Jump to content
Islamic Forum
NextElement

Islamic View On The Bill Of Rights

Recommended Posts

Salaam! Well the forums have been kind of slow lately and I've been fairly busy myself finishing schooling, but I figured I'd get some discussion started:

 

I've noticed in many Muslim countries, there are laws regarding personal freedoms (speech, religion, etc) in order to prevent blasphemy and things like that. What is the Muslim view on say, the US Bill of Rights, which guarantees freedom of speech and religion for everyone? On one hand, I can see how it is dangerous because anyone is allowed to be blasphemous towards Allah, but on the other hand, I might not have become Muslim had it not been for my freedom to look into other religions.

 

Also, I've heard that there is no true Sharia practicing country today..... What would make a country have true Sharia law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

I think Evelyn Beatrice Hall summed it up perfectly in her biography of Voltaire...

 

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

 

'Nuff said!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Evelyn Beatrice Hall summed it up perfectly in her biography of Voltaire...

 

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

 

'Nuff said!

 

As I can understand, I can defend any one's right to believe what ever he likes...and also say what ever he likes regarding his believe, while when it comes to the others' believes it should be conditioned.

 

authentications, proofs, chasing the truth should be involved other than this it will be insults, disgracing and slandering. do any one one can accept to be disgraced without or with false proofs. I believe here should be the critical limits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe here should be the critical limits.

No belief should be beyond criticism. No ideas should be protected from challenge. It is all subjective. Who decides where the line is drawn?

If you start down that road, you must be prepared to accept that majority atheist countries can ban religion on the grounds that is offensive. It has happened before. However, those same countries (and others) showed us that ideology imposed by force will eventually fail.

 

To me, someone criticising democracy or ridiculing the achievements of science is the same as someone criticising your religion or ridiculing your prophet. It offends me, but I would never dream of making such criticism illegal. You respond to it with logical and reasonable argument. We are not children. We should be able to defend our position and still accept the right of others to hold theirs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No belief should be beyond criticism. No ideas should be protected from challenge. It is all subjective. Who decides where the line is drawn?

If you start down that road, you must be prepared to accept that majority atheist countries can ban religion on the grounds that is offensive. It has happened before. However, those same countries (and others) showed us that ideology imposed by force will eventually fail.

 

To me, someone criticising democracy or ridiculing the achievements of science is the same as someone criticising your religion or ridiculing your prophet. It offends me, but I would never dream of making such criticism illegal. You respond to it with logical and reasonable argument. We are not children. We should be able to defend our position and still accept the right of others to hold theirs.

 

1- I didn't say no criticism nor discussions, I said authentic, logic, reasonable arguments should be involved. you tell me what is the difference between criticism and insults. of course any example, other than religion, will be more clear for example if some one slanders your honesty in your career or your wife's ... manner. when will this be a criticism and when will be insults?!

 

3- little pit away of the topic,  what are the "majority atheist countries" definition and proofs in your opinion? do USA, Russia, UK, France are among them?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1- I didn't say no criticism nor discussions, I said authentic, logic, reasonable arguments should be involved. you tell me what is the difference between criticism and insults.

Usually, the difference is in the beholder. The person criticising will see it as legitimate criticism, the person being criticised will see it as an insult. As long as you are not directly inciting violence, any criticism is OK, remember that you are allowed to reply to their criticism and if it is wrong you can show that, through dialogue. (Inciting violence does not mean that someone committed violence because they felt offended by something somebody said. It means actually saying "death to yyy", or "people who xxx should be killed", although in recent years we have seen much of that kind of hate speech being allowed. I won't comment on who was doing the inciting and who was allowing them to do it.)

 

what are the "majority atheist countries" definition and proofs in your opinion? do USA, Russia, UK, France are among them?!

The "majority atheist countries" in that example were hypothetical, ie. any country where the majority view was non theist. I did not have any specific examples in mind. Russia (USSR) was but that failed as it was imposed and not by choice (as I pointed out). France and UK, along with many European countries, are becoming more secular but could not be described as atheist. Some Scandinavian countries have majorities that do not believe in god, but as is the nature with secular dempcracies, still allow the freedom to practice religion with no restrictions. The USA is a very religious country (about 80% believe in god), although it has a constitution that legally separates church and state so in some ways it is more atheist than the UK where 63% are not religious but has a state religion CofE) and the Queen is head of state and church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Usually, the difference is in the beholder. The person criticising will see it as legitimate criticism, the person being criticised will see it as an insult. As long as you are not directly inciting violence, any criticism is OK, remember that you are allowed to reply to their criticism and if it is wrong you can show that, through dialogue. (Inciting violence does not mean that someone committed violence because they felt offended by something somebody said. It means actually saying "death to yyy", or "people who xxx should be killed", although in recent years we have seen much of that kind of hate speech being allowed. I won't comment on who was doing the inciting and who was allowing them to do it.)

Th.

In fact, I like again to differentiate between criticism and insults, and I believe the personal example will be helpful here. if some one "claimed" that, this man's wife did committed a a very bad crime/sin, without/with faked evidence, which may cause a consequence deterioration to here and here family's life. is this acceptable to you?!! I believe every country on this earth have laws that punishes such attitude. a similar common concepts should be applied in every kind of speech or discussions, to reach a good goal not any thing else.

