Jump to content
Islamic Forum
vishah

Congratulating An Atheist

Recommended Posts

 

It sounds like you are falling into line with the earlier posters here in supporting the idea of different rights for different people. 

 

Nope ... I'm questioning the whole view that there are such things as 'right's ... which is very much a Western philosophy that presupposes that such 'rights' are entrenched in some cosmological bank somewhere.

 

Buy even with that narrow ideology for one to 'equal' with others essential means they must have the same socio-economic status ... which, as we know, is not the case ... which sort of explodes the whole myth of 'rights'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

What I fail to understand is why atheists should spend time debating Muslims ... if they accept there is no god why the interest ... or is it to whittle away a few hours of light entertainment ... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi  Russell , we actually agree in part .  The term atheist and/or atheism does not denote a world view , nor a scientific theorem , it resides exclusively in the realm of the question on the existence of deities or an unseen supernatural force /intelligence at work in the formation of the Universe .

 Since we are dealing with the metaphysical , there is no science involved . As for your view that the more one is exposed to science the more likely one would be predisposed to an atheistic view ? I would disagree . It all depends how one processes what is known about the Universe  and what is not . Also the mathematical odds involved in a Universe where chaos is the rule , yet order is observed  .Science for all practical purposes ,  is no more informed  than Plato as in regards to the Prime Cause of the Universe , nor it's origin , nor will it ever . This alone provides an open ended argument in which neither the deist nor atheist can claim a more logical position .

 Science is useful and reliable only in observation and prediction .Those are what  lead to medicinal treatment and cures .  BTW , I made no mention of religion , and that is because religion is a totally subjective deist  position . Proof of that is that there are literally thousands of religions in existence .

 

 Whether  you are a proponent of the Big Bang or Steady State , science can only go back as far as  the observable , then it is all conjecture or philosophical .  Neither the beginning nor a cause is observable . Although we have predicted the " echo of the Big Bang " and it's likely age , we are at a dead end when we reach that Singularity that exploded . And at the moment , have no idea of any predictable end or cycle .

 I do not in any way denigrate the positions of the atheists nor religionists , these are those who  have come to  their conclusion based on the same facts available to you and I . Those conclusions in the absence of  ALL  the information [ for the most part ] are equally plausible .

Unfortunately for human civilization , these religionists and their "other beliefs " have caused much pain ad suffering in the world .

 

To THAT I take exception .

Edited by Aligarr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is an example of what I have been talking about, this is a rule suited to a time that was far less capable than ours.

Then I guess we will have to agree to disagree because I think the Qur'an was made for all generations and I believe that this was set-up more to discourage polygamy and ultimately bring it to a monogamous relationship than anything else.  As I have heard time and again from other Muslims, quite a few agree with me on this point.  It was not so much a means of making room for a man to have four wives but to set-up hardships for the culture that was prone to polygamy.  This led to more and more Muslims going to a monogamous relationship as is seen today.

 

 

 

There are no more health concerns for a woman to have two husbands than there are for a man to have two wives so long as they are all faithful and clean to start with.  That cleanliness issue was once a difficult question but today we have simple tests that can ensure that neither partner has any diseases that are of concern so again this is a case of outdate rules build for a society that did not have the capabilities of our modern world.

This further proves the Qur'an as the Qur'an says that the woman should be chaste before she is married.

 

 

That is not true in my country where rape is vigorously prosecuted and the offenders are often locked up for considerable periods of time.

I do not know what country you are in but I suspect you are in the U.S. and if that is the case I can tell you that what you speak of is a rarity and most of the time they get out in less than half of the time that they are convicted for.  (this of course assuming that they are convicted as most officers will tell you many cases go unsolved if even reported)

 

 

Now your rule applies in countries that have a significant problem with unaccompanied women and in countries that have very little problems in this area so the rule is again out dated.  The rule also applies to the martial arts trained physically capable and large women as much as to the tiny and unfit while the former would be far more capable of taking care of themselves than the majority of men.  I have no problem with men wanting to look after their women, hey that’s me, but to force them to do so even when there is no danger in a modern well controlled society is foolish and again shows an out dated approach to our world.  Further such rules restrict women who may freely choose to take those risks just as people may choose to take risks by driving fast cars or parachuting

for fun.  Shouldn’t people be allowed to choose their risks?

