The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by Cultist but that's no reason to believe that some kind of supernatural entity was the cause. In fact, even if that WERE the case, it would raise just as many unexplainable questions.

There's no reason to believe anything, until you encounter some kind of evidence/hint that would shed the light on the situation. Unfortunately, in some situations there are no hints or evidence of any kind.

Originally Posted by ShaanAli People can write anything in wiki.

That's what the "Notes" section is for. If you doubt wikipedia article, check the sources.
Also, you could say that "people can write anything in a book".

Originally Posted by cascade9 Unless you want to change 'god does not lie', you've got only 2 options.

Well, there is also "holy book is not divine, written by humans" scenario.

Originally Posted by SigTerm There's no reason to believe anything, until you encounter some kind of evidence/hint that would shed the light on the situation. Unfortunately, in some situations there are no hints or evidence of any kind.

EXACTLY.

But the thing is, most scientific claims are backed up by observable phenomena. While it isn't always going to be evidence that can be held in the hand or fully understood by anyone who isn't a scientist, the existing scientific theories (those that are accepted by mainstream science such as the Big Bang and evolution and such) are all based on enough observable evidence of the sort that it is reasonably certain to be correct.

Of course, there are also the theories out there for which no evidence exists and are only theorized to explain other things (the existence of dark matter, for example, is completely theoretical and is only assumed because we think the universe doesn't have enough observable mass). This is essentially the same route that religion takes.

The only real difference between religious belief and theories like the dark matter example I used above is that when evidence shows a theory to be wrong, the theory is abandoned (geocentric universe) or reworked (special relativity) to allow for the new evidence. Religious belief tends to ignore such evidence when it becomes known.

But like I said, if someone wants to believe in things like creationism or whatever, that's their business.

Religion is complete and utter bollocks. As said above, I don't see how any intelligent person can seriously believe in such crap.

If I walked into a hospital and said I could hear voices in my head they'd shut the door firmly behind me and I wouldn't be let out in a hurry! But if I walked in and said those voices were god then I'd be welcomed with open arms? Lunacy at its best.

People who believe in a religion do so purely because they are either too weak to accept reality or aren't able to come up with their own arguments for something and prefer to use the generic dribble "because of god".




Many years ago people believed in dragons, goblins, fairies and black magic - we ridicule them for it now in our modern society because we have evolved enough to realise that its so pathetic.
In years to come (assuming we haven't all been wiped out in war etc), our great, great, great, great... grandchildren will look back and say "OMG (pun intended!), did they really believe that there was some invisible guy who sat in the clouds and created the world in 7 days?".
It's a shame that some societies (particularly muslim and other eastern religions) take it upon themselves to drum it into their children from an extremely early age when the child is very vunerable to suggestion and misdirection. Then they literally become brainwashed with it and carry on the trend. It's bordering child abuse IMO.

Originally Posted by devnull10 It's a shame that some societies (particularly muslim...

Religion being a very sensitive topic,
pointing fingers at particular societies,
in a public thread that too without any
provocation, can be VERY much hurtful,
and therefore should be avoided at all
costs, until and unless duly provoked, IMO.

I'm not going to walk on eggshells - in my experience the statement I made has proven to be unfortunately true. Yes, it happens in many other societies too but on a lesser scale. I am not trying to provoke anyone, neither have I been provoked, if people can't discuss a topic in an adult manner without getting upset about it then it's a real shame.

Originally Posted by cascade9 You havent thought this though in respect of your position on evolution. True, there is no hard 'proof' of mans evolution from hominids. But there is plently of evidence (to the point of 'proof') of evolution in general. The evidence of evolution shows us that man is an evolved, not created creature. Unless you want to change 'god does not lie', you've got only 2 options. #1- Humans evolved. The koran is wrong. #2- Humans were created, and the evidence of evolution is a lie (and since god created everything, that means god is telling lies). You can call it lose/lose.

The evidence of evolution shows us that man is an evolved. This is wrong statement. There is no such evidences exists. The only source of information we have is fossils. All we are doing is creating stories/theories around that to prove that man evolved.

According to the theory, this transition took place slowly over hundreds of millions of years and progressed in stages. That being the case, countless numbers of "intermediate forms" must have emerged and lived over the long process of transition in question. And a few of them must certainly have been fossilized.
For example, half-fish, half-amphibian creatures that still bore fish-like characteristics but which had also acquired certain amphibious features must have existed. And reptile-birds with both reptilian and avian features must have emerged. Since these creatures were in a process of transition, they must have been deformed, deficient and flawed. These theoretical creatures claimed to have existed in the distant past are known as "intermediate forms."

