LinuxQuestions.org
Visit Jeremy's Blog.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices

View Poll Results: You are a...
firm believer 168 28.92%
Deist 18 3.10%
Theist 23 3.96%
Agnostic 120 20.65%
Atheist 252 43.37%
Voters: 581. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 07-25-2011, 11:53 AM   #2251
SigTerm
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Distribution: Slackware 12.2
Posts: 379

Rep: Reputation: 233Reputation: 233Reputation: 233

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaanAli View Post
My understanding:
If you want to rely on holy text, there should be no reason for "understanding" - everything should be written down clearly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaanAli View Post
World has changed, society has changed, So the term "slavery" (The state of being under the control of another person) has also changed. Its changed but didnt get vanish totally and it will never be.

Earlier salves used to employed and worked under Sun. Now employees are working in AC.
You're confusing slavery with employment. Slave is a property (no rights, no reward, can be killed by owner on a whim, cannot quit), employee is not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaanAli View Post
Everyone working under someone.
False. On the top of the ladder is a person that works for nobody else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaanAli View Post
Why are you going out of your mind. I said trice already "RAPE IS A GREAT SIN IN ISLAM".

Read my previous reply again. Any muslim can not have intercourse without legal marriage.
rape != "intercourse outside of marriage", and can happen within marriage. Besides, your definition is quite slippery (cannot have intercourse with whom?) and leave a lot of room for misinterpretation (for example, definition like that could be used to say that once you're married, you can have fun with anybody).

By the way, this forum has 13 y/o age limit. Is it okay to discuss topics like these?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaanAli View Post
So what kind of proof will be sufficient for this? Guide me please.
Isn't that obvious?
For existence of angels you could provide angel - alive or dead(skeleton/body). Give it to biologist to analyze.
For a visit of jibril you'll have to provide physical evidence that can be tracked down to angels (see proof of angel) and on which a radioactive dating can be used to verify its age. Hair, feathers, blood, bones, etc. Or personal items he left to the prophet.
To check whether jibril verified quaran, you'll have several historical sources (unrelated to quaran) mention that event.
To verify "non-earth"(doesn't indicate god) origin of angels see properties that should be possess by "divine artifact" - it was mentioned few posts earlier.

Last edited by SigTerm; 07-25-2011 at 12:22 PM.
 
Old 07-25-2011, 12:02 PM   #2252
TheIndependentAquarius
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,622
Blog Entries: 29

Rep: Reputation: 896Reputation: 896Reputation: 896Reputation: 896Reputation: 896Reputation: 896Reputation: 896
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaanAli View Post
If today any country release the law that no company of that country is allowed to have any employee. What will happen. Think yourself. Looks awkward, right?
Translate same for that time. You will have answer. If still dont have answer, wait for few more days. Ask yourself from GOD.
And now you are comparing the employees of the companies who are paid and not whipped, not raped and are not treated like animals, with slaves (who were treated like animals, were raped)?

Employees of the companies are not sex slaves who can be raped without their due permission.
You still dare compare sex slaves with employees of the companies?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaanAli View Post
There are more horrible sins exits in this earth, concentrate there also.
Is that an excuse for hiding and diverting the attention from the flaws in your religion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaanAli View Post
Why are you going out of your mind. I said trice already "RAPE IS A GREAT SIN IN ISLAM". Read my previous reply again. Any muslim can not have intercourse without legal marriage. There are lots of conditions automatically applies with that. It does not mean those conditions should be written each and every time.
Would you stop putting words in to Allah's mouth now? If God, doesn't mention marriage w.r.t sex in the particular verse, it simply means that marriage is not compulsory.

BTW, You are not talking to children here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaanAli View Post
Did you mean, Govt of India is against Hindu's law? If so why dont you raise your voice. Do that and set an example. And let everyone know the experience of female marrying more than a man.
Because I have no interest in marrying many men, get it?
And from where comes the question of raising a voice against the government? For the third time, I am telling you that this thread is about religion only, not about the government of India?
Got some problems in understanding English? Or is that your frustration speaking?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaanAli View Post
Oops. I didn't know DNA test is available since last 1500 years.
Indeed not, but since your God is the knower of all, he was supposed to use his wits and think ahead of time too (which mere mortals can't do) and put a clause accordingly for 2011.

A mere mortal can also talk about the present, but it takes divine powers to predict the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaanAli View Post
Quran is not based on theories, same like yours where normal size human being becomes giant and flown from somewhere kashmir to Srilanka holding full Himalaya mountain in his one hand because he couldn't search for some medicine in that mountain. I really dont know which family of human being we had on earth capable of doing this?
First of all, I NEVER claimed anything of these mythological stories to be true, so what's the point in pointing fingers at others?