Firstly I would applaud the implication of more women learning martial arts as it encourages independence.  Secondly, the protection is part of it but you also have the issue where a woman might say that a man did something when in fact he did not.  There are instances in the hadeeth where it was two women instead of a man and a woman.  Islam is about protecting virtue and allowing for justice.  These are key factors when considering anything in sharia law.  I am not an expert on this but I am sure you could talk to more knowledgeable people and see what they say.  Yusuf Estes is a good example

 

 

If a woman works as hard as a man she is just as likely to succeed at an intellectual pursuit as the man and any area of the brain that is used will grow just as your muscles will if you exercise so finding differences in the makeup of brains across the sexes is hardly surprizing.

To a degree I agree with you.  There are plenty of examples of strong independent women in Islam even warriors in battle.  By no means am I saying that women cannot work the same as men.  I simply saying that the ruling of two women present for a case is about implementing justice so that one woman me might remind the other.  (this would be more of the instance of the woman having been there for the incident as well)

 

 

Your system does not allow the rare cases of people who don’t fit your moulds to live the lives that work best for them.

According to who? You?  The only thing it doesn't allow is cases where the woman might be accused of something or the woman might be attacked because at the end of the day all the strength and training still can fail.  THere were women merchants in early Islam, women warriors, and more.

 

 

So in short I agree that, on average, our brains are different along sex lines but there are exceptions so discriminating against people on sex lines means discriminating against people for a characteristic that they may not possess which is immoral in my humble opinion

 

There is no discrimination.  There is only protection, justice, and fairness.  A women is allowed to own her own property, vote, testify, and even work in Islam.  So I do not know where you are getting discrimination from.  Do not confuse Islam for what some countries implement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Therefore, we have the opinion in Islamic Law that it is permissible for a woman to travel without a mahram when she is reasonably assured of her safety or when traveling poses no more danger for her than staying at home. The latter situation is often the case in non-Muslim countries where walking down her own street can be more dangerous for her and full of temptation that sitting on board an airplane. The environment of an airplane is quite often safer and more wholesome than that of the neighborhood in which she lives.

source: http://www.missionislam.com/family/womantraveling.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Johnford

 

No I don’t believe that these rights are any more than human ideas, take us out of the picture and there is no such thing.  This is not some form of platonic ‘rights’ realm out there that we can draw on.

 

I disagree on socioeconomic status.  Sure being rich will give us the power to do more but the poor should have the same rights as the rich just less money with which to explore those rights.

 

LOL You could turn that last around and ask muslims why they seem keen enough to discuss these things with an atheist.  Me I came here to learn how you guy’s think and why you hold these views.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me I came here to learn how you guy’s think and why you hold these views.

 

Sounds like you are trolling ... get a life ... bye

Edited by johnford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Aligarr

 

Yes that’s correct, there are world views held by atheists and scientific support for those but that’s not what atheism is about, atheism is simply about the existence or not of a god or gods.

 

I disagree, however, that the question is purely metaphysical with no scientific input.  All god ideas that I am aware of make claims about this world and how they interact with it and how it was created and science has a great deal to add on those questions.  If it can be shown through science that gods don’t throw lightning bolts then all god ideas which claim to do so are proven false so science clearly has a part to play.

 

My statement that the more science you learn the lower your chances of being a believer was a simple observation from surveys of top scientists.  An interesting tactic from the creationist movement in America was to try to produce credentialed creationist scientists in appropriate fields but time and again the people they put through these courses lost their faith by the end because the evidence they were exposed to was so overwhelming and logically consistent and it all spoke against their religious position.  And as I said top scientists are predominantly atheistic from surveys.  That’s a simple observation of the facts.

