facebook Twitter RSS Feed YouTube StumbleUpon

Home | Forum | Chat | Tours | Articles | Pictures | News | Tools | History | Tourism | Search

 
 


Go Back   BanglaCricket Forum > Miscellaneous > Forget Cricket

Forget Cricket Talk about anything [within Board Rules, of course :) ]

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #226  
Old June 29, 2010, 10:58 AM
Kabir's Avatar
Kabir Kabir is offline
Cricket Guru
 
Join Date: September 3, 2006
Location: Mississauga, Ontario
Favorite Player: Sakib - the real Tiger
Posts: 11,139

I hope Allah forgives me for saying this, but Quran is not science. It's the Book that guides our everyday life - there's nothing scientific about everyday life. It's our code of conduct. It's the Book of law.

Anyway...carry on.
__________________
cricket is a PROCESS, not an EVENT or two. -- Sohel_NR
Fans need to stop DUI (Dreaming Under Influence)!
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old June 29, 2010, 04:59 PM
BanCricFan's Avatar
BanCricFan BanCricFan is offline
Cricket Guru
 
Join Date: April 29, 2005
Favorite Player: Bangladesh
Posts: 9,345

Quote:
Originally Posted by One World

One good thing about science it never compromises, like or dislike of a certain formula or theory does not get Benjamin there.
Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!

Nebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig.

Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link").

Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like.

Sourrce: A Human Ancestor Fraud
Evolution Deceit
Wikipedia

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1RUhkgqjug

Last edited by BanCricFan; June 29, 2010 at 07:55 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old June 29, 2010, 06:01 PM
BanCricFan's Avatar
BanCricFan BanCricFan is offline
Cricket Guru
 
Join Date: April 29, 2005
Favorite Player: Bangladesh
Posts: 9,345

Quote:
Originally Posted by One World
Few good things about atheism:

1. atheism is a reliance on the facts, which are things that exist. Atheists don't believe in things which are fiction and have no bearing on truth.

2. Atheism lets someone live in the real world so that they give their time and energy to real people and real things rather than pursuing fantasylands and superstitious folly.

3. Atheism saves the 'soul' from the mental tyranny that imprisons a believer.

4. Atheism lets someone form morality based on critical thinking rather than abiding by archaic dogma.

5. Atheism lets someone be tolerant of people who have alternative lifestyles without thinking that they need to 'save them from their sins.'

6. Suffering makes more sense in atheism. When someone suffers, it isn't because of 'higher purpose,' it's just because sh** happens. Someone doesn't have to ask themselves if they didn't pray enough or if god decided to smite them because they weren't doing something godly.

7. Atheism makes someone freer to pursue science and philospohy without having constraints on what someone must accept or reject.

8. Atheism lets someone find their own mneaning and purpose in life instead of having it dictated to them.


9. Atheism lets someone live a peaceful life instead of spreading war and destruction(not that all religious folk do such things) because someone doesn't accept a certain set of beliefs or moral prescriptions.

10. In atheism, life isn't made into some sort of test where if someone doesn't pass then they'll burn for eternity.

11. Atheism doesn't denigrate humanity into being corrupt and evil unless they accept some phony baloney god.

\
/
Blind, militant, fanatic and political Atheism renders one blind, deaf and dumb. It brings about an acute sense of self-loss and confusion which usually prompts a militant athiest to resort to the crime of self-deception, hypocrisy, blind dogmatism, intolerance, hatred, bigotry and misplaced arrogance. And, of course, some of these characteristics would also be applicable to a blind and militant thiest. They have more things in common than they would like to admit.

On the other hand, a sincere, intelligent, forebearing and broad-minded atheist will have very little quarrels with the believers.
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old June 30, 2010, 12:22 AM
Blah Blah is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: December 8, 2004
Posts: 1,161

Quote:
Originally Posted by BanCricFan
Blind, militant, fanatic and political Atheism renders one blind, deaf and dumb. It brings about an acute sense of self-loss and confusion which usually prompts a militant athiest to resort to the crime of self-deception, hypocrisy, blind dogmatism, intolerance, hatred, bigotry and misplaced arrogance. And, of course, some of these characteristics would also be applicable to a blind and militant thiest. They have more things in common than they would like to admit.

On the other hand, a sincere, intelligent, forebearing and broad-minded atheist will have very little quarrels with the believers.
Dunning–Kruger effect


"The ignorants are so ignorant that they don't understand the depth of their ignorance."

fin
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old June 30, 2010, 12:53 AM
Blah Blah is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: December 8, 2004
Posts: 1,161

Quote:
Originally Posted by One World
Few good things about atheism:

--- Snipped ...

I don't necessarily agree with the overgeneralization tone of this list. Being an Atheist does not necessarily make someone a morally superior person by default. He is still an individual who can be morally bankrupt just like any religious or any non-religious person. There are a lot of atheists who are non-believer as a result of a conscious choice but not all of them are like that. Some are atheists without even understanding the implications of his choice and actions. Atheists have its share of dumbs and a**holes.