You really think you can hide the rape verses of your religion by pointing fingers on others and diverting attention?

BTW, If an angel named Jibrel can FLY from sky to earth, so why can't the Hindu GOD, turn into a giant and pick up a mountain?

Aren't you still ashamed of calling other's religions stories? I thought you would write an apology note in the follow up post. *sigh
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaanAli View Post
If he was not human being, he was a god, why he need medicine to cure first of all? he could cure anyone without medicine. why he couldn't search a medicine?
The above quote is a part of the mythological story and is NOT some rule or a clause which can effect people's life directly.
And we are not talking about stories here, we talking about the rules and clauses and the permissions given to mere mortals by the creator of the universe.

Trying to divert the topic again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaanAli View Post
Quran has NO clause for women marrying many men..... Who said that? There is clause. Its forbidden.
Yes, and quran has no solution for India where already females are scarce and still can't marry many men?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaanAli View Post
I said few negative points about your religion and belief. I shouldn't do that. But you left me no option.
No problem, I can understand your situation. You don't have any options left other than pointing fingers at others, now since it is clear that your religion permits rape and treats women as if they are a child producing machine.


No offense intended, but I thought you would stand up like a real man and accept the flaws in your religion and say that we should filter what we read and trust only which seems logical, perhaps I was expecting too much from an educated man!

Last edited by TheIndependentAquarius; 07-25-2011 at 10:45 PM.
 
Old 07-25-2011, 12:31 PM   #2253
Arcane
Member
 
Registered: May 2006
Location: Latvia, Europe
Distribution: random
Posts: 287

Rep: Reputation: 164Reputation: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaanAli View Post
You answered yourself. It was well know until proved scientifically. So go ahead and prove wrong (or right).
1)As above person said..YOU are insisting on "God exists!" claim so YOU have to provide supporting base facts and stuff not otherwise.
2)Difference between Sun and Earth and God theory is - Sun and Earth already existed and was no need to doubt about them so the mistake people made in past was non-essential. Also the opposite can be prooven. However when you speak about God as "allmighty beeing that watches us and punishes us from cloud" is still just product of imagination with no supporting evidence either that it does or does not exist. There is no event in history so far that someone has encountered or met them in personal and lived to tell about it to others so it doesn't count as proof. Aliens at least have UFO stories but how come God doesn't interact with people then? Again Harry Potter is written in books too and God is showed in movies too so that means Harry Potter is existing beeing too? Who said author of Harry Potter story wasn't influenced by God aswell?

P.S.Found interesting reading material but it is too large to quote so just click me.
 
Old 07-25-2011, 06:30 PM   #2254
jay73
Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2006
Location: Belgium
Distribution: Ubuntu 11.04, Debian testing
Posts: 5,019

Rep: Reputation: 130Reputation: 130
From the dictionary of the great Ambrose Bierce:

Quote:
"Heathen, n. A benighted creature who has the folly to worship something that he can see and feel."
As for the idea that God's existence requires proof: ha! Asking for that kind of evidence is like asking a canary to bark. If God is understood to be greater than anything, then fitting God into logical of scientific hypotheses makes for a being that is no greater than either logic or science. That Sounds pretty problematic to me. The only people who would take that kind of nonsense seriously are people who have already decided that only logic and science provide "real" knowledge - but on what grounds and by what evidence? I only see circular reasoning: science is superior because it deals with facts and only facts are important because that is what science tells us. If you read the people who have thought deeply about that issue - whether it is Popper, Wittgenstein, Quine, Latour or any of the other ones - all agree that science (or empiricism) has absoluty nothing to prove its own dogmas. Acceptance of those dogmas is a matter of faith, no less than belief in a God is.
 
Old 07-25-2011, 07:28 PM   #2255
SigTerm
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Distribution: Slackware 12.2
Posts: 379

Rep: Reputation: 233Reputation: 233Reputation: 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay73 View Post
From the dictionary of the great Ambrose Bierce:
Discussions are more interesting when you're using your own thoughts instead of reusing words of other people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jay73 View Post
As for the idea that God's existence requires proof: ha!
It does. I'd need something that could convince me that I'm not being tricked and that a specific faith is not a creation of a lunatic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jay73 View Post
fitting God into logical of scientific hypotheses makes for a being that is no greater than either logic or science.
You don't need to explain a god, you need to prove that it is here (or that it isn't here). For example people knew that sun, moon and stars existed for a long time. However, they didn't always know WHAT are stars, sun and moon (there is a slight difference between golden disk in the sky and huge ball of plasma). Same applies to god - if there were something as obvious as sun in a sky, then there would be no reason to argue about god's existence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jay73 View Post
The only people who would take that kind of nonsense seriously are people who have already decided that only logic and science provide "real" knowledge
And now you're jumping to conclusions.
 