 

I may agree, even if the reasonable persons from both sides reach a common rules of reasonable discussion, no one can apply it for every one, but even this don't mean to ignore the regulating rules.

 

one other point, if we allow every sect to "claim" what ever they like, supposing that the "disgraced" sect can qualitatively defend its self. while it may not be able to do so quantitatively, specially in case of overwhelming control of media by one sect. there may be 1,000 claims launched be 1,000,000 in media/websites a day, while i'm able to defend 10/day. hope you got my point, some times the quantity beats the quality, which should not happen in such kind of discussions.

 

 

U

The "majority atheist countries" in that example were hypothetical, ie. any country where the majority view was non theist. I did not have any specific examples in mind. Russia (USSR) was but that failed as it was imposed and not by choice (as I pointed out). France and UK, along with many European countries, are becoming more secular but could not be described as atheist. Some Scandinavian countries have majorities that do not believe in god, but as is the nature with secular dempcracies, still allow the freedom to practice religion with no restrictions. The USA is a very religious country (about 80% believe in god), although it has a constitution that legally separates church and state so in some ways it is more atheist than the UK where 63% are not religious but has a state religion CofE) and the Queen is head of state and church.

can I conclude that, there is no "majority atheist country"?!

or can we say the UK is the one, even if they consider the queen the head of the church, specially, that have no thing to do with the country laws, internal and external polices?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can I conclude that, there is no "majority atheist country"?!

or can we say the UK is the one, even if they consider the queen the head of the church, specially, that have no thing to do with the country laws, internal and external polices?!

I think you're getting hung up on the term "majority atheist country". It was a tem I coined to illustrate a point about the double-edged sword of censorship and restriction of freedoms.

If you like, we will call a "majority atheist country" one where a recent poll has found the majority to not follow any religion. In a recent Gallup poll, there are 46 countries with more than 50% saying religion was not important. They included all of Scandinavia (69-88%), most of Europe, Australasia and some Asian countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if some one "claimed" that, this man's wife did committed a a very bad crime/sin, without/with faked evidence, which may cause a consequence deterioration to here and here family's life. is this acceptable to you?!!

You have asked three questions here.

If someone accused someone else of a crime with evidence, that is fine.

If they did it without evidence, that is false accusation which is wrong and may also be a crime itself.

If they did it with faked evidence, this is perjury and is a serious crime.

 

a similar common concepts should be applied in every kind of speech or discussions

I agree that debate should be good natured, reasonable and rational but as criticism is often based on personal preference is would be very difficult to say whose preferences are more valid or more important. If criticism can be factually supported, I see no problem whatever the nature of the criticism.  As I said earlier, as long as it is not inciting violence or criminal activity, anything should be (and is) allowed. However, if this strays into personal accusations that cannot be backed up, then the law does come into play (slander, libel etc).

As a matter of interest, do you think that criticism of any cherished belief should be prohibited, and how important does it have to be to the holder of that belief to be included?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have asked three questions here.

If someone accused someone else of a crime with evidence, that is fine.

If they did it without evidence, that is false accusation which is wrong and may also be a crime itself.

If they did it with faked evidence, this is perjury and is a serious crime.

 

Ok, that's fine. I like you to judge the next hypothetical situation:

 

Ahmed Zewail , as a famous Muslem Scientist, visited an Junior high School, and met with some atheist students who said that they believe that "scientists (only atheist) are  the most truthful persons on this earth and they are all the time right.   He took his version of this situation and fled to the Muslem FOX NEWS, in a famous show, and announcer,  which highly followed by 100,000,000s of followers. In an irony attractive manner he showed how the atheists have a completely non-sense Ideology and blindly following liars,  explaining that for a hundred of years they were propagating that the human had evolved of apes, and showing how pigatory liars they are mentioning the Piltdown man hoax. 

 

what happened now is this, This Muslem scientist Quantitatively and massively Poisoned the and vaccinated many people, who will later affect the country polices, against  Atheism. which will lead into an endless chain of reactions of ideas and polices.

 

How do you see this and how to overcome it, as an devoted atheist?!

 

 

Y. However, if this strays into personal accusations that cannot be backed up, then the law does come into play (slander, libel etc).

?

 
why only personal?! because it hurts. while if some one insulted my country, beloved ones, role models that's hurts me also, and honestly more than personal slanders. 
 

Y

As a matter of interest, do you think that criticism of any cherished belief should be prohibited, and how important does it have to be to the holder of that belief to be included?

 

I'm supporting studying, asking, discussing and even criticizing any kind of belief or ideology based on fair, reasonable and kind discussion. I'm against any kind of blind following or blind criticism. your answer to the previous hypothesis may clarify my opinion.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're getting hung up on the term "majority atheist country". It was a tem I coined to illustrate a point about the double-edged sword of censorship and restriction of freedoms.

If you like, we will call a "majority atheist country" one where a recent poll has found the majority to not follow any religion. In a recent Gallup poll, there are 46 countries with more than 50% saying religion was not important. They included all of Scandinavia (69-88%), most of Europe, Australasia and some Asian countries.