I guess what I am trying to say is that atheists are more likely to show the above traits that you mentioned when they are counted as a whole as a percentage of a demographic population. I am not a big fan of saying things like "Atheism doesn't denigrate humanity" or "Atheism lets someone find their own mneaning and purpose in life" instead of "Most Atheists" , "are likely to".

This might seem like I am being pedantic on technicalities but this specific distinction of absolutism makes atheism different from theism.

Atheism is not the perfect/only choice, but its the best choice because its the most rational choice.
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old June 30, 2010, 01:23 AM
Blah Blah is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: December 8, 2004
Posts: 1,161

Quote:
Originally Posted by BanCricFan
Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!

Nebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig.

Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link").

Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like.

Sourrce: A Human Ancestor Fraud
Evolution Deceit
Wikipedia

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1RUhkgqjug

Congratulations! You have discovered how science works! Let me help you in your journey to grade level understanding of science.

You see, science is a process of gathering knowledge systematically often in the process of trial and error. The process itself is not perfect, because people (human beings) are not perfect. Some of those errors are a result of people with personal goal of fame and fortune (ie, cold fusion hoaxes) and some are genuine mistakes in the process of trials. Those hoaxes and mistakes were caught because thats how science works. So tomorrow if someone like you, who doesn't understand how science works, claimed to have solved the theory of everything (there have been several unfounded claims already) it will be subjected to the same rigorous peer review and scrutiny and skepticism as any other scientific claims made by anyone in the world. The review process will be performed by scientists all over the word who have never met each other before and they will try to replicate the same discovery independently and they will each release their independent review and those independent review will often be cross-examined by each other to look for inconsistency.

And during all this multi-stage, rigorous, cross-examination process if your theory still stands the way you claimed it does then it will be accepted as a definite scientific theory. The examples that you gave were frauds caught by scientists during these cross-examinations.

.... unless someone else comes over and challenges that claim and provides evidence or even an alternate theory. Then the new theory will go through the same rigorous challenges by scientists all over the world until it can be accepted as definite.

Now that you have finally understood how scientific process works, would you like to know how babies are formed?
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old June 30, 2010, 02:09 AM
Blah Blah is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: December 8, 2004
Posts: 1,161

Quote:
Originally Posted by zman
What I don’t accept is the idea that evolution took the Chimpanzee->Homo habilis->Homo erectus->Neanderthal->Human route. One of several reasons being the claim isn't provable beyond doubt. Several alternatives to that hypothesis could easily be conceived, one being the chain ends with Neanderthals and God just created human beings at that point in time. And yes, I do believe human beings are somewhat special and bacteria and virus probably aren’t in the same league as us.


And you have hit the nail right there, because scientific process do not give a flying frack about what you believe. There might be inconsistency on the exact chain of evolutionary stage that led to human but the fact of evolutionary process that led to human being is not in doubt.

And this is where I have consistently tried to point out how religion is inconsistent with science in every sense of the word, because the idea of "belief" is not a scientific process.

Quote:
Until experiments are designed to re create humans from Neanderthals, that part of the “theory” will remain questionable and what seems theory to you will remain hypothesis in my eyes.

If you knew what evolution is you would understand that evolution on the scale of large organisms like human or cows can't be actively observed because the process itself takes 100s of millions of years. You find me a way for people to live for 100s of millions of years and recreate Neanderthals I will show you evolution as it happens.


Quote:
Science can answer a lot of questions, yet it can’t answer with certainty those basic questions, How the universe was created? How life was created? Why life was created? What is soul? What happens to the soul after a person dies? What should be our goal in life?.
Unlike religion, science never claimed to know everything. If we knew everything then the institute of scientific research wouldn't exist. That doesn't mean we will not know everything there is to know, if you only look at the scientific discoveries made in the last century or so it would be foolish to not see the possibilities lays before us 1000s or even millions of years ahead of us.

Go back only a 1000 years ago and tell someone who have discovered how to fly or take pictures and the religious people will hang you for being a witch or the devil himself.

What does soul has to do with science? Nothing happens to your "soul" after you die because there is nothing called a "soul". Its a religious concept, lets not confuse it with science.

And what your goal in life should be? Whatever goal you set yourself for your life. Whats so difficult about it?
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old June 30, 2010, 03:24 AM
BANFAN's Avatar
BANFAN BANFAN is offline
Cricket Sage
 
Join Date: March 26, 2007
Favorite Player: Shak-Ash-Tam
Posts: 16,689

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nafi
Dude it seriously just offends when other muslims proclaim to me their archaic dogma, like dogs are haram/the devil, women's voice being haram, and pictures of living things being forbidden. You're free to believe it if you want, but just keep it to yourself, and dont even try to persuade me into that thinkin

Im also going to back up my argument

In The Quran there is one example of Prophet Solomon who had workers make as he pleased, including statues/images:

They made for Solomon what he desired of enclosures, and statues/images, and pools of deep reservoirs, and heavy pots. "O family of David, work to show thanks." Only a few of My servants are appreciative. [34:13]

Thus, The Quran does not prohibit such things completely, it only prohibits being devoted to them or their worship:

When Abraham said to his father and his people: What are these images/statues to which you are devoted?
They said: We found our fathers worshipping them.
He said: Certainly you have been, (both) you and your fathers, in manifest error.
[21:52-54]

To prevent such misuse, it is likely their use would be limited, but that does not mean forbidden completely.