 

Chaos, or entropy as it is scientifically know, is certainly a dominant feature of the early universe but science explains how entropy can reduce in an expanding universe without external input.  Snowflakes are a real world example in which order increases as heat (entropy) is reduced.  Likewise matter can coalesce out of the primordial plasma by a similar mechanism and we see this happening all the time in atom smasher experiments so it’s hardly a mystery.  One of the great understandings we’ve come to is that, given the universe is expanding, chaos per unit volume is decreasing so it’s converse, order, must be increasing.  We even have in depth maths and physical observations of this happening so there are no serious mysteries at this level.  As I said science has a great deal to say about all of this.

 

A more speculative yet telling area in which science has an input is in the initiation of the big bag.  We’ve seen quantum objects burrow through potential barriers which they could not classically cross and we’ve seen quantum objects appear by borrowing energy from nothing.  This latter is observed in the cassimere effect experiments.  The maths of quantum physics allows a virtual particle to burrow through from nothing into desitter space triggering the expansion which is the start of the big bang.  Now what was that you said about science having nothing to say about this stuff?  People scoff at such ideas but these are people who don’t understand just how accurately the mathematics of quantum physics has been tested and proven.  No one has seen a burrowing event triggering a universe because that can’t happen when there is already a universe but the cassimere effect experiments show clearly that nothing is unstable and the maths of quantum physics also explains this in detail so such ideas are well supported both with theory and with evidence.  God is not supported by any such evidence!

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fathi

 

One of your previous arguments was that the parentage of a child born in a marriage that included two men and one woman would be in doubt, I explained that firstly I’m not sure why that matters and secondly, today, we can easily enough work out who fathered the child so your argument that this set of rules was actually to push people toward monogamy does not seem to follow from what you said earlier and it’s not a relevant issue today at least not in affluent societies.  If monogamy was the aim of these rules why not just prohibit polygamy in all its forms directly?

 

I pointed out that there was no more health risks for a woman to have two husbands than for a man to have two wives, so long as all members of the relationship are faithful and clean to start with there are no significant risks, the sex combination does not matter.  You now claim that this is proof of the quran because it tells women to be chaste before marriage.  Why tell that to women, why not do this right and simply tell all people to be chaste before marriage then they can marry two men or two women with equal chances of being fine.  Such advice is equally appropriate to men and women yet the quran seems to think it needs to tell women this apparently.

 

No I don’t live in the US I’m an Aussie and yes rape is not prosecuted successfully as often as it should be and yes prisoners often get out for good behaviour in around half the time they were sentenced to but judges know that when sentencing so it’s taken into account.  If someone deserves 5 years in prison they’ll be sentenced to 10 with the understanding that if they behave appropriately they will get out in the 5 years they deserved for the crime and if not they’ll increase their own sentence and so their punishment.

 

I agree that women should learn martial arts if they are interested but they should not have to to be safe in a community.  Yes a woman may unjustly accuse a man of something just as a man may unjustly accuse a woman of something, I’m not sure why these rules are one sided when the problem is two sided?  You say these rules are to protect virtue but I’ve met women who did not want to have their virtue protected, who actively sought out men because they wanted an interesting sex life.  Assuming appropriate protection is used such a lifestyle is safe and apparently fun so why should a moral code attempt to prevent it and why, apparently, predominantly from the female side when both males and females can indulge in such activities.

 

The idea that it takes two women in court to be as rational and impartial as a single man is sexist and not supported by the evidence.  Women are just as capable of being rational or irrational as men and just as capable of being good or bad witnesses.  There is no foundation for this prejudice in fact.