 

Ok, here is the reason,  that may lead us to a more real analysis and weighing of some actions. for example you like to attribute the tolerance to others' beliefs in the west , which I highly appreciate,  to the secular (atheist) ideology,,,I may agree with you. BUT to whom do you think we should attribute invading Iraq to?! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, here is the reason,  that may lead us to a more real analysis and weighing of some actions. for example you like to attribute the tolerance to others' beliefs in the west , which I highly appreciate,  to the secular (atheist) ideology,,,I may agree with you. BUT to whom do you think we should attribute invading Iraq to?! 

There seems to be some confusion over terminology. "Secular" is not the same as "atheist".

Secularism is the separation of state and religion. It just means that religious bodies have no say in the making of laws, education, etc. The members of government and population may all be deeply religious but their beliefs should not influence government (as was indended for USA by the Founding Fathers). It also means that no religion is favoured or promoted by the state, which is why secular states have more freedom of religion than religious states.

Atheism is the position that there are no gods, either through lack of evidence or positive assertion. There is no "atheist ideology". This is a common misconception amongst the religious. They assume that lack of belief must be a kind of mirror image of belief. It is not. It is an absence of belief. You will find atheists in every political party. Apart from the existence of god, there is no argument that couldn't have atheists on both sides.  I always like the analogy that "atheism is a religion/belief/ideology in the same way that not playing football is a sport".

 

To whom do I think that the invasion of Iraq is attributable? A complex combination of causes. One thing that is worth remembering, George W Bush is a deeply religious man who is convinced that god approved of his actions, as is Tony Bliar. If the Leaders of the USA and UK had been atheists, the invasion may still have happened (although I like to think it might not as real evidence would be more important to them) but at least we wouldn't have had all that "God is on our side" bu11sh1t. Throughout history both sides usually claim god is with them, and one of them always loses!

One thing is certain. The invasion had nothing to do with the idea of secularism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, that's fine. I like you to judge the next hypothetical situation:

 

Ahmed Zewail , as a famous Muslem Scientist, visited an Junior high School, and met with some atheist students who said that they believe that "scientists (only atheist) are the most truthful persons on this earth and they are all the time right.

No one who knows anything about logic, reason and science would say that "scientists (only atheist) are the most truthful persons on this earth and they are all the time right."

It does not matter whether a scientist is truthful or not. Because scientific findings are only accepted once they have been checked and verified by other scientists (peer review). If a scientist lied about his results, it would be discovered once it was published. Also, no right-thinking person would say that scientists are always right. That is how the world progresses. We keep looking, we never stop and we never accept that we know everything or that what we do know will never change. The big difference between science and religion is that when new evidence comes to light, science will change its opinion to fit the facts. Religion attempts to change the facts to fit its opinion.

 

I cannot really understand the remainder of your post, perhaps something was lost in translation but there are a couple of points that stick out.

FOX NEWS, in a famous show...which highly followed by 100,000,000s of followers.

Fox News (top US news channel) primetime ratings are under 2 million viewers. Even the highest rated entertainment shows only get around 50 million.

atheists have a completely non-senseIdeology and blindly following liars, explaining that for a hundred of years they were propagating that the human had evolved of apes, and showing how pigatory liars they are mentioning the Piltdown man hoax.

This shows a misunderstanding of evolution. Humans did not evolve from apes. Humans and today's apes both evolved from a common ancestor millions of years ago. This ancestor was neither human nor ape and is now extinct. Very simply, you can think of it like a family tree. Your cousin did not give birth to you but trace the family tree back and you will find a realtive who gave birth to your parents and your cousin's parents. That is like the common ancestor.

Although Piltdown man was a hoax, many scientists disputed the findings at the time and never accepted it as readily as its discoverers. It has no bearing on the model for human evolution.

why only personal?! because it hurts. while if some one insulted my country, beloved ones, role models that's hurts me also, and honestly more than personal slanders.

It is all about the nature of the accusation and its verifiability.

I am well within my rights to criticise you. Eg, "AHMAD_73's trousers look ridiculous" is fine. It is my opinion and while you may disagree, you cannot prove that they don't look ridiculous in my eyes.

However, "AHMAD_73 stole his trousers" is a different matter. It is something that could be verified or disproved and if true would have certain social and even legal repercussions. I should only be allowed to say it if I can provide some evidence that you did actually steal them.

I don't like it if someone insults my country or things I admire or respect but I do not think that it should be illegal to make such insults. There are two approaches necessary. One is discussion and education as most disagreements stem from misunderstanding. The other is to man up and not be so sensitive.

I'm against any kind of blind following or blind criticism.

I am also against blind following. I am not sure what blind criticism would be. Edited by QED

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to be some confusion over terminology. "Secular" is not the same as "atheist".

Secularism is the separation of state and religion. It just means that religious bodies have no say in the making of laws, education, etc. The members of government and population may all be deeply religious but their beliefs should not influence government (as was indended for USA by the Founding Fathers). It also means that no religion is favoured or promoted by the state, which is why secular states have more freedom of religion than religious states.

Atheism is the position that there are no gods, either through lack of evidence or positive assertion. There is no "atheist ideology". This is a common misconception amongst the religious. They assume that lack of belief must be a kind of mirror image of belief. It is not. It is an absence of belief. You will find atheists in every political party. Apart from the existence of god, there is no argument that couldn't have atheists on both sides. I always like the analogy that "atheism is a religion/belief/ideology in the same way that not playing football is a sport".