Say: “Who has forbidden the nice things that God has brought forth for His servants and the good provisions?” Say: “They are meant for those who believe during this worldly life, and they will be exclusive for them on the Day of Resurrection.” It is such that We explain the revelations for those who know. [7:3
This is my principle & understanding of Islam and I'm firm on it. As I said in my previous post that these rigidities have been imposed by some Mollah's. Islam is not a man made religion and it isn't Allah's instruction to follow man made rules in Islam.

For instance, "if you have dogs the angel's don't come there" this is so rubish. If you see the story of "Companions of the cave" described in Quran. You clearly know that a dog was one of them and they were all guarded by the Angels. Besides as you said, that there is no verse forbiding having a dog.

So people, Quran is the only guidance for Islam and any rule mae by people or in the name of human beings (Even With the ref of the Prophet) if it is not in line with Quran, it has to be wrong & abandoned. In those times after the death of the prophet, many people wrongly reffered a lot of things to be prophet's saings, for self interest or by mistake.
__________________
I'm with Shahbag for fair punishment of all war criminals. Im with Shahbag to stand for fair trials of all Corruption, all murders and social injustices occurred over last 40 years. I'm for a secular, corruption free & Just society in Bangladesh. Spirit of '71
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old June 30, 2010, 09:51 AM
zman's Avatar
zman zman is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: January 20, 2005
Posts: 1,640

Please don't abuse science by laying claims that you cannot prove...the whole point of the first half of my post was to explain with simple examples such as F=ma (anybody who's cracked open an elementary physics book would understand) how all scientific proofs don't have the same level of strength or validity...and this is a fact scientists, heck even mathematicians have to live with...i'll re iterate, the laws of conservation of momentum/energy/angular momentum are of more general validity than Newton's laws, since they apply to light and matter, to classical and modern physics... if you want me to provide you with more such relevant examples just ask.

Now, if Newton's theory can be amended, why can't a theory that has certain tenets that are not even falsifiable as yet be questioned?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah
And you have hit the nail right there, because scientific process do not give a flying frack about what you believe. There might be inconsistency on the exact chain of evolutionary stage that led to human but the fact of evolutionary process that led to human being is not in doubt.
Maybe one of these days we should have a class on statistics and probability to elucidate what should and should not be said about scientific theories (here's a hint..you throw in the word "reasonable" and your argument becomes a whole lot stronger)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah
If you knew what evolution is you would understand that evolution on the scale of large organisms like human or cows can't be actively observed because the process itself takes 100s of millions of years. You find me a way for people to live for 100s of millions of years and recreate Neanderthals I will show you evolution as it happens.
Since we've got somebody in the house who clearly knows a lot more about science than the rest of us, please enlighten me according to what logic does the burden of providing proof/a way for people to live for 100s of millions of years lie with me when I'm not the one defending the theory of evolution here? (Dare I say the forbidden word "BELIEF" that seems to be creeping into the argument here)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah
And what your goal in life should be? Whatever goal you set yourself for your life. Whats so difficult about it?
Thanks for the enlightenment...and all this time I thought a certain Mr. Laden was evil
__________________
MOTIVATION - Few things inspire us to soar quite like being really f***ed if we don't (Avatar caption)

Last edited by zman; June 30, 2010 at 09:56 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old June 30, 2010, 04:39 PM
Rifat's Avatar
Rifat Rifat is offline
Cricket Guru
 
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: Connecticut
Favorite Player: Hashim Amla
Posts: 10,533

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nafi
24:32. And say to the believing women that they cast down their looks and guard their modesty

The subject of modesty has indeed changed widely over time, especially for females.

On a second edited note, I am not here to defend self-proclaimed ''muslims'', I am here to defend True Islam
Modesty may have changed but the laws of Allah HAS NOT!!!!! for example from the Words of Allah in al-
Qur'an:

"O ye wives of the Prophet! Ye are not like any other women. If ye keep your duty (to Allah), then be not soft of speech, lest he in whose heart is a disease aspire (to you), but utter customary speech. (32) And stay in your houses. Bedizen not yourselves with the bedizenment of the Time of Ignorance. Be regular in prayer, and pay the poor-due, and obey Allah and His messenger. Allah's wish is but to remove uncleanness far from you, O Folk of the Household, and cleanse you with a thorough cleansing. (33) (Surah Ahzab: ayahs 32-33) Chapter 33: verses 32-33