If any such living species really did exist, then they should number, in the millions, or even billions. Abundant traces of them should be found in the fossil record, because the number of intermediate forms should be even greater than the number of animal species known today. The geologic strata should be full of the remains of fossilized intermediate forms. Darwin himself admitted this. As he wrote in his book, The Origin of Species: If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.

Looking at the paleontological data, we see that the fossil records are extraordinarily rich, with literally billions of fossil specimens obtained from different regions of the world. From examining these fossils, experts have identified some 250,000 different species, many of which bear an extraordinarily close resemblance to the 1.5 million species living today. (Of the 1.5 million species alive today, fully 1 million are insects.) Yet among these countless fossil specimens, no supposed intermediate form has ever been found. It seems impossible for the intermediate forms, that have not been discovered despite the rich fossil records, to be unearthed in new excavations.

T. Neville George, the Glasgow University professor of paleontology, admitted as much many years ago: There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out pacing integration … The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps.

Niles Eldredge, a well-known paleontologist and director of the American Museum of Natural History, states that Darwin's claim to the effect that "the fossil record is deficient, which is why we cannot find any intermediate forms" is invalid:
The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: The gaps we see [in the fossil record] reflect real events in life's history – not the artifact of a poor fossil record.

In his 1991 book, Beyond Natural Selection, Robert Wesson says that the gaps in the fossil record are real and phenomenal: The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of any record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, ... genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt.

The argument put forward 140 years ago that "no intermediate forms have been found yet, but they will be in the future" is no longer tenable today. The fossil record is sufficiently rich to account for the origin of life, and it reveals a concrete picture: Different species all emerged independently of one another, suddenly, and with all their different structures. No imaginary evolutionary "intermediate forms" existed among them.

BTW, nice to see that you finally gave up the 'god wrote the koran' and modified to to 'gabriel wrote the koran'. What a pity that I posted that when you were still insisting that 'god' wrote it.

Well here is some misunderstanding.


Let me rephrase you again:
Quran is words of God.
These words were carried by Angel Gabriel to Mohammed (pbuh)
Mohammed used to dictate them to his companions.
His companions used to note down on physical medium.
After Mohammed (pbuh) death, Quran was compiled as single book.

Also, I found your marrige argument naive, misleading and out and out silly. In particular your obsession with "marry only one"....wow, how can you be so misleading? The rest of the passage refers to marriage to 'two and three or four'.....

A man is allowed to marry max 4 wives at a time with several conditions applied. But recommend to marry only one.

Originally Posted by ShaanAli The evidence of evolution shows us that man is an evolved. This is wrong statement. There is no such evidences exists. The only source of information we have is fossils. All we are doing is creating stories/theories around that to prove that man evolved.

Wrong. We have multiple lines of converging evidence. Even if we had NO fossils, the evidence would be overwhelming.

According to the theory, this transition took place slowly over hundreds of millions of years and progressed in stages. That being the case, countless numbers of "intermediate forms" must have emerged and lived over the long process of transition in question. And a few of them must certainly have been fossilized. For example, half-fish, half-amphibian creatures that still bore fish-like characteristics but which had also acquired certain amphibious features must have existed. And reptile-birds with both reptilian and avian features must have emerged. Since these creatures were in a process of transition, they must have been deformed, deficient and flawed. These theoretical creatures claimed to have existed in the distant past are known as "intermediate forms." Yet among these countless fossil specimens, no supposed intermediate form has ever been found. It seems impossible for the intermediate forms, that have not been discovered despite the rich fossil records, to be unearthed in new excavations.

Wrong. There are fossils of transitional species.

See even i didnt write anything you reach to this level of punishing me. Think the temper you will have when really such book get published and the content is really very nasty/objectionable, everyone around your neighbour, your friends start asking you question and being in different country you can not do anything against me. And suddenly I am standing infront of you. Surely you will hit me hard I wont get up.

Given that lots of people have written or said things that I find reprehensible and downright evil, yet I do not advocate for violence against them, I will continue to say you are wrong.

Here we are talking about the person who wrote book on international level and wrote all wrong about the person muslims love more then their family. Its human nature, anybody can loose his temper and will do something he shouldn't do. I never said what ever fatwa was issued was right, same time i am also not with that person who wrote such book which cause violence in public and refused to revert. People will also have fear if they dont condemn hard for such acts, it will become practice in future and hard to control.