 

.

hmmmm, it seems like every post should be a new topic, but any how thanks for the clarification. let us look to the life like this, as a religious person I call god's gidance before any action, through his Quran and the prophet's authentic teachings, I mean in practical life not inside the Masjid. I believe that seems logic if you believe that there is an all-knowing omni-potent god, then sure he knows better than you. for example I see adultery, stealing, lying, insulting people as a bad thing because god made them as forbidden. there are some other issues which are not very clear, I'll make interpolation and approximation to the nearest clear point through my personal efforts and thinking.

 

what is the difference between a secular and an atheist persons in their way of thinking for their practical life?!

 

There seems to be some confusion over terminology. "Secular" is not the same as "atheist".

S

To whom do I think that the invasion of Iraq is attributable? A complex combination of causes. One thing that is worth remembering, George W Bush is a deeply religious man who is convinced that god approved of his actions, as is Tony Bliar. If the Leaders of the USA and UK had been atheists, the invasion may still have happened (although I like to think it might not as real evidence would be more important to them) but at least we wouldn't have had all that "God is on our side" bu11sh1t. Throughout history both sides usually claim god is with them, and one of them always loses!

One thing is certain. The invasion had nothing to do with the idea of secularism.

can we say that Bush and Bliar has deceived their governments, Senates, Intelligence, Media and majority of there people....etc. and led them to the war based on their Christian faith?!

do you think, it's easy to any decision maker to lead any western country through his faith, just like that?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one who knows anything about logic, reason and science would say that "scientists (only atheist) are the most truthful persons on this earth and they are all the time right."

It does not matter whether a scientist is truthful or not. Because scientific findings are only accepted once they have been checked and verified by other scientists (peer review). If a scientist lied about his results, it would be discovered once it was published. Also, no right-thinking person would say that scientists are always right. That is how the world progresses. We keep looking, we never stop and we never accept that we know everything or that what we do know will never change. .

Regarding the reviewing and authentications, I like you to explain to me the Piltdown man Hoax (1912-1951), and if it is been discovered through a Peer review or by chance.

 

second, there is another type of fakes propagation in name of science, review some thing like "gay gene discovered", and tell me what do you think from a scientific point of view of these kind of researches since the 60s.

 

Media Scientific fakes, also, play a great role in deceiving the low level education people along with the devoted followers of a Scientist. when you find a famous scientist speaks about his believes as a scientific facts in media shows, no papers no peer reviews are there.

 

 

No one who knows anything about logic, reason and science would say that "scientists (only atheist) are the most truthful persons on this earth and they are all the time right."

It does not matter whether a scientist is truthful or not. Because scientific findings are only accepted once they have been checked and verified by other scientists (peer review). If a scientist lied about his results, it would be discovered once it was published. Also, no right-thinking person would say that scientists are always right. That is how the world progresses. We keep looking, we never stop and we never accept that we know everything or that what we do know will never change. The big difference between science and religion is that when new evidence comes to light, science will change its opinion to fit the facts. Religion attempts to change the facts to fit its opinion.

.

I believe you try to judge all religions based on your 'Christian experience' which is not valid in Islamic case. as far I can tell you, every discovered real scientific fact is just mentioned in the Quran. It's clear Since Allah is the creator of this universe and he is the one who revealed the Quran, there should be 100% consistency.

 

what do you think about this kind of media_show_"Science", under what category of your previous three categories will you put this;

 

just try to ignore the Muslem reply to the movie and concentrate on Richard Scientific-media way to disgrace Islam and proof his beliefs.

 

N

I cannot really understand the remainder of your post, perhaps something was lost in translation but there are a couple of points that stick out. Fox News (top US news channel) primetime ratings are under 2 million viewers. Even the highest rated entertainment shows only get around 50 million. This shows a misunderstanding of evolution. Humans did not evolve from apes. Humans and today's apes both evolved from a common ancestor millions of years ago. This ancestor was neither human nor ape and is now extinct. Very simply, you can think of it like a family tree. Your cousin did not give birth to you but trace the family tree back and you will find a realtive who gave birth to your parents and your cousin's parents. That is like the common ancestor.

Abe.

then how can you see, those "scientists" who prompted that weak evidence-less theory in the 1870 to 1950s?!!

do you think they were promoting their own belief, i mean aims under the name of science.

 

N

Although Piltdown man was a hoax, many scientists disputed the findings at the time and never accepted it as readily as its discoverers. It has no bearing on the model for human evolution. It is all about the nature of the accusation and its verifiability.

e.

hmmm, I believe to be fair, both of us, A 'scientific' proof of what you mentioned is needed. some thing like two surveys about the scientists' opinions in the period 1912-1951, who supported that Hoax and who logically oppose it, one for the Atheist and another for the religious scientists.

 

I believe such kind of survey will show up, who really supports science and who fakes science for his own desires. FAIR enough?!

 

N.

I am well within my rights to criticise you. Eg, "AHMAD_73's trousers look ridiculous" is fine. It is my opinion and while you may disagree, you cannot prove that they don't look ridiculous in my eyes.

However, "AHMAD_73 stole his trousers" is a different matter. It is something that could be verified or disproved and if true would have certain social and even legal repercussions. I should only be allowed to say it if I can provide some evidence that you did actually steal them.