يَـٰنِسَآءَ ٱلنَّبِىِّ لَسۡتُنَّ ڪَأَحَدٍ۬ مِّنَ ٱلنِّسَآءِۚ إِنِ ٱتَّقَيۡتُنَّ فَلَا تَخۡضَعۡنَ بِٱلۡقَوۡلِ فَيَطۡمَعَ ٱلَّذِى فِى قَلۡبِهِۦ مَرَضٌ۬ وَقُلۡنَ قَوۡلاً۬ مَّعۡرُوفً۬ا (٣٢) وَقَرۡنَ فِى بُيُوتِكُنَّ وَلَا تَبَرَّجۡنَ تَبَرُّجَ ٱلۡجَـٰهِلِيَّةِ ٱلۡأُولَىٰۖ وَأَقِمۡنَ ٱلصَّلَوٰةَ وَءَاتِينَ ٱلزَّڪَوٰةَ وَأَطِعۡنَ ٱللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُۚ ۥۤ إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ ٱللَّهُ لِيُذۡهِبَ عَنڪُمُ ٱلرِّجۡسَ أَهۡلَ ٱلۡبَيۡتِ وَيُطَهِّرَكُمۡ تَطۡهِيرً۬ا (٣٣)

in these verses Allah instructs the wives of the prophet Mohammad(May Allah's peace and blessings be upon him) not to use their voice in a sweet tone(like many women today does when speaking) because amongst the weakest of MEN it creates a sense of attraction, Allah(swt) ordained these laws for them so that their hearts remain purer.

In addition, Allah instructs them to Stay in their houses just so their hearts remain purer.

you may argue that today modesty has changed, but the standard of Modesty Allah sets makes it CRYSTAL CLEAR that the noblest of women(wives of our Mohammad(May Allah's Peace and blessings be upon him)) were so modest that before they spoke to men in public:

1. they do not use soft calm sweet voice to talk.
2. they did not even socialize with other men except in great necessity and even when they did, they kept professional distance between them!

this is just voice, imagine what standard of modesty the believing women should look up to when they are dealing with MEN some other than their husbend, father, brother(the mahraam)

وَقُل لِّلۡمُؤۡمِنَـٰتِ يَغۡضُضۡنَ مِنۡ أَبۡصَـٰرِهِنَّ وَيَحۡفَظۡنَ فُرُوجَهُنَّ وَلَا يُبۡدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنۡهَا‌ۖ وَلۡيَضۡرِبۡنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَىٰ جُيُوبِہِنَّ‌ۖ وَلَا يُبۡدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا لِبُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوۡ ءَابَآٮِٕهِنَّ أَوۡ ءَابَآءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوۡ أَبۡنَآٮِٕهِنَّ أَوۡ أَبۡنَآءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوۡ إِخۡوَٲنِهِنَّ أَوۡ بَنِىٓ إِخۡوَٲنِهِنَّ أَوۡ بَنِىٓ أَخَوَٲتِهِنَّ أَوۡ نِسَآٮِٕهِنَّ أَوۡ مَا مَلَكَتۡ أَيۡمَـٰنُهُنَّ أَوِ ٱلتَّـٰبِعِينَ غَيۡرِ أُوْلِى ٱلۡإِرۡبَةِ مِنَ ٱلرِّجَالِ أَوِ ٱلطِّفۡلِ ٱلَّذِينَ لَمۡ يَظۡهَرُواْ عَلَىٰ عَوۡرَٲتِ ٱلنِّسَآءِ‌ۖ وَلَا يَضۡرِبۡنَ بِأَرۡجُلِهِنَّ لِيُعۡلَمَ مَا يُخۡفِينَ مِن زِينَتِهِنَّ‌ۚ وَتُوبُوٓاْ إِلَى ٱللَّهِ جَمِيعًا أَيُّهَ ٱلۡمُؤۡمِنُونَ لَعَلَّكُمۡ تُفۡلِحُونَ

And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands' fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters' sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigour, or children who know naught of women's nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that ye may succeed. (Surah Nur ayah 31)(Chapter 24, Verse 31)

يَـٰٓأَيُّہَا ٱلنَّبِىُّ قُل لِّأَزۡوَٲجِكَ وَبَنَاتِكَ وَنِسَآءِ ٱلۡمُؤۡمِنِينَ يُدۡنِينَ عَلَيۡہِنَّ مِن جَلَـٰبِيبِهِنَّۚ ذَٲلِكَ أَدۡنَىٰٓ أَن يُعۡرَفۡنَ فَلَا يُؤۡذَيۡنَۗ وَكَانَ ٱللَّهُ غَفُورً۬ا رَّحِيمً۬ا
O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognised and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful. (Surah Ahzab ayah 59)(Chapter 33, verse 59)
How can you argue that muslim women today should not wear the hijaab when even if they are doing so they are clearly forbidden from revealing even their ornaments or some other method of revealing the private parts such as tight revealing clothes or see through clothes or striking the feet to create even a sense/feeling of their private body parts amongst other Men??.

if that is forbidden by Allah FROM THE QUR'AN, how can you proclaim that the hijaab/niqaab is "backwards"..claim whatever you want...modesty may change, humanity may change, our faith may change


but remember,

THE LAWS OF ALLAH DOES NOT! FUNDAMENTALS OF ISLAM DOES NOT CHANGE, Modesty is very fundamental to faith for BOTH MEN AND WOMEN!

may Allah forgive me for any error, inconsistency or shortcoming in conveying this message!!!!

whether you like it or not this what Allah(swt) says in the qur'an and i accept the qur'an as it was revealed to prophet Mohammad(May Allah's peace and blessings be upon him)
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old June 30, 2010, 06:21 PM
Nafi's Avatar
Nafi Nafi is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: March 23, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Favorite Player: Mahmudullah Riyad
Posts: 5,128

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rifat
How can you argue that muslim women today should not wear the hijaab
Where did I say this?