You didn't condemn the fatwa and you have offered excuses for why commanding Rushdie's death was understandable.

By the way, here is how the NY Times describes the controversial part of the book

Which brings us to the controversial part of the book - the tales of Mahound and Jahilia that embroider upon the life of Mohammed and the founding of Islam. Indeed, the title ''The Satanic Verses'' refers to an incident in the life of Mohammed, recorded by two early Arab historians (al-Waqidi, A.D. 747-823, and at-Tabari, A.D. c. 839-923), discredited by later commentators on the Koran, but taken up in Western accounts as the ''lapse of Mohammed'' or his ''compromise with idolatry.'' The story goes like this: confronted by the resistance of the leading merchants of Mecca to his monotheism, Mohammmed is reported to have accepted three local deities - al-Lat, al-Uzzah and Manat - as intercessory beings (or angels - ''daughters of Allah''). This would have been a shrewd diplomatic concession, at least in the short run, since Mecca depended upon the income from the pilgrimage trade to the shrines of these deities. But Mohammed soon withdrew the verse of acceptance, saying that Satan had placed the words of concession upon his tongue. In the Koran, Mohammed concludes: ''Have you thought on al-Lat and al-Uzzah, and thirdly on Manat? Is He [ Allah ] to have daughters and you sons? This is indeed an unfair distinction! ''They are but names which you and your fathers have invented.'' Mr. Rushdie's revival of this story, the duplicitous Gibreel/Satan agonizing over his role in the incident, compounded by the story of a scribe who deliberately placed erroneous words into his transcription of the Koran, was bound to touch an angry nerve in the world of Islam, where the Koran (''al-qu'ran'' means ''the recitation'') is believed to be the word of God, transmitted without error.

Originally Posted by ShaanAli The evidence of evolution shows us that man is an evolved....Snip.

Plagiarism

http://www.living-fossils.com/1_1.php

If your going to quote someone, put it in quote tags and give us a link. If you dont, your being a lair and a thief.

BTW, whoever wrote that knows little about evolution, and nothing about the fossilisation process.

Originally Posted by ShaanAli Let me rephrase you again: Quran is words of God. These words were carried by Angel Gabriel to Mohammed (pbuh) Mohammed used to dictate them to his companions. His companions used to note down on physical medium. After Mohammed (pbuh) death, Quran was compiled as single book.

During my investigative phase I found that a lot of people were involved in the compilation and the construction of the Qur’an. Unknown to the vast majority of Muslims, and buried deep inside the Qur’an, Ahadith and Sirah there are copious evidence to reject, out of hand, the contention that the Qur’an is the creation of Allah. Making Allah the author of the Quran, I think, is the prime lie perpetrated on mankind for more than a millennium. We can, with certainty, say that it was not even Muhammad alone who authored the Qur’an.In fact, the major part of the Qur’an was actually either composed by or inspired and written by a few other individuals. Most notable among them were: Imrul Qays—an ancient poet of Arabia who died a few decades before Muhammad’s birth Zayd b. Amr b. Naufal—an ‘apostate’ of his time who preached and propagated Hanifism Labid—another poet Hasan b. Thabit—the official poet of Muhammad Salman, the Persian—Muhammad’s confidante’ and an advisor Bahira—a Nestoraian Christian monk of the Syrian church Jabr—a Christian neighbour of Muhammad Ibn Qumta—a Christian slave Khadijah—Muhammad’s first wife Waraqa—Khadijah’s cousin brother Ubay b. Ka’b—Muhammad’s secretary and a Qur’an scribe Muhammad himself

http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/k...ran_origin.htm

Nice little page there, lots of info.

I know I've seen references to books 'lost' from the koran in the past as well.

Originally Posted by ShaanAli A man is allowed to marry max 4 wives at a time with several conditions applied. But recommend to marry only one.

No, its not 'recommended' to 'marry only one'. You're twisting what your book says.....but you've been doing that the whole time.

Originally Posted by ShaanAli Let me rephrase you again: Quran is words of God. These words were carried by Angel Gabriel to Mohammed (pbuh) Mohammed used to dictate them to his companions. His companions used to note down on physical medium. After Mohammed (pbuh) death, Quran was compiled as single book.