 

According to those here who’ve been explaining Islam to me here men are the bread winners, it is their responsibility to go out and provide for the family and women are the home makers, they are allowed to work so long as it does not interfere with their ‘primary role’ as a house wife and if they earn money it is 100% theirs while their husbands must use their money to support the family.  Maybe that’s not what the quran says but it’s certainly what those here have got from it.  That is a sexist view and it would prevent people, such as my acquaintance who is a house husband married to a lawyer, from living the lifestyle they choose and which works so very well for them.  Is this not what the quran commands, do those here who’ve been explaining it to me have it wrong?  I’m not saying there are not mulsim warrior women or merchants but to be those things they can’t be married and have children or if they are they must have understanding husbands to give them permission while the husband does not need his wife’s permission to do what he wants in this area.

 

You say there is no discrimination yet you’ve already discussed such discrimination when you agreed that a man may marry more than one woman while a woman can’t marry more than one man so sorry but discrimination is a given here.  You say a woman can testify in court but you’ve also explained that her testimony is not counted as highly as a man’s which is sexist.  Can a married woman go out and buy property without her husband’s permission?  Can a man do the same without his wife’s?  Can a woman go out and work to the detriment of her ‘family duties’?  Why does the man not carry equal ‘duties’ towards the family he fathered?  That too is sexist.  Is all of this, as it’s been explained to me here by muslims, actually wrong?

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fathi

 

 

Therefore, we have the opinion in Islamic Law that it is permissible for a woman to travel without a mahram when she is reasonably assured of her safety or when traveling poses no more danger for her than staying at home. The latter situation is often the case in non-Muslim countries where walking down her own street can be more dangerous for her and full of temptation that sitting on board an airplane. The environment of an airplane is quite often safer and more wholesome than that of the neighborhood in which she lives.

 

Interesting story, my wife has travelled overseas a number of times for work on her own, it was on one of these trips, on an airplane, that she sat next to a man who explained that he’d like to have sex with her.  She explained that she was married.  He said that he was too and he was just talking about a bit of fun.  He was perfectly polite about it and there was no threat of force used or insinuated.  I guess nowhere is safe but she’s an adult and she’s perfectly capable of saying no.

 

The problem with such rules is that they are still sexist.  There are areas where men are likely to be attacked; there are areas in some cities in the US where I would not go because of these risks.  Why are there no rules about men traveling unaccompanied?  Sure women face more dangers here but men face dangers too.  Such rules should say that no one should travel without considering their safety and taking it into account.  Why pick on women as if they are children unable to make decisions about their own safety.  Why are they prevented from deciding that the risks are worth it to them.  It’s their life and limb they are risking.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Johnford

 

If you don’t want to talk to me then fine, I’m not going to force you.  The aim of a troll is to get a rise out of people or to start arguments, they don’t include much content in their posts just one or two line answers to often long and details replies.  Look at the posts on this thread and see who acts more like a troll here?

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fathi

 

 

 

Interesting story, my wife has travelled overseas a number of times for work on her own, it was on one of these trips, on an airplane, that she sat next to a man who explained that he’d like to have sex with her.  She explained that she was married.  He said that he was too and he was just talking about a bit of fun.  He was perfectly polite about it and there was no threat of force used or insinuated.  I guess nowhere is safe but she’s an adult and she’s perfectly capable of saying no.

 

The problem with such rules is that they are still sexist.  There are areas where men are likely to be attacked; there are areas in some cities in the US where I would not go because of these risks.  Why are there no rules about men traveling unaccompanied?  Sure women face more dangers here but men face dangers too.  Such rules should say that no one should travel without considering their safety and taking it into account.  Why pick on women as if they are children unable to make decisions about their own safety.  Why are they prevented from deciding that the risks are worth it to them.  It’s their life and limb they are risking.

 

Russell

 

As I understand it a lot of men do not travel alone.  I try not to personally.  As far as your repeated sexist comments I guess you and I have different understandings of what is wrong and right.  To me making sure a woman is safe is not wrong.  If my wife, for instance, says she can go walk to the store without me I am still going to go with her and she knows that.  Even in more traditional Christian cultures women are supposed to travel with company. 

 

What I would like to understand is why atheists throughout history, but especially more recently, insist that we have to conform to what they think is right or wrong?  Why they talk about not forcing beliefs to anyone and then insist that we not teach creation in school?  Why they tell us that to each their own and then want us to think as they do? 