Quote:
And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment.
I dont know why you underlined this, this refers to belly dancing, where woman had a bracelets on their ankles and enticed the audience to shaking it as such

I will not bother discussing what is modest or what is not, I am very secure in my belief what is modest, and what isn't, but its not ontopic

Indeed however I will say the niqab/full veil is backwards and if a woman was wearing it in my country, I would find it offensive.

However its the right for any woman to wear whatever she likes (barring UK laws of indecency), however I would never allow a burqa clad woman into my house. And they should be treated as any normal person who wears a motorcycle helmet/balaclava.

clearly what has been guided for the wives of the prophet, are not for women in general

Quote:
"O ye wives of the Prophet! Ye are not like any other women.
__________________
BD_Shardul: ''I myself will not go through the troubles of dating. I will offer a prayer that will let me know if my would be bride is compatible with me through a dream''
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old June 30, 2010, 08:43 PM
Rifat's Avatar
Rifat Rifat is offline
Cricket Guru
 
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: Connecticut
Favorite Player: Hashim Amla
Posts: 10,533

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nafi
Where did I say this?



I dont know why you underlined this, this refers to belly dancing, where woman had a bracelets on their ankles and enticed the audience to shaking it as such

I will not bother discussing what is modest or what is not, I am very secure in my belief what is modest, and what isn't, but its not ontopic

Indeed however I will say the niqab/full veil is backwards and if a woman was wearing it in my country, I would find it offensive.

However its the right for any woman to wear whatever she likes (barring UK laws of indecency), however I would never allow a burqa clad woman into my house. And they should be treated as any normal person who wears a motorcycle helmet/balaclava.

clearly what has been guided for the wives of the prophet, are not for women in general
Nafi bro,

I have no intention to offend you. My point is: it is what Allah and his messenger ordained in the Qur'an is what muslims should follow, regardless of what we people(you, I and society) think about it in the back of our minds...(as a believer in Allah, his messenger and the last day, we should strive to like what Allah and his Messengers(May Allah be pleased with them) likes and strive to dislike what Allah and his Messengers(May Allah be pleased with them) dislikes because only then we can get closer to Allah ans he will reward you without bounds both in this life and the hereafter )

i already cited this verse from qur'an: and i believe it is talking to All believing women, not just the wives of RasulUllah(Sallalahu a'laihe wa sallam)

يَـٰٓأَيُّہَا ٱلنَّبِىُّ قُل لِّأَزۡوَٲجِكَ وَبَنَاتِكَ وَنِسَآءِ ٱلۡمُؤۡمِنِينَ يُدۡنِينَ عَلَيۡہِنَّ مِن جَلَـٰبِيبِهِنَّۚ ذَٲلِكَ أَدۡنَىٰٓ أَن يُعۡرَفۡنَ فَلَا يُؤۡذَيۡنَۗ وَكَانَ ٱللَّهُ غَفُورً۬ا رَّحِيمً۬ا

O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognised and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful. (Surah Ahzab ayah 59)(Chapter 33, verse 59)

take it any way you want to take it, it is a command from Allah, and I obey my lord and Master

on the contrary, Allah also orders believing men to lower their gaze(various verses) so That is my duty and a believer to obey....
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old June 30, 2010, 11:24 PM
Blah Blah is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: December 8, 2004
Posts: 1,161

Thanks Rifat for pointing out the dubiousness of Nafi's and some so called Muslims view on Islam. You can't pick or choose what you want to follow and what you don't want to follow and call yourself a muslim. Either you go by the rules or you don't go by the rules there is no middle ground.

You have to follow religions through all its ugliness and truth, it doesn't care what the society of 21st century thinks about mediaval, barbaric, uncivilized rules and laws set in stone by a book 1000s of years ago.
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old June 30, 2010, 11:46 PM
Blah Blah is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: December 8, 2004
Posts: 1,161

Quote:
Originally Posted by zman

Now, if Newton's theory can be amended, why can't a theory that has certain tenets that are not even falsifiable as yet be questioned?
Which part of evolution theory is false? The fact that humans evolved from other form of mammals is a proven fact. The dispute is the exact sequence of steps not the steps themselves. It might not be good enough for you, but its good enough for people whose discoveries are not affected by their personal religious belief.


Quote:
Since we've got somebody in the house who clearly knows a lot more about science than the rest of us, please enlighten me according to what logic does the burden of providing proof/a way for people to live for 100s of millions of years lie with me when I'm not the one defending the theory of evolution here? (Dare I say the forbidden word "BELIEF" that seems to be creeping into the argument here)
There is no burden of proof, you asked for unreasonable condition to appease your belief

Quoting yourself:

Quote:
Until experiments are designed to re create humans from Neanderthals, that part of the “theory” will remain questionable and what seems theory to you will remain hypothesis in my eyes.
Well if you are going to ask retarded experimental condition then its only fair that you are asked to build the time machine to make the experiment according to your preferable experimenting condition.