Old 07-25-2011, 08:12 PM   #2256
jay73
Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2006
Location: Belgium
Distribution: Ubuntu 11.04, Debian testing
Posts: 5,019

Rep: Reputation: 130Reputation: 130
Quote:
It does. I'd need something that could convince me that I'm not being tricked and that a specific faith is not a creation of a lunatic.
I don't see how proof of God's existence would relate to the evaluation of this or that faith.

Quote:
Same applies to god - if there were something as obvious as sun in a sky, then there would be no reason to argue about god's existence.
Exactly my point. Why would you assume that something must be observable to exist - unless you have bitten the empiricist dogma that states that only observable phenomena exist. But where is the foundation of that dogma? As one would expect from a good dogma, there really isn't any.
For that matter, what do you mean by "exist"? The meaning of words is largely determined by context. Invite some scientists, logicians, mathematicians, philosophers, theologians and ask them to give their definitions, I guarantee you'll have fun.
 
Old 07-25-2011, 11:50 PM   #2257
TheIndependentAquarius
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,622
Blog Entries: 29

Rep: Reputation: 896Reputation: 896Reputation: 896Reputation: 896Reputation: 896Reputation: 896Reputation: 896
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaanAli View Post
I said Mohammed and his companion set several slaves free in his time. You are raising issue which has no meaning in current word. Where is the slavery now a days?
You are missing a point here, IMHO.

You said that Quran has been written by your GOD and NOT by a mere mortal.

There is no point in discussing whether slavery is present now a days or not, point is something else, let me give an example:

Assume that we are living in the caveman's era.
So, now because we are cavemen, we have no sensible culture and so there goes a practice of stealing other's wives.
You steal my wife, I steal yours, Brian steals your's and mine's both and thus the circle goes on with every one making merry.

Now one day two Gods appear to enlighten us cavemen.
God one says:
Quote:
You must not treat the stolen wives like animals when they obey you, treat them with due care and do not torture them much. And also I consider it good to free the stolen wives.
God two says:
Quote:
Leave alone the question of stealing, anyone daring to touch someone's wife will be immediately thrown to hell and also won't be considered my believer at all.
Now which one God of the above seems fishy and which one seems sound and worth trusting, to you?
Do you get my point now?
 
Old 07-26-2011, 04:42 AM   #2258
SigTerm
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Distribution: Slackware 12.2
Posts: 379

Rep: Reputation: 233Reputation: 233Reputation: 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay73 View Post
I don't see how proof of God's existence would relate to the evaluation of this or that faith.
Not my problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jay73 View Post
Why would you assume that something must be observable to exist - unless you have bitten the empiricist dogma that states that only observable phenomena exist.
You're jumping to conclusions. Being observable is proof of existence, an unobservable object *might* exist, but there will be no way to verify that it is really here.
 
Old 07-26-2011, 08:29 AM   #2259
SL00b
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: LA, US
Distribution: SLES
Posts: 375

Rep: Reputation: 111Reputation: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay73 View Post
If God is understood to be greater than anything, then fitting God into logical of scientific hypotheses makes for a being that is no greater than either logic or science. That Sounds pretty problematic to me.
Seems fine to me. Where's the problem?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jay73 View Post
I only see circular reasoning: science is superior because it deals with facts and only facts are important because that is what science tells us.
So what you're saying is, you don't understand the argument for science, because there's no circular reasoning here at all.

Science is merely a process with which we discover information about the world around us. We use it because it is a proven process. Time and time again, the scientific process delivers results which hold up to questioning, testing, and application. Sure, sometimes it delivers faulty results, but challenging, questioning, verifying, re-testing, and refining those results are all parts of the process.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jay73 View Post
If you read the people who have thought deeply about that issue - whether it is Popper, Wittgenstein, Quine, Latour or any of the other ones - all agree that science (or empiricism) has absoluty nothing to prove its own dogmas. Acceptance of those dogmas is a matter of faith, no less than belief in a God is.
Dogma is the opposite of science. It is information accepted without any proof whatsoever. And attempts to apply it to the real world frequently result in disaster.
 
Old 07-26-2011, 09:15 AM   #2260
SigTerm
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Distribution: Slackware 12.2
Posts: 379

Rep: Reputation: 233Reputation: 233Reputation: 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay73 View Post
only observable phenomena exist.
Unobservable phonemena is something that does not interact with universe in any way. You can't see it, can't touch it, can't hear it, can't smell it, feel it, it has no weight, no density, does not emit/absorb any energy, and does not respond to any kind of energy, radiation or field. For all practical purposes it isn't here. Even if something like that exists, why should you bother with such object?
 