I don't like it if someone insults my country or things I admire or respect but I do not think that it should be illegal to make such insults. There are two approaches necessary. One is discussion and education as most disagreements stem from misunderstanding. The other is to man up and not be so sensitive. I am also against blind following. I am not sure what blind criticism would be.

First, I know tat there will be difficult points to judge, second I didn't request any thing to be illegal, but to be common ridiculous issues in the eyes of those who like to have a fruitful discussions, and the intellectuals from both sides should stand for it.

 

..

..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as a religious person I call god's gidance before any action, through his Quran and the prophet's authentic teachings,

And you have every right to do that.

 

for example I see adultery, stealing, lying, insulting people as a bad thing because god made them as forbidden.

I also see them as bad (but not all as bad as each other). However, I see them as bad because of the effect they have on individuals and society, rather than because someone has told me that they are bad.

 

what is the difference between a secular and an atheist persons in their way of thinking for their practical life?!

This is an interesting question as it raises a couple of points which are often misunderstood by the religious.

First, there is no such thing as a "secular" person. As I said before, it is a function of the governmental process. You will have both religious people and atheists living under a secular system.

Second, being an atheist has very little impact on practical life. It has no effect on your political, economic or national views. Atheists can be socialists, capitalists or communists. They can be liberal or racist. They can be gay or straight. They can be xenophobes or xenophiles. They can be ANYTHING except religious! Look at it this way. You do not believe in leprachauns. How does this affect your practical life.

 

can we say that Bush and Bliar has deceived their governments, Senates, Intelligence, Media and majority of there people....etc. and led them to the war based on their Christian faith?! do you think, it's easy to any decision maker to lead any western country through his faith, just like that?!

No. It was certain sections of gov't, int & military that deceived the decision making process. That is clear (eg, the WMD dossier). Some of them would have been religious and others not. The point I was making was that religion had more to do with the process than atheism or secularism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the reviewing and authentications, I like you to explain to me the Piltdown man Hoax (1912-1951), and if it is been discovered through a Peer review or by chance.

Some biologists and paleontologists did not accept the findings at the time. Some did. The hoax was exposed by scientists testing the evidence. Rather than being an indictment of science, the Piltdown Man is an example of how it works and why it is viable.

A finding was made. Let us assume that everyone accepted it (they did not). Under a religious style revelatory system, that would be it. Piltdown Man is real and we do not question it. However, under an evidence-based, scientific system research continues. New findings raise questions about Piltdown Man. New testing shows it to be untrue and it is discarded and we move onwards and upwards. The religious system would be ignoring the new evidence, even forbidding research into new possibilities.

Which one is more reasonable?

 

second, there is another type of fakes propagation in name of science, review some thing like "gay gene discovered", and tell me what do you think from a scientific point of view of these kind of researches since the 60s.

The "gay gene" is a misrepresentation by homophobes. Research suggests that there may be a genetic factor, there is no "fakery". What we have are many studies researching into the viability of various hypotheses. Some turn out positive, others not so. Every study is open to examination and will be exposed if they don't stand up. Again, this is how science works. Compare this to the religious system that states that what someone said at some point in history is all we need to know and must not be challenged. Any new evidence can only be examined on the condition that if it contradicts scripture, it must be wrong!

 

Media Scientific fakes, also, play a great role in deceiving the low level education people along with the devoted followers of a Scientist. when you find a famous scientist speaks about his believes as a scientific facts in media shows, no papers no peer reviews are there.

This is nonsense. If a scientist makes a statement in the media that is untrue, it is picked up on.

Also, could you give a reference to a "media scientific fake" that has not been challenged by other scientists.

Also, who are these "low education people" that you are talking about?

 

Religious fakes, also, play a great role in deceiving the low level education people along with the devoted followers of a god.

This actually describes exactly what happens in developing countries and communities.

 

what do you think about this kind of media_show_"Science"

A good example of how Islam attempt to change the facts to fit the opinion.

The girls in the video say "salty water and fresh water don't mix in the sea". They say this because they are taught this because that is what it says in the Quran.

The scientific truth is that salty water and fresh water DO mix in the sea. There is no argument about that. The video then goes on to show an example of a very rare halocline as proof of the Quran, whilst ignoring that fact that in 99.9% of occasions where salt and fresh water meet, they mix and that the two waters DO mix at a halocline, just more slowly. There is NO situation where the do not mix at all.

Dawkins was not lying, faking of misrepresenting the position of either the girls of the Quran. They are both wrong on the subject of salt and fresh water mixing. They ALWAYS do, in EVERY situation.

We know why the Quran is wrong about this. If you were in boat on a large river and had a drink from over the side, the water would be fresh. Once you sailed out into the sea, the water would be salty. To medieval man, it would seem like there was a barrier keeping the two apart but if he had had the equipment to test the salinity of the water he would have seen that it gradually became more salty as the two waters mixed. It is merely an error borne of lack of information. We know better now and have moved on. Those who refuse to accept that a 1400 year old book could be wrong cannot move on and it is a great pity. Especially as it leads to children having their education corrupted as seen in the video. People are free to believe what ever nonsense they like but don't insist on teaching it to your children. They deserve better. If your particular religion is so true and self-evident, why not leave it til they are older. What have you got to lose?