Its like making an utterly ridiculous argument as "the only way we can tell that sun will turn in to a Red Giant is to wait 100s of millions of year to see if it turns in to a red giant" until then it will remain a theory.

Wonder why people make fun of religious people? You make it ridiculously easy.

There are some very valid arguments against science and its methods. Yours isn't one.
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old July 1, 2010, 01:18 PM
zman's Avatar
zman zman is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: January 20, 2005
Posts: 1,640

^Okay…it’s crystal clear we’re not communicating here…
Let me take a step back and take one more crack at the message I’m trying to get across here…

Here’s a question, our friend ZeeshanM posed earlier…..
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeeshanM
If you don't think LOGIC is EMPIRICAL then explain to me why is 1+1=2 and what exactly is "1" and "+" and "="
For the sake of argument, if we could somehow get ZeeshanM to assume for a moment logic is empirical and he and I agree to accept (or believe in) a certain set of logic, the proof of 1+1=2 would look something like the following…

Let N be the smallest set satisfying these postulates (Peano Postulates):

P1. 1 is in N.
P2. If x is in N, then its "successor" x' is in N.
P3. There is no x such that x' = 1.
P4. If x isn't 1, then there is a y in N such that y' = x.
P5. If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication
(x in S => x' in S) holds, then S = N.

Define addition recursively:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 1, then define a + b = a'
(using P1 and P2). If b isn't 1, then let c' = b, with c in N
(using P4), and define a + b = (a + c)'.

Def: 2 = 1'

2 is in N by P1, P2, and the definition of 2.

Theorem: 1 + 1 = 2
Proof: Use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1.
Then 1 + 1 = 1' = 2 Q.E.D.

Now if we were to start over, and include several more definitions (just to make life easier) such as these--

For all of the following, x, y, and z are integers.

(A0) 0 does not equal 1

(A1) For all x, y, z, (x + y) + z = x + (y + z)
(A2) For all x, x + 0 = x
(A3) For all x, there exists a y such that x + y = 0
(A4) For all x, y, x + y = y + x
(A5) For all x, y, z, (x*y)*z = x*(y*z)
(A6) For all x, x*1 = x
(A7) For all x, y, if x*y = 0, then x = 0 or y = 0
(A8) For all x, y, x*y = y*x
(A9) For all x, y, z, (x + y)*z = x*z + y*z
(A10) For all x, x is not less than x
(A11) For all x, y, only one of the following is true: x < y, x > y, x = y
(A12) For all x, y, z, if x < y and y < z, then x < z
(A13) For all x, y, z, x < y implies that x + z < y + z
(A14) For all x, y, z, if x < y and 0 < z, then x*z < y*z
(PMI) If S is a set of positive integers, and 1 is a member of S, and x being a member of S implies that x + 1 is a member of S, then S is the set of /all/ positive integers.


Additionally define 3,4,5,6,7,8,9, {10….19,20,….99,100… (which I wouldn’t even attempt here without greek symbols)}.

Based on the above I could claim, "if you gave me a number, I could tell you what the number that succeeds it looks like" or maybe even "add any two numbers for you" despite not have had worked out each and every problem in advance (which would obviously be an infinite number of permutations). It's noteworthy, since the claim was mine the burden of proof also lay with me.


Now for someone like me--who feels a little betrayed by science every now and then due to its somewhat schizophrenic nature, e.g. being told for thousands of years the earth was flat (and of course it was verified by thousands of scientists at that time) and then fifteen hundred years later waking up to the realization that the earth wasn’t flat; or elementary physics theories such as f=ma was universal (and that too was verified by thousands of scientists) until some Swiss clerk came up with other ideas--to ask questions or even doubt certain aspects of a general, universal claim such as “every living organism evolves” (where I actually do accept it applies to most populations, and even to human beings to an extant) is really that ridiculous?

Whether I accept the proof or not is secondary, but what I expected from someone who claims to be a student of the scientific process—and who’s quick to make remarks repeatedly implying ignorance on the part of several others on this board--to at least briefly describe how the experiments were set up to prove human evolution through natural selection? What were some of the alternative hypotheses? What were the confidence intervals or prediction intervals so we could get a better understanding of what’s considered “reasonable doubt” and “beyond reasonable doubt”?

But from the discussion we’ve had so far I got the impression, you not only never tried to get near a science lab to test some of these claims (which is acceptable to a certain extant) but never even seriously studied the “peer reviewed journals” you keep referring to and have a tendency to accept “scientific facts” just because they’re published by someone who went to Harvard whether you actually understand their proofs or claims or not, and yet you claim to belong to a system which is devoid of any kind of “Faith”/”BELIEF”.

Alright I'm done for a while, vacation time...
__________________
MOTIVATION - Few things inspire us to soar quite like being really f***ed if we don't (Avatar caption)
Reply With Quote
  #241  
Old July 1, 2010, 03:07 PM
Blah Blah is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: December 8, 2004
Posts: 1,161

Quote:
Originally Posted by zman
Now for someone like me--who feels a little betrayed by science every now and then due to its somewhat schizophrenic nature, e.g. being told for thousands of years the earth was flat (and of course it was verified by thousands of scientists at that time) and then fifteen hundred years later waking up to the realization that the earth wasn’t flat;


Oh yeah? It must have been really devastating to realize and feel betrayed that earth was not in fact flat and it was verified by thousands of scientists? Wow, not only are you good at deviating from original discussion but you are awesome and making things up on the go.