That reminds me of the message that came from the company HQ to the soldiers in the trenches, in WW1. It started as:
Sending reinforcements. We are going to advance.
Was passed down the line, from man to man, 'til it ended up as:
Sending three-and-fourpence. We are going to a dance.

Jesus is light, darkness does not like light.
Jesus shows the sins of the world, therefore the world hates him.
But halleluiah, He is God, He conquers death, the build of churches and conversion of millions people proves that he is true.

God is compassionate,
you have the right to harden your heart,
but at the end of the day it is you who lose everything, you live only once, when you live again, it is the judgement day.

Originally Posted by TigerLinux ...you live only once, when you live again...

Right, you only live once, but you live again... really convincing argument.

Found somewhere on the web:
"...Christianity, the belief that a cosmic jewish zombie that was his own father that can make you live forever if you (symbolically) cannibalise him and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master.. then he can remove the evil from inside you that was put there by a rib-woman who ate a magic apple because a talking snake told her to..."

Originally Posted by ShaanAli A daylight Atheist. There's no answer to any such thing so far, to me. (be it agnostic) BUT I refuse to blindly believe either ways. I got holy books in my system too but they don't let me KNOW. I want to know No, there are already dozens of self proclaimed Gods out there. For me, it doesn't at all matter and won't ever. I was born free, would stay free and would die free As long as I believe that there is just one highest power up above, somewhere or everywhere which can't even be "discussed" by mere human beings, leave alone the claim of being "owned" and written down in books; there can't be any holy books for me.

Thanks for quoting all these. This just made things simpler for me.
Read all them again now, aren't they leading somewhere?

1) A daylight Atheist <With a big grin!> -----> Sure you missed the grin intentionally, right? It's called pun on both atheists and theists. eh? And you don't understand pun, we know.

2) Carrying and preserving the gift from the childhood sweetheart of other religion.

Where do you see problem with that, explain?
How does it matter if I blindly believe in it or not?
Are you sure you are an open minded person? Haven't you been taught respecting the feelings and belief of your loved ones and your friends?
Read again - "If I'm not with it, doesn't mean I'm against it" , Got an understanding problem?

3) BUT I refuse to blindly believe either ways. I got holy books in my system too but they don't let me KNOW.

Here You think an Agnostic or an Atheist is the one who never have studied the holy books and it is you believers who read the books and started showing up everywhere, the real thing? What a joke? Open up dude.

What about those people who used to read these holy books but then ultimately grabbed the good things from all around, threw away the unessential and refused to blindly follow anything and later being termed as agnostics or atheists?

Nobody's born as a believer or theist. They are either made or later chose to with the help of their mind.

And for your information - Aham Brahmasmi is a message from some nice people (Like your prophet Muhammad) 1000s of years ago in Sanskrit language which is the only logical thing I found making sense FOR ME from my system. Because it can be applied any-which ways; If there is some highest power, it's everywhere, even in yourself. Why to follow anything blindly?

I mentioned it because it was you who was talking of Vedas, not me.

Now would you understand that, or not because that's not written in Quran?
Seems like you've got big understanding as well as ego problems. If that's yes, then I'm stopping here and letting you believe and preach that Quran is the word of God, without any interruption further.

Regards.

I realize I'm probably feeding the troll here (and I still think this thread should be merged with the religion megathread), but as many of you probably know, sh8 like this provokes me…

Originally Posted by TigerLinux We are human, we are not computer

What, pray tell, makes us so different from computers? The brain is basically just an organic neural network; a type of computer, essentially.

Humans are machines, nothing more (disturbing as the thought may be for many of us, myself included). There is no evidence that sets us fundamentally apart from any other physical entity in the universe…yet there are mountains of evidence which show that we're no different from anything else at a base level. The only real difference between us "humans" and "computers" is that "computers" (as we traditionally think of them) perform computations with discrete semiconductor components, whereas us "humans" perform our computations with proteins and biochemistry. We're every bit as physical as a traditional computer (which throws any concept of the "soul" out the window), and we perform our computations every bit as deterministically as a traditional computer, even if we do it in a different way (which throws any concept of "free will" out the window).

(Note to those wondering why I continue to play the determinist card even though I seem to hate it so much: I never said I liked determinism [fsck no], I just see it as making the most sense.)

I'm a 67 year old believer in Yin/Yang!! As a child I was raised as a Catholic.
I have discovered in life that decent people have principles and varying degrees
of adherence to those principles. Such is the nature of our human species!