 

hen how can you see, those "scientists" who prompted that weak evidence-less theory in the 1870 to 1950s?!!

Which theory?

 

hmmm, I believe to be fair, both of us, A 'scientific' proof of what you mentioned is needed. some thing like two surveys about the scientists' opinions in the period 1912-1951

"Almost from the outset, Woodward's reconstruction of the Piltdown fragments was strongly challenged."

"As early as 1913, David Waterston of King's College London published in Nature his conclusion that the sample consisted of an ape mandible and human skull.[6] Likewise, French paleontologist Marcellin Boule concluded the same thing in 1915. A third opinion from American zoologist Gerrit Smith Miller concluded Piltdown's jaw came from a fossil ape. In 1923, Franz Weidenreich examined the remains and correctly reported that they consisted of a modern human cranium and an orangutan jaw with filed-down teeth.[7]" - Wikipedia

I am not sure why you are so obsessed with Piltdown Man. It was a hoax which some scientists fell for and others did not but is an irrelevance to today's model of human evolution. As I said above, it is a good example of how science works. Even though established opinion accepted it as real, scientific research and questioning proved it to be false.

 

First, I know tat there will be difficult points to judge, second I didn't request any thing to be illegal, but to be common ridiculous issues in the eyes of those who like to have a fruitful discussions, and the intellectuals from both sides should stand for it.

So what exactly are you saying? That people should not say things if they think that some other party may be offended by it, regardless of whether it is true, reasonable or pertinent to the subject at hand? That is a completely unworkable proposition as no one would be allowed to say anything as offense is in the eye of the beholder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A

I also see them as bad (but not all as bad as each other). However, I see them as bad because of the effect they have on individuals and society, rather than because someone has told me that they are bad.

.

 

That's very good, I have two points here:
1- if this one who told me they are bad, showed me some evidences and asked me to make up my mind about every thing he tells, just like any loving father who cares about his sons. doesn't that seems fine?!
 
2- if any intellectual person, what ever his beliefs, reached the same results as the god's guiding instructions, is this a reason to respect this god ?!
 

A

No. It was certain sections of gov't, int & military that deceived the decision making process. That is clear (eg, the WMD dossier). Some of them would have been religious and others not. The point I was making was that religion had more to do with the process than atheism or secularism.

Political Section:

what may be the causes of this (certain sections of gov't, int & military that deceived the decision making)?!

how many persons or sections are needed to fool the whole state?

do you think this is a weakness point in the Secular states?

Did these countries USA and UK exposed those deceivers and punished them?

what are the counter measurement actions these countries set up to prevent the repetition of such deception?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some biologists and paleontologists did not accept the findings at the time. Some did. The hoax was exposed by scientists testing the evidence. Rather than being an indictment of science, the Piltdown Man is an example of how it works and why it is viable.

A finding was made. Let us assume that everyone accepted it (they did not). Under a religious style revelatory system, that would be it. Piltdown Man is real and we do not question it. However, under an evidence-based, scientific system research continues. New findings raise questions about Piltdown Man. New testing shows it to be untrue and it is discarded and we move onwards and upwards. The religious system would be ignoring the new evidence, even forbidding research into new possibilities.

Which one is more reasonable?

.

 

Not that easy...

Do you remember when I talked about surveys, that should be the real measure of the effect of such 'Scientific hoax', not one or two selective papers, specially when knowing that, 250+ papers were published relating this Hoax.  on the opposite of what you mentioned there were a kind of 'scientists' still defending this Hoax even after a lot of real suspects  "New Evidence on the Antiquity of Piltdown Man"

Dr. Kenneth P. Oakley, Department of Geology, British Museum (Natural History)

Dr. C. Randall Hoskins, Department of the Government Chemist

Nature March, 1950

 

 

 

S

The "gay gene" is a misrepresentation by homophobes. Research suggests that there may be a genetic factor, there is no "fakery". What we have are many studies researching into the viability of various hypotheses. Some turn out positive, others not so. Every study is open to examination and will be exposed if they don't stand up. Again, this is how science works. Compare this to the religious system that states that what someone said at some point in history is all we need to know and must not be challenged. Any new evidence can only be examined on the condition that if it contradicts scripture, it must be wrong!

.

 

what do you think about this Media - Science head line in the 1995 in many of the most popular 'honest' newspapers:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/research-confirms-gay-gene-discovery-1580244.html

 

after almost 20 years of these news, how do you see it? is that was science or media agenda?

 

 

 

S

A good example of how Islam attempt to change the facts to fit the opinion.

The girls in the video say "salty water and fresh water don't mix in the sea". They say this because they are taught this because that is what it says in the Quran.

The scientific truth is that salty water and fresh water DO mix in the sea. There is no argument about that. The video then goes on to show an example of a very rare halocline as proof of the Quran, whilst ignoring that fact that in 99.9% of occasions where salt and fresh water meet, they mix and that the two waters DO mix at a halocline, just more slowly. There is NO situation where the do not mix at all.

Dawkins was not lying, faking of misrepresenting the position of either the girls of the Quran. They are both wrong on the subject of salt and fresh water mixing. They ALWAYS do, in EVERY situation.