 

Back to point.  Let's say that my daughter were ever to tell me that she could travel somewhere alone.  She is old enough (hypothetically) to have told me this so surely she has a sound enough mind to know that she should be fine.  Will I let her? NO!  Of course not. 

 

This forum is to explain the Islamic way of thinking.  With that said I have explained where we stand and have even showed that Muslims are not alone in this mindset.  The traditional Catholics of Mexico are the same way.  THe Amish are the same way.  I am done discussing this point as I feel that I have answered the question and to go further would just be a waste of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fathi

 

In my country travelling alone is an everyday occurrence though I’m sure we’d all rather travel with friends or family but there’s certainly no issues in travelling alone as a man or a woman.  Both sexes have suffered injury or death at the hands of strangers when travelling alone and when travelling in company as the Peter Falconio murder case has shown in Australia but the numbers are very very small, you are in far more danger of being run over by a bus walking to your corner store than being murdered because you travelled alone so we pretty much all choose to take that risk.

 

Don’t get me wrong, I see nothing wrong with trying to protect every member of my family no matter what their sex so protecting your wife or daughter would easily fit within that but to specifically restrict just the females regardless of their wishes is wrong in my opinion.  Maybe it’s a sign of the culture or location you live in but in my country it would never even cross my mind to worry if my wife was going to travel to the store alone, she does this on a regular basis as well as going to school to pick up the children etc all alone.  We live around 15 kilometres from the nearest store so it’s not a short walk to the coroner shop here.

 

You raise some interesting questions when you ask about atheists pushing our beliefs onto others.  Firstly I have no problem with you believing and living as a muslim.  In my society we have quite a few muslims and they are welcome so long as they don’t try to force their beliefs onto others or interfere with the lives of others.  My view is that human happiness should be the driver of our moral and legal system because at least we can all agree that humans exist and that they want to be happy.  Try to create a consensus on the existence of god and then try to form a consensus on what he/she/it/they want and you’ll quickly see the problems this approach can raise.

 

Teaching creationism is a long and complex question but the bottom line is that I personally have no problems in teaching it in the appropriate place.  Science classes are about science and that means evidence and theory.  There is no evidence and theory to creationism, it is just religion wrapped in a sciency sounding wrapper to try to slip it past ignorant school boards.  Teach it, along with other religions, in comparative theology class but don’t try to pretend its science and you’ll have no problems from me.

 

The final point I have on pushing our ideas may explain better our position.  I suspect that there are many women living as muslims who are perfectly happy with their position in that society, I may feel they are repressed, that they are missing out because of the restrictions but they may, if given the choice, freely choose to live that lifestyle and for those women (men too) I have no problems with them living as muslims but how many muslim women, if given all the facts and the absolute freedom to choose would decide that they don’t want all these restrictions?  That they are just as important, intelligent and powerful as the men in their society and so might choose another lifestyle?

 

I’m not sure how old your daughter is but children have restrictions for very good reasons, children are not as capable as they might think and they do require the support and protection of their parents till they are old enough to make those decisions themselves.  As infants they need virtually 100% support and guidance and that falls to very low figures by the time they are 18ish years old.  There is a good rational reason why adults must guide their offspring when they are young but once they are old enough to start making those decisions themselves then it must be up to them.  And yes they will make mistakes but hopefully they’ll learn from them and they may even die due to such a mistake and we as parents have to raise them to make sensible choices then take the risk that they may not because that’s life.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What I would like to understand is why atheists throughout history, but especially more recently, insist that we have to conform to what they think is right or wrong?

 

Interesting question ... and why do they pound Islam forums? ... if God does not exist ... why the interest ... ?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Johnford

 

You shouldn’t feel as if your belief system is being targeted, Christian forums are probably challenged by atheist’s more than muslim forums.  So far I’ve not seen a muslim group pushing the likes of intelligent design on their own though I have seen them jumping on the band wagon with the fundamentalist christian groups who do.  That idea gives more ground for discussion on some christian world views from our perspective.