Let us for a moment even leave out the utter dubiousness of this argument of taking examples of 1000s of years old to make a point how science is fundamentally flawed. Please by all means lets have some citation of thousands of scientists, 1000s years ago who verified that earth was flat.

Try to compare modern science to "science" done 1000s of years ago in an effort to diminish scientific process only shows how low steps of the intellectual ladder you will take to promote your personal bias on religion.

Quote:
or elementary physics theories such as f=ma was universal (and that too was verified by thousands of scientists) until some Swiss clerk came up with other ideas--to ask questions or even doubt certain aspects of a general, universal claim such as “every living organism evolves” (where I actually do accept it applies to most populations, and even to human beings to an extant) is really that ridiculous?


Its not ridiculous to question scientific laws and theories as a matter of fact thats how scientific process works. Not only it is encouraged to criticize scientific laws or theories you are encouraged to find an alternate law/theory that will disprove the existing law.

But if your criticism is based on what you "believe" because of your religious convictions, not because of any facts of anything you have found to disapprove the existing laws. In that case, it is ridiculous.




Quote:

Whether I accept the proof or not is secondary, but what I expected from someone who claims to be a student of the scientific process—and who’s quick to make remarks repeatedly implying ignorance on the part of several others on this board--to at least briefly describe how the experiments were set up to prove human evolution through natural selection? What were some of the alternative hypotheses? What were the confidence intervals or prediction intervals so we could get a better understanding of what’s considered “reasonable doubt” and “beyond reasonable doubt”?
....or you can do your own research (which relies on decades worth of scientific process) and point out what specific part of the evolution theory, that provides evidence of human evolving from other animals, that you have a problem with. Since I am not the one who is questioning the evolution theory isn't the burden of proof on YOU to provide evidence of your "belief".

So far you have provided none, other than your complete lack of understanding on the scientific process and give examples of flat earth theory as your basis of disapproval of the scientific process.

Last edited by Blah; July 1, 2010 at 03:12 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #242  
Old July 1, 2010, 03:20 PM
bujhee kom's Avatar
bujhee kom bujhee kom is offline
Cricket Sage
 
Join Date: June 27, 2007
Location: Dhaka Mental Hospital
Favorite Player: Mo Chow = Chow Mo
Posts: 21,441

I am enjoying this thread very much. This thread is hot, like hot All You Can Eat Buffet!!
But I am also learning tremendously from these discussions , thank you bhais.
__________________
T20 WC-e duto assoc team-ke hariye ekti darun bissucup upohar debar jonno BD team-er dui galey shikto chumbon...
Reply With Quote
  #243  
Old July 1, 2010, 03:35 PM
Blah Blah is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: December 8, 2004
Posts: 1,161

Quote:
Originally Posted by bujhee kom
I am enjoying this thread very much. This thread is hot, like hot All You Can Eat Buffet!!
But I am also learning tremendously from these discussions , thank you bhais.

I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to everyone I have offended (not because of the nature of the discussion but because of the words I chose).

In the beginning I tried to remain calm and to the point. But its not always easy to remain calm when you are (mostly) the only person defending one side of the argument against 10 people on 20 separate topics and each of them are being repeated many times.

I will try to do better.



No promises :)
Reply With Quote
  #244  
Old July 1, 2010, 07:38 PM
Nafi's Avatar
Nafi Nafi is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: March 23, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Favorite Player: Mahmudullah Riyad
Posts: 5,128

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah
I am not a big fan of saying things like "Atheism doesn't denigrate humanity" or "Atheism lets someone find their own mneaning and purpose in life" instead of "Most Atheists" , "are likely to".
.
Even if you limit to most atheist, in the atheistic perception of reality, there is no meaning or purpose of life, or anything for that matter, because everything was caused by improbable accident.

Islam's points out the universe is deterministic with every entity has a purpose, which all originated from one specific single CAUSE and origin.
__________________
BD_Shardul: ''I myself will not go through the troubles of dating. I will offer a prayer that will let me know if my would be bride is compatible with me through a dream''
Reply With Quote
  #245  
Old July 2, 2010, 05:33 PM
One World's Avatar
One World One World is offline
Cricket Sage
 
Join Date: May 18, 2005
Location: New England
Favorite Player: Charlie Chaplin
Posts: 16,569

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nafi
Even if you limit to most atheist, in the atheistic perception of reality, there is no meaning or purpose of life, or anything for that matter, because everything was caused by improbable accident.

Islam's points out the universe is deterministic with every entity has a purpose, which all originated from one specific single CAUSE and origin.
Had to argue on the second point, the purpose and cause is not a property of Islam rather every single religion or cult movement possesses and advocates fundamental principles to obey and shows the followers the ultimate sense of divinity to achieve.