Old 07-26-2011, 10:40 AM   #2261
jay73
Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2006
Location: Belgium
Distribution: Ubuntu 11.04, Debian testing
Posts: 5,019

Rep: Reputation: 130Reputation: 130
Quote:
Science is merely a process with which we discover information about the world around us.
For something that is "merely", it seems to be taken very seriously indeed. and FWIW, I am not against science, just questioning the claims that are frequently made about it, particularly that it is radically opposed to faith.

Quote:
We use it because it is a proven process.
No, it isn't. There is proof in science, there isn't any proof of science. Unless one argues that any activity is justified by its results, which would be what pragmatic philosophy does. But that is just shifting the whole question: now you would have to prove why results should be justification of anything. So again: science adopts empiricism as a dogma.

Quote:
Time and time again, the scientific process delivers results which hold up to questioning, testing, and application.
Which is just a rephrasing of: only empiricism is valid. But on what grounds? Because we assume it is.

Quote:
Dogma is the opposite of science. It is information accepted without any proof whatsoever. And attempts to apply it to the real world frequently result in disaster.
I think there are more accurate definitions of dogma. Strictly, dogma does not necessarily relate to "information", which already suggests empiricism and only distorts the question.
Disaster? Like ecological disaster? Nuclear disaster? millions slaughtered in wars thanks to technology?

Last edited by jay73; 07-26-2011 at 10:44 AM.
 
Old 07-26-2011, 10:55 AM   #2262
jay73
Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2006
Location: Belgium
Distribution: Ubuntu 11.04, Debian testing
Posts: 5,019

Rep: Reputation: 130Reputation: 130
Quote:
Unobservable phonemena is something that does not interact with universe in any way.
So? The missing links in evolution are not observable and therefore they do not exist? The back of the moon is not observable therefore it does not exist?

And if (the concept of) God did not interact with the universe, as you are suggesting, not in any way, then what on earth is all the fuss about? Faith is the basis of everything. Sure, from an evolutionary viewpoint, it could be argued that the things we value and believe are a matter of selection but only someone who already believes that evolution is real and that it matters would take that point of view.
 
Old 07-26-2011, 12:11 PM   #2263
SigTerm
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Distribution: Slackware 12.2
Posts: 379

Rep: Reputation: 233Reputation: 233Reputation: 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay73 View Post
So? The missing links in evolution are not observable and therefore they do not exist?
This is correct, they no longer exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jay73 View Post
The back of the moon is not observable therefore it does not exist?
Now that's a stupid argument. You can observe back of the moon by launching a space mission.
Do you really understand "does not interact with universe in any way" part?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jay73 View Post
then what on earth is all the fuss about?
Ask believers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jay73 View Post
Faith is the basis of everything.
Wrong.
 
Old 07-26-2011, 03:04 PM   #2264
jay73
Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2006
Location: Belgium
Distribution: Ubuntu 11.04, Debian testing
Posts: 5,019

Rep: Reputation: 130Reputation: 130
Quote:
Wrong.
Now that was a powerful argument. I'm completely speechless. I admire your ability to to counter arguments with at least five characters...

Last edited by jay73; 07-26-2011 at 03:06 PM.
 
Old 07-26-2011, 03:10 PM   #2265
SigTerm
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Distribution: Slackware 12.2
Posts: 379

Rep: Reputation: 233Reputation: 233Reputation: 233
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally Posted by jay73 View Post
Now that was a powerful argument. I'm completely speechless. You at least managed to counter my arguments with a whopping five characters...
Would you kindly support your own claim before trying to be sarcastic? "Faith is the basis of everything."? Prove it. Or you could at least attempt to clarify which "faith" you're talking about. It would be nice if you also tried to explain your own point as well.

I don't remember even a single daily life task that requires believing in some kind of deity, and pretty much everything that surrounds me is a result some kind of scientific discovery/invention that occurred in the past or a some kind of craft that has been developed during course of many centuries. So religion goes out of the window, no matter how you look at it and "unobservable god" is useless.
 
  


Reply

Tags
bible, censorship, christ, christian, determinism, education, faith, free will, god, human stupidity, humor, islam, jesus, magic roundabout, mythology, nihilism, peace, pointless, polytheism, quran, religion, virtue, war, zealot


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The touchpad "tapping" questions answers and solutions mega-thread tommytomthms5 Linux - Laptop and Netbook 4 10-30-2007 06:01 PM
What is your religion? jspenguin General 9 04-25-2004 01:28 PM
New Religion (no linux in this thread, sorry) Calum General 9 02-13-2003 02:37 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:29 PM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration