with how Furqaan is approaching morality.

If God left mankind to his own devices, morality would still exist, however this human morality is ever changing/evolving with cultural and socially, whilst also our environment is changing. For example, it might have been morally justified to hunt deer when their populations were thriving, but now they are nearly extinct, so it would be wrong.

Morality is static, and in Islam only, God has knowledge on what absolute morality.

However 'The message of Islam' is not an example of absolute morality, because the Quran misses out many things. To cover absolute morality would take all the ink of the oceans, and even then it wouldn't be enough, because morality changes with environment and situation. So absolute morality is an infinite topic. Impossible for humans to grasp, it is beyond us.

Henceforth, yes the Quran does cover certain moral principles, but the rest, he asks Mankind to reflect and use logic to derive morality. Which is what man would have done anyway, because humans are largely logical beings, but far from perfect.

And to address Blah's quote on the fallacious Epicurs statement.

Just because God doesn't prevent evil, who are you or any human to say that is malevolent. To understand absolute morality, or the morality of God, you would have to have a comprehensive understanding of the whole universe (and others if they exist) and a logical mind that is inconceivable.

And even without that omnipotent knowledge, I know that without suffering, would you even understand happiness.

If you keep a man in freezing cold his whole life, he will never realise or differentiate between warmth and cold. Simply put, if you had ice cream and nothing else, ice cream would cease to being a delicious dessert.

The problem with atheism, is that they think the world (universe) is so simple, because from their view its far from perfect.

[Purbasha T]

Originally Posted by Blah
A non-believer will not stab you to death if you draw flying spaghetti monster or mock their non-belief.

I (or any non-believer) am more likely to defend your right to believe whatever you want to believe, even if I disagree with your belief, but you (or any fundamentalist religious person) are likely to kill me simply because I am infidel or a non-believer.

Lol, you're saying as if all religious people are running after the non-religious ones to take their lives and all non-believers are as clean as it gets.

Just because some killers take their motivation from their religions, it doesn't make the religion blameworthy.

There might be some non-believer who's a crazy peson and will shoot me on sight just because I laughed at the fact that he believes in no god. Maybe, you wouldn't. Similarly, there will be believers who'll do the same for having their belief mocked at. But I wouldn't.

You have no point.

[Purbasha T]

Originally Posted by Blah
Which bring the obvious question, if he didn't look at her how did he know she was dressed inappropriately (Whatever the F that supposed to mean)? By looking at her he means looking at her face? If so it is ok not to look at her face but everywhere else?

That's just vain. You don't need to look at a person from head to toe to realise what he/she's wearing. Also the first look at times can be accidental too.

And you don't know what dressing inappropriately means? Or, is it just that you don't like the fact that some people seek appropriateness in dressings?

And I don't think it's that difficult to understand that what this man was trying to mean by saying ''he din't look at her'' is that he dint take advantage of the chance that he's talking to a woman dressing revealingly and so use the chance to ''check her out''.

[Nafi]

I think Blah's point was, many religious people are examples of illogical belief. Indeed I agree. For example Christians who think the world is less than 10 000 years old.

In my view this is how it goes in philosophical intellect and rationale

Radical/Conservative/cultured religous << Athiest << Agnostic/Pantheist/Spinoziest (eg Einstein) <<< Progressive Theist

Which bring the obvious question, if he didn't look at her how did he know she was dressed inappropriately (Whatever the F that supposed to mean)? By looking at her he means looking at her face? If so it is ok not to look at her face but everywhere else?

He meant he tried not to look at her lustfully... (yawn) That kind of cynicism is annoying.