 

Yes from where I sit god does not exist yet you believe in him and that’s interesting.  If you said you believed in dragons or fairies I’d still find that interesting, any belief system that leads someone to accept an apparently irrational view of the world is interesting.  I've debated people who believe the world is flat, that we did not go to the moon and that September 11 was a US conspiracy.  These are all interesting belief systems to explore.  People are interesting generally and you are all people.  I’m interested in people and how they think and why the think what they think.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread was opened by Visha , who states his religion as Islam . The title , obviously some light sarcasm directed at those who believe in their respective religions , but don't really know why , compared to atheists who apparently have their ducks in a row .

 Then Visha offers his "religious proofs " .Age old arguments that will no doubt continue ad infinitum .

 At the end of the day , neither will dissuade the other .

 

BTW Russel , prayers as they relate to medical healing , really have no place in the argument. If the argument is to remain purely in science , then that inevitably leads to a stalemate .  No proof for /no proof against /.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Aligarr

 

I agree that, at the end of the day, neither of us will change the other’s opinions at least not their foundational beliefs but maybe we can teach each other something along the way.  I’ve learned a lot while I’ve been here.

 

I think the prayer study did belong in here.  In science the starting position for any experiment should be the null hypothesis.  Basically that’s what you would expect to find if there was nothing to the theory you were testing.  It’s a check that scientists do on themselves to ensure they are actually seeing something when they conduct experiments or observations.  In a prayer efficacy study the null hypothesis is that those prayed for and those not would have equal outcomes.  The study I referred to was published in a peer reviewed journal, The Lancet, and it claimed proof of the efficacy of prayer.  When the data was analysed in full it was found that they only achieved that outcome by fudging the figures and when the entire data set was analysed the actual results were that prayer killed people.  LOL well that figure was actually very slight, within the error bars of the experiment so it would be expected to see such a figure by random chance if prayer had no effect at all but it’s not what you would expect if prayer worked.  So yes it was very specific scientific evidence against the idea that god answers prayers.  Of course the prayers were christian so it does not prove that Allah does not answer prayers for muslims.  That study seems very relevant to the discussion at hand to me.

 

You may have no evidence against science but science does indeed have evidence against many religious claims as the evidence above shows.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Johnford

 

You shouldn’t feel as if your belief system is being targeted, Christian forums are probably challenged by atheist’s more than muslim forums.  So far I’ve not seen a muslim group pushing the likes of intelligent design on their own though I have seen them jumping on the band wagon with the fundamentalist christian groups who do.  That idea gives more ground for discussion on some christian world views from our perspective.

 

Yes from where I sit god does not exist yet you believe in him and that’s interesting.  If you said you believed in dragons or fairies I’d still find that interesting, any belief system that leads someone to accept an apparently irrational view of the world is interesting.  I've debated people who believe the world is flat, that we did not go to the moon and that September 11 was a US conspiracy.  These are all interesting belief systems to explore.  People are interesting generally and you are all people.  I’m interested in people and how they think and why the think what they think.

 

Russell

 

Few things in your comment I want to address.  Firstly contrary to popular belief I have always believed in a superior power to myself.  It is not an indoctrination.  I really can remember believing in God long before I ever went to a church.  and we are talking an uber young age.

 

Secondly, I know it is a bit sidetracked but I personally believe that dragons are not all that far fetched although I believe if there ever was any they are long extinct now as I believe they were likely a form of dinosaur.