We know why the Quran is wrong about this. If you were in boat on a large river and had a drink from over the side, the water would be fresh. Once you sailed out into the sea, the water would be salty. To medieval man, it would seem like there was a barrier keeping the two apart but if he had had the equipment to test the salinity of the water he would have seen that it gradually became more salty as the two waters mixed. It is merely an error borne of lack of information. We know better now and have moved on. Those who refuse to accept that a 1400 year old book could be wrong cannot move on and it is a great pity. Especially as it leads to children having their education corrupted as seen in the video. People are free to believe what ever nonsense they like but don't insist on teaching it to your children. They deserve better. If your particular religion is so true and self-evident, why not leave it til they are older. What have you got to lose?.

 

This is your opinion, which is totally based on your anti-religion beliefs, this is totally logic based on the kind of education and  'science' you received all of your life . BUT, if you like to discuss this issue we may discuss it once you have the tendency to hear from others. I like to take the situation into another point;

For an educated fair person, who want to discuss an issue in a religion, that followed by 1.7 billion humans, should he discuss it with the professionals or the high school girls, should he fled to disgrace this religion without even having the text he wants to attack? 

 
 

S

Which theory?

.

 

then how can you see, those "scientists" who prompted that weak evidence-less theory in the 1870 to 1950s?!! do you think they were promoting their own belief, i mean aims under the name of science.

oh, it was about "man evolution from apes" and the "missed links", these kind of material that 'science' propagate this kind of science,

 

ape-to-man-evolution.jpg

 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that easy...

Do you remember when I talked about surveys, that should be the real measure of the effect of such 'Scientific hoax', not one or two selective papers, specially when knowing that, 250+ papers were published relating this Hoax.  on the opposite of what you mentioned there were a kind of 'scientists' still defending this Hoax even after a lot of real suspects  "New Evidence on the Antiquity of Piltdown Man"

Dr. Kenneth P. Oakley, Department of Geology, British Museum (Natural History)

Dr. C. Randall Hoskins, Department of the Government Chemist

Nature March, 1950

First, science and the truth has absolutely nothing to do with popularity. I do not understand what you mean about a survey being "the real measure of the effect of such 'Scientific hoax'". The only real effect of the PM hoax on today's science is to make science more rigorous in its examination of new discoveries. The PM hoax made science better!

The paper you quote there was written before PM was officially exposed as a hoax. It was wrong.

The mistake you seem to be making is the assumption that science is somehow fixed and static, like religion. It is not. It is fluid, it advances. New research and new findings are constantly changing the sum total of knowledge. To point at a moment in time and a specific incident and say "Look, they got that wrong. Science cannot be trusted" is completely wrong. The fact that advances in science revealed the mistake shows why science is to be trusted.

This is really off topic and needs a thread of its own, which I will start. See you there! Let's keep to the "freedom of speech" discussion here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what do you think about this Media - Science head line in the 1995 in many of the most popular 'honest' newspapers:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/research-confirms-gay-gene-discovery-1580244.html

 

after almost 20 years of these news, how do you see it? is that was science or media agenda?

As I said above, our knowledge of the world is constantly evolving and changing. It is meaningless to highlight one piece of work and say "look, this means...". There have been more pieces of research that have since been superseded or disproved than you have space to list here. It makes no difference because they have been improved on. We do not base out knowledge of human evolution on the Piltdown Man. We do not base our knowledge of genetic influence of sexual behaviour on Hamer's paper. We do not base our knowledge of immunisation on Wakefield's research.

Religions must base their worldview on only one paper and that one piece of research must not be challenged. If others point out errors in the research, they are ignored, or worse.

 

Which of those two approaches is the most reasonable for finding out how the universe works?

 

 

This is your opinion, which is totally based on your anti-religion beliefs, this is totally logic based on the kind of education and 'science' you received all of your life .

This statement is self contradictory.

It is not my opinion, it is a demonstrable, scientific fact. ie, it can be tested.

It is not based on anti-religion beliefs. My anti-religion beliefs are based on science. That is how it should work. You look at the evidence - facts that can be tested and repeated- and construct a worldview that fits to those facts. Not, as religion tries to do in this case, by trying to make the facts fit the belief.

Yes, it is totally logic based. How else would you suggest that we approach the field of determining how the world works?

An education based on logic, reason and science (as well as the arts) is the only education worthy of that name. Indoctrination into bronze-age cultural mythology is NOT education.

 

 

that weak evidence-less theory

oh, it was about "man evolution from apes" and the "missed links", these kind of material that 'science' propagate this kind of science,

The evolution of man is not "weak evidence-less theory". It is one of the most robustly supported theories in science, with a huge wealth of evidence from thousands of papers covering many fields from paleontology to genetics, and that evidence is constantly being expanded upon. Some of the technical details change as methods improve, but none of those changes have ever called the overall process into question. Evolution is so well established that to question it is almost like questioning whether Egyptian civilisation existed. That is not to say that people cannot question it, but it does mean that you need to come up with some pretty spectacular evidence if you want anyone to take it seriously.

The only reason that the religious question evolution is because it conflicts with their holy scriptures, not because the science does not work. I invite you (on the new thread) to show some research that shows that evolution did not happen.

Edited by QED

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   I am following the Original Post. Look into your heart, what brought you to take side by Allah? I think you answered the question, can you deny the same to others?

   (please be kind) From what I understand, Sharia was deduced by scholars, it is like the 10 commandments (That influence American Law) , Jesus didn't give 10 commandments, it was a monk who deduced them. What I am saying, is, these 'laws' are human constructs, so, keep a mindful perspective.

Edited by antarctican

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said above, our knowledge of the world is constantly evolving and changing. It is meaningless to highlight one piece of work and say "look, this means...". There have been more pieces of research that have since been superseded or disproved than you have space to list here. It makes no difference because they have been improved on. We do not base out knowledge of human evolution on the Piltdown Man. We do not base our knowledge of genetic influence of sexual behaviour on Hamer's paper. We do not base our knowledge of immunisation on Wakefield's research.

Religions must base their worldview on only one paper and that one piece of research must not be challenged. If others point out errors in the research, they are ignored, or worse.

 

Which of those two approaches is the most reasonable for finding out how the universe works?

.

 

there is no conflict between the written science (manufacturer catalog) and the seen real proven logic reasonable science.

 

you are the one who should answer this question,

if the science is not based on one or two researchers (although they had a Peer review and could be a conference papers, which was your previous authentication argument); then how to say this is science and that's not?!

again is it some thing like statistical studies of the scientists opinions, excluding Hamer type scientists?! 

 

I really have a problem about identifying what is science and what is not?!

 

if you like to answer this question to the other thread, I believe that will be better, from Scientific point of view, just a joke!!

 

 

 

A

This statement is self contradictory.

It is not my opinion, it is a demonstrable, scientific fact. ie, it can be tested.

It is not based on anti-religion beliefs. My anti-religion beliefs are based on science. That is how it should work. You look at the evidence - facts that can be tested and repeated- and construct a worldview that fits to those facts. Not, as religion tries to do in this case, by trying to make the facts fit the belief.

Yes, it is totally logic based. How else would you suggest that we approach the field of determining how the world works?

An education based on logic, reason and science (as well as the arts) is the only education worthy of that name. Indoctrination into bronze-age cultural mythology is NOT education.

T.

 

although you didn't answer my question about the methodology this 'scientist' used to disgrace a 1,700 million persons on this earth, and just followed the same way. sorry for that, but I thought you are more Science care than him, who don't have aim in life other than disgrace religions. any way, here are the points I think were wrong in this play:

 

Methodology;

1- before building facts based on high school girls' speach, this man should contact a professional Muslem Scholar or  scientist in such field to have the original texts and explanations. which neither he nor you care about.

2- as a kind of fair person, also he should consult the Atheist specialists in such fields, Oceanology, heat transfer and fluid dynamics, those who spend their lives in such field,if he, really, respect science or different specialization. 

3- in this Media disgracing interview he should have a voice, one representitive, for the disgraced 1.7 Billion persons, unfair to speak in name of both sides!!.

 

relating content, real Science;

first, I urge you to review the following topic to have a little background;

http://www.gawaher.com/topic/737834-media-tactics-to-disgrace-Islam/?hl=%2Bmedia+%2Btactics+%2Bto+%2Bdisgrace+%2Bislam

 

second, His Magician way of proof, which you liked, is not valid here, since there are some Phenomena happens on the Macro scale and not on the Micro scale,  for example: clouds and the lava comes out of a crust crack under the sea, fire and water in a nice balance.

while the girls talked about "seas", he had a "glass of water" which is wrong analogy. apply the same concept for clouds if he have this glass of water will we see the clouds coming up and rains every where in this Studio. or water and fire....

 

See the real oceanology science, not any nonprofessional media type 'scientists', see the text books when talks bout how the Medeterinian sea meets the Atlantic ocean and how it don't homogeneously diffuse into it, but keeps its properties as if there is a natural barrier between them, having some thing like the "Barzakh" shape in Arabic language.   the reference is in the other thread.

 

 

A

The evolution of man is not "weak evidence-less theory". It is one of the most robustly supported theories in science, with a huge wealth of evidence from thousands of papers covering many fields from paleontology to genetics, and that evidence is constantly being expanded upon. Some of the technical details change as methods improve, but none of those changes have ever called the overall process into question. Evolution is so well established that to question it is almost like questioning whether Egyptian civilisation existed. That is not to say that people cannot question it, but it does mean that you need to come up with some pretty spectacular evidence if you want anyone to take it seriously.

The only reason that the religious question evolution is because it conflicts with their holy scriptures, not because the science does not work. I invite you (on the new thread) to show some research that shows that evolution did not happen.

 

I'm not sure if this was my original question, I'm talking about what is science and what is not!? if the "man is the son of the monkeys" or no??

there were the son of monkeys but not any more and both are respectable scientific evidences, peer reviwed!!!!

 

this is not a small technical issue, it pushes us to ask what evidences led to the first and if they are really rigorous, or just reflecting those scientists beliefs?!  

 

Evolution!! if I face troubles in the hot climate and get into an air conditioned room, I can be able to proof that it's really conditioned. here's the heat sensor, when the temperature exceeds 18 oc, this little spring will expand and this will rotate and that will connect the switch to activates the motor that will lead the pump, Freon,..heat exchange....coldness,,,,,, if I'm not able to tell my professors these things then I'm just a sorcerer, not even a student, am I right?!! 

 

tell me about Evolution mechanism? what activates it? how does it work?! 

 

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


×