Now an atheist may or may not have a purpose. But most of those have and it mostly lies into whether everything was caused by improbable accident or not, what was there before big bang or what caused it? They have a meaning, the meaning of reality, so going back to Blah's reply as he mentioned, if you can prove there is a certain Cosmic Lord, I would be happy to follow everything come from there as the reality has been proven.
__________________
Human mind has all the power, when your mind is grind grit wins the battle. Go Bangladesh. Be the world number one in Test Ranking.

Last edited by One World; July 2, 2010 at 05:40 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #246  
Old July 3, 2010, 01:09 AM
One World's Avatar
One World One World is offline
Cricket Sage
 
Join Date: May 18, 2005
Location: New England
Favorite Player: Charlie Chaplin
Posts: 16,569

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah
Atheists have its share of dumbs and a**holes.
But they do not justify this based on any incorrigible doctrine. If an atheist is dumb it is because his/her environment and reality, how (s)he comprehended it and how the perception got built on surroundings.
__________________
Human mind has all the power, when your mind is grind grit wins the battle. Go Bangladesh. Be the world number one in Test Ranking.
Reply With Quote
  #247  
Old July 3, 2010, 04:24 PM
Rifat's Avatar
Rifat Rifat is offline
Cricket Guru
 
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: Connecticut
Favorite Player: Hashim Amla
Posts: 10,533

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah
Thanks Rifat for pointing out the dubiousness of Nafi's and some so called Muslims view on Islam. You can't pick or choose what you want to follow and what you don't want to follow and call yourself a muslim. Either you go by the rules or you don't go by the rules there is no middle ground.

You have to follow religions through all its ugliness and truth, it doesn't care what the society of 21st century thinks about mediaval, barbaric, uncivilized rules and laws set in stone by a book 1000s of years ago.
Blah, This is where you and i differ

as Allah the owner of the Day of Resurrection states in holy qur'an:

Quote:
وَمِنۡہُم مَّن يَسۡتَمِعُ إِلَيۡكَ‌ۖ وَجَعَلۡنَا عَلَىٰ قُلُوبِہِمۡ أَكِنَّةً أَن يَفۡقَهُوهُ وَفِىٓ ءَاذَانِہِمۡ وَقۡرً۬ا‌ۚ وَإِن يَرَوۡاْ ڪُلَّ ءَايَةٍ۬ لَّا يُؤۡمِنُواْ بِہَا‌ۚ حَتَّىٰٓ إِذَا جَآءُوكَ يُجَـٰدِلُونَكَ يَقُولُ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوٓاْ إِنۡ هَـٰذَآ إِلَّآ أَسَـٰطِيرُ ٱلۡأَوَّلِينَ (٢٥)

Of them are some who listen unto thee, but We have placed upon their hearts veils, lest they should understand, and in their ears a deafness. If they saw every token they would not believe therein; to the point that, when they come unto thee to argue with thee, the disbelievers say: This is naught else than fables of the men of old.
Surah An'an ayah 25(6:25)

Quote:
وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُم مَّاذَآ أَنزَلَ رَبُّكُمۡ‌ۙ قَالُوٓاْ أَسَـٰطِيرُ ٱلۡأَوَّلِينَ (٢٤)

And when it is said unto them: What hath your Lord revealed? they say: (Mere) fables of the men of old,
Surah Nahl ayah 24(16:24)

Quote:
وَلَقَدۡ ضَرَبۡنَا لِلنَّاسِ فِى هَـٰذَا ٱلۡقُرۡءَانِ مِن كُلِّ مَثَلٍ۬‌ۚ وَلَٮِٕن جِئۡتَهُم بِـَٔايَةٍ۬ لَّيَقُولَنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ ڪَفَرُوٓاْ إِنۡ أَنتُمۡ إِلَّا مُبۡطِلُونَ (٥٨)
verily We have propounded for men, in this Qur'an every kind of Parable: But if thou bring to them any Sign, the Unbelievers are sure to say, "Ye do nothing but talk vanities."
Surah ar-Rum, ayah 58, (30:58)

Quote:
وَلَقَدۡ ضَرَبۡنَا لِلنَّاسِ فِى هَـٰذَا ٱلۡقُرۡءَانِ مِن كُلِّ مَثَلٍ۬ لَّعَلَّهُمۡ يَتَذَكَّرُونَ (٢٧) And verily We have coined for mankind in this Qur'an all kinds of similitudes, that haply they may reflect;
surah az-zumar, ayah 27(39:27)
Reply With Quote
  #248  
Old August 3, 2010, 01:55 PM
FaHiMa's Avatar
FaHiMa FaHiMa is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: April 28, 2007
Location: like.citytv-everywhere!
Favorite Player: YOURFACE
Posts: 3,346

I found this interesting...

http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/mathematical_03.html
__________________
Go get `em TigerZ!
*War is organized murder, and nothing else*
-Harry Patch
Reply With Quote
  #249  
Old August 3, 2010, 02:57 PM
Ajfar's Avatar
Ajfar Ajfar is offline
Cricket Sage
 
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Connecticut
Favorite Player: Nirala
Posts: 17,347

^That's really interesting. Thanks for sharing.
__________________
"I was the happiest man in the world, happier than Bill Gates"- Tamim Iqbal
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
BanglaCricket.com
 

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Partner Sites | Useful Links | Banners |

© BanglaCricket