 

Thirdly, although I won't go so far as to say that the world is flat it does perplex me why a flight from California to China will not go over the Pacific Ocean and why no one has made it around the bottom of South America (although I could be mistaken on that point, I just haven't heard of it)

 

Fourthly, as far as September 11th I am not saying that it was a U.S. conspiracy or that it wasn't.  What I am saying is this:  1.  Everyone if you think it is a U.S. conspiracy at least show some intellect and stop trying to say that Bush was behind it because anyone who has ever heard the man speak knows how laughable that idea is.  Its not that I don't think he was capable of it in terms of wickedness, just I don't think he is smart enough.  2. When a panel of individuals whose lives have been spent building and tearing down buildings says that there is no way a plane hitting the buildings would have had that effect I am intrigued.  3. I am a bit perplexed (knowing the violent nature of most of my fellow Americans, self included) that a couple guys with nothing but box cutters was able to take an entire plane.  I have seen good ol' boys in this country beat down people that were holding guns to their heads.  4.  the fact that those who would benefit from the destruction of the twin towers the most were not Muslims but atheistic Jews, including the owner of the building which brings me to a new point. 5.  the owner took out an insurance policy shortly before the incident (this would spark interest by anyone with a mind for logic)

 

Fifthly, I do not understand what exactly makes the belief in God illogical.  Are you saying because you cannot see God it is illogical?  because you do not personaly hear him (I use him not in terms of gender but as a reference point)? Or is it because you do not accept the scientific miracles that are in the Qur'an as proof of God? http://www.islamreligion.com/category/34/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes from where I sit god does not exist yet you believe in him and that’s interesting.

 

'Interest' is of little interest unless it leads to something otherwise you are merely playing.

Edited by johnford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fathi

 

I’m afraid I find it hard to believe that you believed in a god before you were told what one was.  Sure children always feel there’s a power greater than them in the world, lets face it that’s a simple truth as children are very powerless but to call that god is overselling the truth here.

 

The dragons discussed in the pages of old books such as the bible and possibly the quran don’t conform to what we know of dinosaurs but you could certainly point to some dinosaurs and call them dragons, that wouldn’t be controversial unless you suggested that humans have ever seen one alive, we know that’s not true as they died out over 65000000 years before humans existed on this planet.

 

To understand the routing of air traffic from California to China all you need is a globe and a piece of string.  Measure the distances and see what you find.  You also have to take into account the jet stream which can travel at over 100 knots at times so adds significantly to the trip if you fly into it.

 

Cape horn, the southern tip of south America, was one of the most challenging trade routes for shipping for many years, today you can take the canal route and save a great deal of distance but once upon a time all shipping had to sail around the southern tip of south America.

 

I think the biggest count against the idea that 9/11 was a US conspiracy was simply that they could never have pulled it off without being caught out.  They are not that good at keeping secrets.  I doubt Bush could have done it because I can’t say that I see him as evil enough to attack his own citizens but I don’t know much about him so I’ll have to leave that question open to others more knowledgeable.

 

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf is a peer reviewed article by a respected structural engineer who shows exactly how the towers could have collapsed exactly as seen.   He’s a pom by the way not a US citizen. There are many more such articles, not opinion pieces by the uninformed but scientifically rigorous studies by those who are experts in such structures, which clearly show that the buildings fell exactly as you would expect given the damage they had sustained.

 

Yes it’s true that Silversteins had insurance on the twin towers, insurance that included terrorist attacks however, given that that value of the policy was around half the value of the buildings he was taking a significant loss not making a profit if he was in on some conspiracy and remember that having such insurance is standard practice in the industry.

 

No there are many things I believe in that I can’t see so that does not make it illogical.  I can’t see atoms for instance but I believe in them because there is evidence for them.  No I don’t hear god, I suspect that no one hears god, and we have some really good explanations for why people might hear voices in their heads and some great medications that can help many of them.  I’m yet to see a ‘scientific miracle’ from the quran that stands up to scrutiny but that would be evidence for a god claim if it existed.   God, as explained by those here, falls simply to Occam’s razor, we see a natural world out there, a world that science has shown us could well exist exactly as we see it by natural forces alone but then religious people layer a god on top of it.  Nature is capable of producing everything we see on its own without god making god the sort of unnecessary entity that William of Occam told us to be wary of.  Unfortunately that link you posted isn’t working.  Can you please pick the best of the ‘miracles’ in there and post them here so we can discuss them in detail?

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×